Earthquake Catalog for Estimation of Maximum 

Earthquake Magnitude, Central and Eastern United 

States—Part A, Prehistoric Earthquakes

By Russell L. Wheeler

Open-File Report 2014–1025–A

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Wheeler, R.L., 2014, Earthquake catalog for estimation of maximum earthquake magnitude,

Central and Eastern United States—Part A, Prehistoric earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2014–1025–A, 26 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141025A. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Mmax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Stable Continental Regions........................................................................................................................................ 2

Purpose...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

General Considerations ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Fault Scarps............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Paleoliquefaction Features......................................................................................................................................... 4

The Earthquake Catalog................................................................................................................................................ 5

North America ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Fault scarps............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Liquefaction Fields ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Europe ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Fault Scarps ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Excluded Features ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Australia................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................ 13

References Cited......................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figures

Figure 1. Geologic and paleoseismic setting of the Vincennes prehistoric earthquake. Location of earthquake 

from Wheeler and others (1997). Rest of figure modified from Wheeler and Cramer (2002). Shaded area in 

southwest corner of map represents Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments and sedimentary rocks of Mississippi 

embayment. Craton (C) and extended margin (EM) source zones defined by Wheeler and Frankel (2000). 

Reelfoot rift, Rough Creek graben, and Wabash Valley fault system are in EM........................................................ 8

Figure 2. Fault scarps and other features in part of western Europe .................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Selected fault scarps in the lower Rhine graben. Traces from Camelbeeck and others (2007). Two 

unlabeled faults bound the lower Rhine graben....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Selected prehistoric fault scarps of Australia. Modified from Broadbent and Allan Cartography (1994) 

and Clark and others (2011b) .................................................................................................................................. 12

Tables

Table 1. Differences in magnitudes estimated from equations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and 

Leonard (2010) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Table 2. Magnitudes M and their standard deviations σ(M) from faults having measurements of both scarp 

length L and vertical displacement D....................................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. Selected prehistoric earthquakes in stable continental regions: Descriptions...................................... 16

Table 4. Selected prehistoric earthquakes in stable continental regions: Analyses ........................................... 17

Table 5. Estimated standard deviations of magnitudes of prehistoric liquefying earthquakes, 

Illinois and Indiana................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 6. Excluded features ................................................................................................................................ 19
iv

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Initialisms and Abbreviations

CEUS Central and Eastern United States

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

M magnitude 

Mmax maximum earthquake magnitude 

SCR stable continental region
1

Earthquake Catalog for Estimation of Maximum 

Earthquake Magnitude, Central and Eastern United 

States—Part A, Prehistoric Earthquakes

By Russell L. Wheeler

Abstract

Computation of probabilistic earthquake hazard requires an estimate of Mmax, the maximum 

earthquake magnitude thought to be possible within a specified geographic region. This report is Part A 

of an Open-File Report that describes the construction of a global catalog of moderate to large 

earthquakes, from which one can estimate Mmax for most of the Central and Eastern United States and 

adjacent Canada. The catalog and Mmax estimates derived from it were used in the 2014 edition of the 

U.S. Geological Survey national seismic-hazard maps. This Part A discusses prehistoric earthquakes 

that occurred in eastern North America, northwestern Europe, and Australia, whereas a separate Part B 

deals with historical events.

Introduction

Mmax

Computation of probabilistic seismic hazard for a region requires an estimate of Mmax, which is 

the moment magnitude M of the largest earthquake that is thought to be possible within the region

(Chinnery, 1979; Coppersmith and others, 1987; Wheeler, 2009a,b). Mmax estimates are used in the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic-hazard maps (Petersen and others, 2008, and 

preceding editions of the maps). Engineering groups modify the hazard maps into design maps for 

incorporation into model building codes for residences and other low-rise buildings.

Mmax estimates are also utilized in site-specific hazard assessments for critical structures like 

large dams and nuclear power reactors. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and others (2012) 

present a new methodology for reactor assessments in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS: 

east of the Rocky Mountains). Their report and this one used the same information on prehistoric 

earthquakes in the CEUS. However, the different needs of our end-users required that EPRI and others 

(2012) and I used different methods to evaluate some information (EPRI and others, 2012, p. 1–4). 

Therefore, some of our M estimates for individual earthquakes differ. In addition, both EPRI and others 

(2012) and I searched for published evidence of prehistoric earthquakes in North America east of the 

Rocky Mountains. However, I also collected such evidence from western Europe and Australia. 

In the sparsely seismically active CEUS, earthquakes large enough to be candidates for Mmax 

are rare. In most parts of the CEUS, the historical earthquake record is shorter than the lengths of time 

between occurrences of large earthquakes. Consequently, in most of the CEUS, Mmax cannot be 

observed and must be estimated indirectly from large earthquakes that have occurred worldwide in areas 

that are tectonically similar to the CEUS (Coppersmith and others, 1987; Coppersmith, 1994; Johnston 

and others, 1994; Wheeler, 2009a,b). 
2

Stable Continental Regions

Johnston (1989b) and Johnston and others (1994) developed the concept of stable continental 

regions (SCRs), which are regions worldwide that have undergone tectonism similar to that which has 

affected the CEUS. Kanter (1994) defined tectonic similarity in terms of four criteria. First, an SCR has 

undergone “no rifting or major extension or transtension younger than Paleogene,” (Kanter, 1994, p. 2–

3) that is, since 23.0 Ma (Gradstein and others, 2004). Additionally, an SCR has not undergone orogenic 

activity, deformation of orogenic forelands, or major anorogenic intrusive activity since the Early 

Cretaceous Epoch, or since 99.6 Ma (Gradstein and others, 2004). Kanter applied these criteria to 

Earth’s continental crust and outlined SCRs on every continent (Broadbent and Allan Cartography, 

1994). 

The North American SCR consists of the United States and Canada east of the Rocky Mountains 

(Johnston and others, 1994). Wheeler and Frankel (2000) divided the CEUS part of the SCR into two 

zones that have different assigned values of Mmax (Petersen and others, 2008). The craton zone 

occupies the middle of the CEUS and is surrounded on the east and south by the extended margin. Most 

of the extended margin underwent Mesozoic extension as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico 

opened; the cratonward part of the margin underwent similar extension during Cambrian time as the 

predecessor ocean of the Atlantic opened. Johnston (1989b, 1994) pointed out that historical SCR 

earthquakes worldwide tended to reach larger magnitudes in extended margins than in cratons. 

Accordingly, the USGS national seismic-hazard maps assigned the CEUS extended margin a larger 

value of Mmax than the craton (Frankel and others, 1996, 2002; Petersen and others, 2008). 

Purpose

The purpose of Part A is to describe the construction of a catalog of moderate to large known 

prehistoric SCR earthquakes. Part B does the same for historical earthquakes. The combined catalog 

allows estimation of CEUS Mmax, which will be discussed in a later paper. 

Methods

General Considerations

The earthquakes most useful in constraining Mmax are independent, larger than any others that 

might have occurred on the same fault or fault system, and well characterized, as described in the 

following paragraphs. Numerous global catalogs list the instrumental seismicity of the world, so that 

searching for all cataloged instrumental earthquakes of a specific type is straightforward, if tedious. In 

contrast, I do not know of any comparable catalog of Earth’s known prehistoric earthquakes. Most 

paleoseismic studies have been done in plate boundaries and other active continental crust, which are 

more seismically active than SCR crust. Accordingly, in compiling this catalog, I sought out only 

publications on SCR study areas that were already known to me or several colleagues. Those 

publications led me to a few more study areas. As a result, the catalog is complete for SCR crust in 

North America and Australia. Coverage of western Europe may be incomplete. The paleoseismic 

literature of other regions was not searched at all.

The focus on Mmax means that foreshocks and aftershocks are excluded. Additionally, if two or 

more large historical or prehistoric earthquakes occurred close enough together geographically that they 

are likely to have broken the same fault or fault system, then the catalog lists only the largest or best 

characterized earthquake. For example, large prehistoric earthquakes have been identified in the regions 

around New Madrid, Central United States (Tuttle and others, 2002); Charleston, South Carolina 
3

(Talwani and Schaeffer, 2001); and Kutch, India (Rajendran and Rajendran, 2001). However, the 

historical earthquakes of 1811–1812 around New Madrid, 1886 near Charleston, and 1819 in the Kutch 

area are better characterized than the prehistoric ones and are inferred to be about the same sizes. Thus, 

Part B lists the historical earthquakes and this Part A does not list the prehistoric ones. In contrast, eight 

prehistoric earthquakes in southern Illinois and southwestern Indiana are scattered over an area so large 

that they probably did not occur on the same fault (Obermeier, 1998). The catalog lists them all.

The catalog includes only prehistoric earthquakes that are sufficiently well characterized to 

constrain Mmax. Wheeler (2008) considered published descriptions of liquefaction fields and fault 

scarps produced by prehistoric and historical earthquakes. He concluded that earthquakes of 

approximately M6.5 or larger are likely to generate paleoseismic records that are extensive enough to 

allow estimates of M, location, and age suitable for use in seismic-hazard assessments. Some smaller 

earthquakes are known to have produced a few liquefaction features or short surface fractures over a 

small area. Such sparse geologic records may serve only to establish a lower bound on Mmax. A 

paleoseismologist may be unable to determine whether the sparse liquefaction features or fractures were 

created by a small local earthquake or a large distant one (Obermeier, 1998). 

Fault Scarps

If a prehistoric earthquake formed a surface rupture, M is typically estimated from coseismic 

displacement, scarp length, or both. Scarp length is used as the independent variable in regression 

equations that predict either M or the logarithm of the moment Mo (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994; 

Leonard, 2010). I preferred the equation for log(Mo) as a function of scarp length that Leonard (2010, 

bottom section of his table 5) developed specifically for dip-slip SCR faults for three reasons. First, the 

regression equations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) as a group are dominated by earthquakes that 

occurred in plate boundaries and active continental crust. Second, the equations of Leonard (2010) and 

those of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) predict similar M values for a given scarp length. Specifically, 

the first four equations in table 2A of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) provide M estimates for reverse, 

normal, and strike-slip faulting, and for all three faulting categories taken together. These M estimates 

differ from those calculated from Leonard’s dip-slip equation by 0.1-magnitude unit or less for scarps 

20–60 km long (table 1). This range of lengths corresponds to M6.5–M7.3. The differences are 0.3 or 

less for scarps 10–120 km long, which corresponds to M6.0–M7.8. These are the M ranges of most 

interest for estimating CEUS Mmax. Third, the equations of Leonard (2010) have the advantage of selfconsistency, in that they are “relations that enable seismic moment, fault length, width, area, and 

displacement to be estimated from each other, with all these relations being consistent with the 

definition of seismic moment” (Leonard, 2010, p. 1,971). I also followed the recommendation of 

Leonard (2010, p. 1,985) and used his dip-slip equation for the few SCR strike-slip faults that are 

compiled here.

Nontectonic processes can form escarpments that mimic tectonic scarps (McCalpin, 2009). 

Accordingly, I only compiled lengths of those scarps that have been trenched at one or more sites to 

expose a tectonic fault having enough slip to have formed the scarp. Estimation of Mmax from scarp 

length implies that at least one earthquake broke the entire length of the scarp.

Estimation of M from displacement requires a measurement that is associated with a single 

earthquake. The average of the cumulative displacement from two or more earthquakes is not a usable 

estimate of Mmax unless other evidence demonstrates that all the earthquakes were of the same M. 

Measurements of partially exposed displacements are not used, because they provide only a lower 

bound on M. 
4

Leonard (2010) does not list a regression equation for displacement. I used those of Wells and 

Coppersmith (1994). If displacements have been measured for each of two or more earthquakes, the 

largest value is used because it is likely to represent the largest earthquake. The regression equations 

used are those for M as a function of average displacement (table 2B of Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). 

Average displacement is used instead of maximum displacement because usually only one or a few

trench sites are studied on any given SCR fault. These few trenches are unlikely to sample the single 

maximum displacement along the fault.

Dip-slip displacements for which there is reason to suspect a significant associated strike-slip 

component are not used, because using the dip-slip component alone would cause underestimation of M. 

For example, if the strike-slip component is much smaller than the dip-slip component, then the impact 

on M of ignoring the strike-slip component is negligible. In contrast, if the two components are equal, 

and if the strike-slip component were ignored, then total displacement and moment would both be 

underestimated by 29 percent but M by only 0.1-magnitude unit. However, if the strike-slip component 

were twice as large as the dip-slip component, then total displacement and moment would be 

underestimated by 55 percent and M by approximately 0.2 units. For strike slip three times as large as 

dip slip, the underestimation of total displacement and moment would be 68 percent, and M would be 

underestimated by about 0.3-magnitude units. Of the trenched faults that are considered here, arguments 

for significant strike-slip displacement were made only for the reverse North Hyden and Roopena faults 

in Australia (Crone and others, 2003). 

All of the faults for which I calculated M have measured scarp lengths. Four of the faults also 

have measured single-earthquake displacements. For these four, M values from length and displacement 

were combined in a weighted average, with weights set as the inverses of the variances of the M values 

(Bevington and Robinson, 1992, p. 59; Johnston, 1996b, p. 647–648). Following these authors, the 

standard deviation σ(M) of a combined M was calculated similarly (table 2). 

I follow Wells and Coppersmith (1994), Johnston (1996c), and Leonard (2010) in giving σ(M) to 

two decimal places; Johnston (1996a,b) give three places. In most cases the second decimal place is not 

significant. It is provided solely to reduce round-off errors that would propagate through future 

calculations that use σ(M).

Johnston (1996b) observed that combining two or more M estimates and their standard 

deviations in this way commonly results in a combined σ(M) that is smaller than the individual standard 

deviations; table 2 shows examples. This result occurs because each individual M estimate is subject 

only to its own constraints, which are represented by the estimate’s standard deviation. In contrast, the 

combined M is subject to the constraints of all the individual M estimates. Therefore, the combined M 

estimate has smaller uncertainty than any of the individual estimates. Part B discusses the matter in 

more detail.

Paleoliquefaction Features

There are two main ways of estimating M from liquefaction features. First, the magnitude-bound 

method is based on measuring the distance from the epicentral area of the liquefying earthquake to the 

farthest known liquefaction feature that is attributed to the earthquake (Ambraseys, 1988). This distance 

is then compared to other largest-liquefaction distances that have been measured for instrumental 

earthquakes of known M (Ambraseys, 1988; Obermeier, 1998; McNulty and Obermeier, 1999; Olson 

and others, 2005; Castilla and Audemard, 2007). Second, the geotechnical method involves measuring 

and analyzing physical properties of individual liquefaction features (Green and others, 2005). 

Obermeier (2009) and Tuttle and Hartleb (2012) discuss the uncertainties of paleoliquefaction data and 

magnitudes estimated from them.
5

The Earthquake Catalog

Tables 3 and 4 summarize characteristics of the 26 fault scarps and liquefaction fields listed in 

the catalog. The most recent surface ruptures along the faults, and formation of the liquefaction fields, 

are late Pleistocene to late Holocene in age.

North America

Fault scarps

The four faults discussed below were reactivated most recently during 12.8–1.2 ka (table 3). The 

left-lateral Meers fault in Oklahoma has a secondary component of reverse faulting and a measured 

scarp length but no reported measurements of single-earthquake displacement. The normal Cheraw fault 

in southeastern Colorado has measured vertical displacements for three prehistoric earthquakes in 

addition to a measured scarp length. The Cheraw scarp is 45 km long, which implies M7.1 with σ(M) = 

0.14, whereas the displacement of 1.5 m predicts M6.9 with σ(M) = 0.33. The two M estimates and two 

σ(M) estimates from the Cheraw fault were combined as summarized earlier in the “Methods” section to 

give M7.1 and σ(M) = 0.13 (table 2). 

The Idalia Hill fault of southeastern Missouri is within a linear, northeast-trending zone of 

mapped and trenched paleoliquefaction features, stream anomalies, faults that are exposed in trenches 

and imaged in high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and aligned topographic lineaments (Baldwin 

and others, 2006). Figure 1 of Baldwin and others (2006) shows that the zone is at least 91 km long. No 

through-going scarp is evident in the figures or descriptions of Baldwin and others (2006). Individual 

prehistoric earthquakes have been recognized and dated at three sites in the linear zone, but the dates are 

too poorly constrained to demonstrate whether or not any of the earthquakes have ruptured more than 

one of the sites (Vaughn, 1994; Harrison and others, 1999; Baldwin and others, 2006). However, within 

the 91-km-long zone, two of the aligned topographic lineaments are continuous scarps 15–20 km long. 

The 17-km-long scarp at the Idalia Hill site is the better characterized (Baldwin and others, 2004), and I 

use this length to estimate M.

Similar to the discontinuous scarps along and near the Idalia Hill fault, collinear and en echelon, 

northwest-facing topographic scarps form a linear, northeast-trending zone along 80 km of the southeast 

margin of the Reelfoot rift in western Tennessee (Wyatt and Stearns, 1988; Cox and others, 2001). 

Interpretations of shallow reflection profiles, electrical surveys, cores, and trenches show that the scarps 

are underlain by late Quaternary faults that dip steeply both northwest and southeast (Cox and others, 

2006). Some faults have their northwest sides uplifted, whereas other faults have the opposite throw. 

However, unlike the 91-km-long zone containing the Idalia Hill fault, interpretations of maps of 

aeromagnetic gradients, maps of depths to magnetic basement, and seismic-reflection profiles along the 

southeastern margin of the rift show that the aligned scarps and late Quaternary faults of the rift margin 

overlie a through-going, deep-seated fault zone (Hildenbrand and Hendrix, 1995; Parrish and Van 

Arsdale, 2004). These authors concluded that the 80-km zone along the rift margin is underlain at depths 

of 1–7 km by a continuous system of basement-cutting normal faults that dropped their northwest sides 

down as much as 3 km. The normal-fault system is as wide as 10 km at the top of Precambrian 

basement. Most of the faulting is of Cambrian age, and several of the faults were reactivated in Tertiary 

transpression (Parrish and Van Arsdale, 2004). The presence of the continuous system of large basement 

faults that had Tertiary reactivation implies the possibility that the entire 80-km zone could break in a 

single rupture. Cox and others (2006) interpreted the surficial scarps and faults as a right-lateral fault 

system 80 km long, and I use this length to estimate M.
6

Liquefaction Fields

Eight prehistoric earthquakes produced liquefaction features consisting mainly of sand dikes in 

southwestern Indiana and southern Illinois during 12.0–2.0 ka (Munson and others, 1997; Obermeier, 

1998; McNulty and Obermeier, 1999; Tuttle and others, 1999). M estimates from paleoliquefaction 

fields come from the magnitude-bound or geotechnical methods, not regressions, and the estimates lack

regression-based values of σ(M). Obermeier (2009) and Tuttle and Hartleb (2012) considered geological 

and analytical sources of uncertainty in liquefaction-based M estimates. Tuttle and Hartleb (2012) 

suggested that together the sources of uncertainty produce σ(M) values of approximately 0.25- to 0.6-M 

units. Judging from the size of an earthquake’s liquefaction field as measured from published maps, and 

the number of sites reported to expose liquefaction features, I qualitatively assigned a standard deviation 

to each paleoliquefaction-based M estimate (table 5) as follows. 

The Vincennes liquefaction field far exceeds the seven others in size and number of reported 

liquefaction sites. Both the largest liquefaction field and the largest number of exposures may cause the 

Vincennes M estimate to be the least distorted by any local anomalies in sediment liquefaction potential. 

Therefore, the Vincennes M may have the smallest σ(M) among the eight earthquakes, perhaps 0.25. 

However, the Vincennes liquefaction field consists mainly of sand dikes, not sand blows (Obermeier, 

1998). Tuttle and Hartleb (2012) pointed out that sand dikes can form in the subsurface but without 

penetrating upward to the surface, so that the most distant dikes from the earthquake location can be 

harder to recognize than the most distant sand blows. Accordingly, I assigned the Vincennes M an 

uncertainty of 0.3. 

There are two recent M estimates of the Vincennes earthquake. Green and others (2005) used 

geotechnical measurements to estimate the Vincennes M as 7.5. Olson and others (2005) modified the 

magnitude-bound method to match geological conditions of the Central United States and estimated the 

Vincennes M as 7.1 to 7.3. In a 2007 conference paper and a 2009 workshop, Olson reported a revised 

value of M7.5 with an uncertainty of 0.3 (Olson and others, 2007; EPRI and others, 2012, p. F–26; S.M. 

Olson, written commun., August 17, 2012). After considering the results of Green and others (2005), 

Olson and others (2007), and Tuttle and Hartleb (2012), I assigned the earthquake M7.5 and σ(M) = 0.3.

At the other extreme of liquefaction fields, the Iona and Elnora earthquakes each are known only 

from a few sand dikes in one exposure. The most likely M for the earthquakes may be 6.0 (Munson and 

others, 1997; Obermeier, 1998). This value was chosen to be slightly larger than the estimated threshold 

M for producing liquefaction in the sediments of the exposures that contain the dikes (Obermeier, 

1998). However, Obermeier (1998) noted that the true M could be smaller than 6.0 if the earthquakes 

occurred at or near the liquefied sites, or much larger if they were distant. This large uncertainty points 

toward a standard deviation of 0.6, the largest value suggested by Tuttle and Hartleb (2012). Such small 

earthquakes provide only a weak lower limit on Mmax. However, I kept them for consistency, with the 

lower M limit of the catalog of historical earthquakes that Part B of this report describes.

Between these two extremes are five other liquefaction fields (table 5). All five fields cover 

areas much smaller than that of the Vincennes field and have a small fraction as many reported 

liquefaction sites. Therefore, lower M values calculated for these five fields reflect the influence of local 

geologic and hydrological anomalies more than the Vincennes M does. The Vallonia, Martinsville, 

Shoal Creek, and Springfield liquefaction fields cover areas within a factor of two of each other. The 

Skelton field is a factor of four to seven larger than those four fields. Accordingly, I assigned σ(M) of 

0.4 to the Skelton M and 0.5 to the other four M values. 

The Mmax zone within which the Vincennes earthquake occurred is uncertain. In the Central 

United States, the extended-margin Mmax source zone protrudes northeastward into the craton Mmax 

zone (Wheeler and Frankel, 2000; Wheeler and Cramer, 2002; fig. 1). The epicentral area of the 
7

earthquake is presumed to have been at or near a cluster of the largest liquefaction features that 

Obermeier (1998) attributed to the earthquake. This cluster is in the craton zone, about 20 km north of 

the northern end of the Wabash Valley fault system. The fault system is part of the extended-margin

Mmax zone. However, the rupture zone of the M7.5 earthquake would have been approximately 80 km 

long (Leonard, 2010). Therefore, the earthquake rupture could have started in either the craton or the 

extended margin. The rupture could have propagated from either zone into the other. For these reasons, 

the Mmax zone to which the earthquake should be assigned is not obvious. 

The Wabash Valley fault system does not crop out. It is known from mine, well, and geophysical 

data (Nelson, 1995). These subsurface data show that offset across the faults decreases northward (Bear 

and others, 1997). The northward decrease in offset implies that the ability to detect the northern end of 

the fault system using the subsurface data may be limited. Therefore, the fault system may extend 

farther north than is recognized. Accordingly, the earthquake could have occurred either in the Wabash 

Valley fault system and the extended margin or within the craton on an unknown fault system, with 

almost equal likelihood. Furthermore, Johnston (1989b, 1994), Petersen and others (2008), and this 

report’s companion Part B show that large earthquakes tend to be more common historically in the 

extended margins of the world than in cratons. Despite the location of the epicentral area in the craton, I 

assigned the earthquake to the extended margin because of the earthquake’s M; the presence, 

orientation, and proximity of the Wabash Valley fault system; and the likelihood that the fault system 

extends farther north than has been mapped. 

This report excludes several paleoseismic studies of confirmed or probable liquefaction features 

(table 6). Those studies have not yet constrained M narrowly enough for use in estimating Mmax. 
8

Figure 1. Geologic and paleoseismic setting of the Vincennes prehistoric earthquake. Location of earthquake 

from Wheeler and others (1997). Rest of figure modified from Wheeler and Cramer (2002). Shaded area in 

southwest corner of map represents Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments and sedimentary rocks of Mississippi 

embayment. Craton (C) and extended margin (EM) source zones defined by Wheeler and Frankel (2000). 

Reelfoot rift, Rough Creek graben, and Wabash Valley fault system are in EM.
9

Europe

Fault Scarps

Publications on three faults in western Europe describe trenches that demonstrate tectonic 

movement and scarp lengths that are well enough described to support M estimates (figs. 2 and 3; tables 

3 and 4). The most recent ruptures along the scarps occurred 14.5–0.5 ka. Seven other western European

faults and other features lack demonstrated tectonic movement, have poorly described scarp lengths, or 

are not in SCR crust (figs. 2 and 3; table 6).

Figure 2. Fault scarps and other features in part of western Europe.
10

Figure 3. Selected fault scarps in the lower Rhine graben. Traces from Camelbeeck and others (2007). Two 

unlabeled faults bound the lower Rhine graben.

The Vilarica fault of northern Portugal underwent left-lateral strike slip in cratonic SCR crust

(Rockwell and others, 2009). Rockwell and others (2009) trenched the fault at two sites and mapped its 

scarp as 75 km long. As noted earlier in the “Methods” section, the scarp length of the strike-slip fault 

may be converted to M and σ(M) best with the dip-slip SCR equation of Leonard (2010) (table 4). 

The Bree fault is a normal fault within the lower Rhine graben in northeastern Belgium. The 

Rhine graben is actively extending (Camelbeeck and others, 2007), but Kanter (1994) considered it SCR 

crust because most of the extension is older than the Neogene Subperiod (see earlier section on “Stable 

Continental Regions”). The largest vertical displacement measured on the Bree fault is 1.25 m, and the 

scarp length is 11.5 km (Camelbeeck and others, 2007). The displacement implies M6.8 with σ(M) = 

0.33, whereas the scarp length predicts M6.1 with σ(M) = 0.14. As described in the “Methods” section, 

the M estimates from scarp length and displacement were combined with the method of Johnston 

(1996b) to give M6.2 with σ(M) = 0.13 (table 2). 
11

The north-striking Basel-Reinach fault of southern Switzerland is exposed north of the easttrending thrust faults and associated folds of the Jura province of the Alps (Ferry and others, 2005). The 

Jura is a young deformed orogenic foreland. Thus, the Jura is active continental crust instead of SCR 

crust (Broadbent and Allan Cartography, 1994; Kanter, 1994). The south end of the Basel-Reinach scarp 

is approximately 1 km north of the exposed thrust front of the Jura. Ferry and others (2005) suggested 

that the fault extends farther southward, under the thrust sheets. Therefore, the Basel-Reinach fault is in 

transitional SCR crust, which Johnston (1994) defined as SCR crust within 40 km of an SCR edge (table 

4). The Basel-Reinach scarp is 8 km long (Meghraoui and others, 2001). In addition, the largest vertical 

displacement measured on the fault is 1.0 m (Camelbeeck and others, 2007). The scarp length implies 

M5.8 and σ(M) = 0.14. The displacement implies M6.8 and σ(M) = 0.33. These two estimates were 

combined into M6.0 and σ(M) = 0.13 (table 2).

Excluded Features

Table 6 lists several fault scarps that are too poorly characterized to calculate M, are not clearly 

of tectonic origin, have no active fault that has been studied in a trench or other exposure, or are not in 

SCR crust.

Long fault scarps in northern Sweden indicate that a sequence of large late-glacial earthquakes 

occurred during the early Holocene (Lundqvist and Lagerback, 1976; Morner, 2004, 2005). The burst of 

large-M seismicity has been attributed to release of accumulated stress as the Fennoscandian ice sheet 

melted and the crust rebounded (Lundqvist and Lagerback, 1976; Johnston, 1989a; Muir Wood, 1989). 

However, this rapidly changing tectonic environment no longer exists (Muir Wood, 1989). Accordingly, 

I excluded these earthquakes from estimation of Mmax. 

Australia

All Australian scarps listed in tables 3 and 4 have reported lengths from which M has been 

estimated. All the scarps have been trenched. All had their most recent surface ruptures in 83–8.6 ka. 

Only the Lake Edgar scarp also has a displacement measurement that meets the criteria listed 

earlier under “Fault Scarps” in the “Methods” section (table 2). Clark and others (2011a) summarized 

geologic and geophysical information that indicate the Lake Edgar fault may be within a fragment of 

reactivated Proterozoic cratonic crust. The fragment is surrounded by the much larger Australian 

extended margin. Accordingly, I assigned the fault to the extended margin (fig. 4). Like the Cheraw, 

Bree, and Basel-Reinach faults, the Lake Edgar fault has both a measured scarp length (26.6 km) and a 

measured largest single-earthquake displacement (3.1 m). The length predicts M6.7 and σ(M) = 0.14, 

whereas the displacement implies M6.7 and σ(M) = 0.50, for combined values of M6.7 and σ(M) = 0.13

(table 2). 

In addition to the Lake Edgar fault, only the Waratah fault is in extended-margin crust. Five of 

the 11 Australian faults shown on figure 4 are within the craton: North Hyden, Lort River, Dumbleyung, 

Roopena, and Cadell. 
12

Figure 4. Selected prehistoric fault scarps of Australia. Modified from Broadbent and Allan Cartography (1994) 

and Clark and others (2011b).

The Burra, Milendella, Mundi Mundi, and Wilkatana–Depot Creek faults are in the Sprigg 

orogeny domain of Clark and others (2011b). The domain is undergoing rapid east-west shortening that 

creates north-striking active faults, faulting-generated topographic relief, and as much as 200 m of net 

offset (Clark and others, 2011b). Clark and others (2011b) suggest that the faulting is driven by plate 

motions that began 10–5 Ma; Clark and others also note that no other part of the Australian craton has 

such rapid neotectonic deformation. Nonetheless, Clark and others (2011b) retain the domain within the 

craton instead of assigning it to the extended margin. 
13

Conclusions

This report lists 26 prehistoric SCR earthquakes that were recognized from liquefaction fields or fault 

scarps. A more systematic search of the paleoseismic literature for other SCRs might find more 

scarps. Clark and others (2011b) found many scores of possible fault scarps throughout Australia by 

combining digital elevation data with image-processing software. A similar search of the Great 

Plains of the United States and Canada might be similarly successful. 

For calculation of M from scarp length, I preferred the equation of Leonard (2010) for SCR dip-slip 

instead of the equations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994, their table 2A). The reasons were 

described earlier in “Fault Scarps” in the “Methods” section. In addition, the Wells and Coppersmith 

equations underpredict M compared to Leonard’s equation (table 1). The underprediction increases 

with M, so the choice of equations from Leonard (2010) or Wells and Coppersmith (1994) will have 

the largest effect on M for the large earthquakes that are the most important for Mmax estimation. It 

is advisable to use Leonard’s equation for work with SCR earthquakes. 

All of the 26 prehistoric earthquakes have reported scarp lengths, but only four of them also have 

reported single-earthquake displacements (table 2). The table shows that M from displacement 

differs from M from scarp length by 0.0–1.0 M units. However, because displacement M has much 

larger standard deviations than scarp-length M, when both M estimates are combined for individual 

faults, then the M difference decreases to 0.0–0.2. Standard deviations of the combined M values are 

0.1-M unit smaller than those of the corresponding scarp-length M. These comparisons suggest that 

if scarp length and displacement are both reported for a particular prehistoric earthquake, then it may 

be worth calculating M from displacement in order to combine it with M calculated from scarp 

length, thereby reducing σ(M). Displacement M by itself may be too imprecise to use without an 

accompanying scarp-length M.

Acknowledgments

I thank D. Clark, A.J. Crone, K.M. Haller, A.C. Johnston, M. Leonard, S.M. Olson, and M.P. 

Tuttle for discussions, advice, and preprints. Johnston kindly provided copies of his digital maps of the 

world’s stable continental regions. Reviews by K.M. Haller, R.W. Briggs, and J.L. Slate improved the 

manuscript. 
14

Table 1. Differences in magnitudes estimated from equations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and Leonard (2010). 

[L, scarp length in kilometers (km); L10, magnitude M calculated from the equation of Leonard (2010, his table 5) for dipslip faulting in stable continental regions; WC(R), M calculated from the equation of Wells and Coppersmith (1994, their 

table 2A) for surface-rupture length formed by reverse faulting and similarly for WC(SS) (strike-slip faulting), WC(N) 

(normal faulting), and WC(All) (all three faulting styles grouped together)] 

L (km) L101 L10-

WC(R)

L10-

WC(SS)

L10-

WC(N)

L10-

WC(All)

10 5.99 –0.23 –0.29 –0.19 –0.25

20 6.49 –0.10 –0.13 –0.09 –0.10

30 6.78 –0.02 –0.03 –0.03 –0.01

40 6.99 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.05

50 7.15 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.10

60 7.28 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.14

70 7.39 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.17

80 7.49 0.17 0.20 0.12 0.20

90 7.58 0.19 0.23 0.14 0.23

100 7.65 0.21 0.25 0.15 0.25

110 7.72 0.23 0.28 0.17 0.27

120 7.78 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.29

130 7.84 0.26 0.31 0.19 0.31

140 7.90 0.28 0.33 0.20 0.33

150 7.95 0.29 0.35 0.21 0.34

160 7.99 0.30 0.36 0.22 0.36

170 8.04 0.32 0.38 0.23 0.37

180 8.08 0.33 0.39 0.24 0.38

1

L10 equations use L in meters, whereas WC94 equations use L in kilometers. 
15

Table 2. Magnitudes M and their standard deviations σ(M) from faults having measurements of both scarp length L and vertical displacement D. 

[Each Ref field cites sources of preceding one or two entries in that row. All faults are normal except steeply dipping Lake Edgar reverse fault. M(L) is M 

calculated from L and similarly for σ(L), M(D), and σ(D). If two or more D values are reported for a fault, largest is used as probably representing largest 

earthquake. Most stable continental region faults are trenched at one or very few sites. The trenches are unlikely to sample maximum D along the fault. 

Accordingly, regression equation of WC94 (their table 2B) for M(average D) is more appropriate than the one for M(maximum D). Last two columns list 

combined M and its σ(M) for each fault (see text). Standard deviations given to two decimal places here and in later tables to reduce round-off errors (see text); 

km, kilometers] 

Fault name Locale L (km) Ref1 M(L) σ(L) Ref1 D(m) Ref1 M(D) σ(D) Ref1 M σ(M)

Cheraw Colorado, U.S.A. 45 C97 7.1 0.14 L10 1.5 C97 6.9 0.33 WC94 7.1 0.13

Basel-Reinach Switzerland 8 M01 5.8 0.14 L10 1.0 F05 6.8 0.33 WC94 6.0 0.13

Bree Belgium 11.5 C07 6.1 0.14 L10 1.25 C07 6.8 0.33 WC94 6.2 0.13

Lake Edgar Tasmania, Australia 26.6 CO11 6.7 0.14 L10 3.1 CO11 6.7 0.50 WC94 6.7 0.13

1

C07, Camelbeeck and others (2007); CO11, Clark and others (2011a); C97, Crone and others (1997); F05, Ferry and others (2005); L10, Leonard (2010); 

M01, Meghraoui and others (2001); WC94, Wells and Coppersmith (1994). 
16

Table 3. Selected prehistoric earthquakes in stable continental regions: Descriptions. 

[Named feature is the landform that was studied. Scarps have been trenched to identify an underlying tectonic fault, which 

may have slipped in more than one earthquake. Each liquefaction field consists of mapped sand dikes that are all attributed to 

a single earthquake. Skelton and Vincennes liquefaction fields each straddle the Illinois-Indiana boundary. Age refers to the 

earthquake inferred to have formed the scarp or liquefaction field. If a scarp formed in two or more earthquakes, age refers to 

the youngest. If the cited reference gives age as a range, the midpoint is listed. Ka, thousands of years before present. Each 

Ref field cites sources of preceding one or two entries in that row. Latitude and longitude refer to scarp midpoint, trench 

location, or most intensely liquefied part of a liquefaction field]

Feature name Locale Age (ka) Ref1 Latitude Longitude Ref1

North America

Cheraw scarp Colorado 8 C97 38.250°N 103.429°W C97

Elnora liquefaction field Indiana 2.0 O98, M97 38.883°N 87.119°W M97

Idalia Hill scarp Missouri 12.8 B06 36.837°N 89.921°W B04

Iona liquefaction field Indiana 4.0 O98, M97 38.528°N 87.419°W M97

Martinsville liquefaction field Indiana 6.0 O98, M97 39.508°N 86.300°W M97, O98

Meers scarp Oklahoma 1.2 CL90 34.781°N 98.467°W CW00

Shoal Creek liquefaction field Illinois 6.5 T99 38.638°N 89.586°W O98

Skelton liquefaction field Indiana 12 O98, M97 38.371°N 87.742°W M97, O98

SE Reelfoot rift margin scarp Tennessee 2.2 C06 35.643°N 89.786°W C06

Springfield liquefaction field Illinois 6.6 MO99 40.074°N 89.392°W MO99, O98

Vallonia liquefaction field Indiana 3.95 O98, M97 38.841°N 86.100°W M97,O98

Vincennes liquefaction field Illinois 6.1 O98, M97 38.717°N 87.750°W M97, O98

Europe

Basel-Reinach scarp Switzerland 0.5 F05 47.484°N 7.591°E F05

Bree scarp Belgium 5.5 C07 51.077°N 5.615°E M00

Vilarica scarp Portugal 12.8 R09 41.210°N 7.189°W R09

Australia

Burra scarp South Australia 83 Q06 33.758°S 139.094°E C11

Cadell scarp New South Wales 20 M12 35.963°S 144.893°E C12

Dumbleyung scarp Western Australia 8.6 ER08 33.184°S 117.692°E C11

Lake Edgar scarp Tasmania 18 CO11 43.029°S 146.345°E C12

Lort River scarp Western Australia 9.7 ER08 33.480°S 121.224°E C12

Milendella scarp South Australia 14.8 C11 34.609°S 139.238°E C11

Mundi Mundi scarp New South Wales 59.3 Q06 31.823°S 141.210°E C12

North Hyden scarp Western Australia 20 C08 32.279°S 119.268°E C12

Roopena scarp South Australia 28.5 C03 32.866°S 137.382°E C12

Waratah scarp New South Wales 38 G09 38.770°S 146.056°E C11

Wilkatana-Depot Creek scarp South Australia 30 Q06 32.116°S 137.956°E C11

1

B04, Baldwin and others (2004); B06, Baldwin and others (2006); C03, Crone and others (2003); C06, Cox and others 

(2006); C07, Camelbeeck and others (2007); C08, Clark and others (2008); C11, Clark and others (2011b); C12, D. Clark 

(written commun., August 15, 2012, which updates the appendix of C11); CO11, Clark and others (2011a); C97, Crone and 

others (1997); CL90, Crone and Luza (1990); CW00, Crone and Wheeler (2000); ER08, Estrada-Roldan (2008); F05, Ferry 

and others (2005); G09, Gardner and others (2009); M00, Meghraoui and others (2000); M12, McPherson and others (2012); 

M97, Munson and others (1997); MO99, McNulty and Obermeier (1999); O98, Obermeier (1998); Q06, Quigley and others 

(2006); R09, Rockwell and others (2009); T99, Tuttle and others (1999). 
17

Table 4. Selected prehistoric earthquakes in stable continental regions: Analyses. 

[Named feature is the landform that was studied. Scarps have been trenched to identify an underlying tectonic fault, which 

may have slipped in more than one earthquake. Each liquefaction field consists of mapped sand dikes that are all attributed to 

a single earthquake. L, scarp length; leaders (--), not a fault scarp; M, moment magnitude of the earthquake required to 

produce the named feature; σ(M), standard deviation of M; Type, tectonic setting of the feature according to Johnston and 

others (1994); Mmax zone, the North American source zone of Petersen and others (2008) that is a tectonic analog to the 

setting of the named feature; Distance, kilometers between feature’s location (table 3) and nearest SCR (stable continental 

region) boundary. “Text” refers the reader to a discussion in the text. Each Ref field cites sources of preceding one or two 

entries in that row; km, kilometers] 

1

B04, Baldwin and others (2004); C06, Cox and others (2006); C07, Camelbeeck and others (2007); C11, Clark and others 

(2011b); C12, D. Clark (written commun., August 15, 2012, which updates the appendix of C11); CW00, Crone and Wheeler 

(2000); ER08, Estrada-Roldan (2008); L10, Leonard (2010); M01, Meghraoui and others (2001); M12, McPherson and 

others (2012); M97, Munson and others (1997); MO99, McNulty and Obermeier (1999); O05, Olson and others (2005); O98, 

Obermeier (1998); R09, Rockwell and others (2009). 

2

SCR, within a stable continental region and more than 40 km from its nearest boundary; TI, within a stable continental 

region but 40 km or less from the nearest boundary.

3

C, craton of Petersen and others (2008); EM, extended margin of Petersen and others (2008). Also, see text.

4

From table 2. 

5

From table 5. 

Feature name L (km) Ref1 M Ref1 σ(M) Ref1 Type2 Mmax zone3 Distance (km)

North America

Cheraw scarp 45 CW00 7.14 Text 0.134 Text SCR C 131

Elnora liquefaction field -- -- 6.0 M97 0.605 Text SCR C 1,094

Idalia Hill scarp 17 B04 6.4 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 900

Iona liquefaction field -- -- 6.0 O98 0.605 Text SCR C 1,053

Martinsville liquefaction field -- -- 6.2 O05 0.505 Text SCR C 1,145

Meers scarp 37 CW00 6.9 L10 0.14 L10 SCR EM 440

Shoal Creek liquefaction field -- -- 6.5 MO99 0.505 Text SCR C 1,073

Skelton liquefaction field -- -- 6.7 O05 0.405 Text SCR EM 1,036

Southeast Reelfoot rift-margin scarp 80 C06 7.5 L10 0.14 L10 SCR EM 753

Springfield liquefaction field -- -- 6.5 MO99 0.505 Text SCR C 1,230

Vallonia liquefaction field -- -- 6.3 O05 0.505 Text SCR C 1,085

Vincennes liquefaction field -- -- 7.5 Text 0.30 Text SCR Text 1,067

Europe

Basel-Reinach scarp 8 M01 6.04 Text 0.134 Text TI EM 4.9

Bree scarp 11.5 C07 6.24 Text 0.134 Text SCR EM 484

Vilarica scarp 75 R09 7.4 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 287

Australia

Burra scarp 57.2 C12 7.2 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 417

Cadell scarp 80 M12 7.5 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 535

Dumbleyung scarp 35.7 C12 6.9 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 357

Lake Edgar scarp 26.6 C12 6.74 Text 0.134 Text SCR EM 185

Lort River scarp 40 ER08 7.0 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 253

Milendella scarp 54 C11 7.2 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 348

Mundi Mundi scarp 98 Text 7.6 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 702

North Hyden scarp 32 C11 6.8 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 420

Roopena scarp 29.5 C11 6.8 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 428

Waratah scarp 37.2 C11 6.9 L10 0.14 L10 SCR EM 357

Wilkatana-Depot Creek scarp 59 C11 7.3 L10 0.14 L10 SCR C 524
18

Table 5. Estimated standard deviations of magnitudes of prehistoric liquefying earthquakes, Illinois and Indiana. 

[Listed in increasing order of area of liquefaction field. Each liquefaction field consists of mapped sand dikes that are all 

attributed to a single earthquake. Each Ref field cites source of preceding entry in that row. Sites are those at which the cited 

reference reports liquefaction features, most of which are sand dikes. M, σ(M), moment magnitude and its standard 

deviation, respectively. Km, kilometers] 

Liquefaction field State Area (km2) Ref1 No. of sites2 Ref1 M σ(M)

Elnora Indiana 03 O98 1 MM96 6.0 0.60

Iona Indiana 03 O98 1 MM96 6.0 0.60

Vallonia Indiana 1,9934 O98 16 MM96 6.3 0.50

Martinsville Indiana 2,3244 O98 5 MM96 6.2 0.50

Shoal Creek Illinois 2,9164 MO99 21 MO99 6.5 0.50

Springfield Illinois 3,3834 MO99 14 MO99 6.5 0.50

Skelton Half in Illinois, half in Indiana 13,7604 O98 8 (16) MM96 6.7 0.40

Vincennes Two-thirds in Illinois, one-third in Indiana 51,3784 O98 49 (147) MM96 7.5 0.305

1

MM96, Munson and Munson (1996); O98, Obermeier (1998); MO99, McNulty and Obermeier (1999). 

2

Munson and Munson (1996) tallied numbers of sites having recognized sand dikes throughout Indiana, including eight 

attributed to the Skelton earthquake and 49 assigned to the Vincennes earthquake. I do not know of any similar tally for 

Illinois. To estimate numbers of sites liquefied in both States by the earthquakes, I considered the fraction of each 

liquefaction field that is in Indiana. Then I doubled the Indiana tally for the Skelton earthquake and tripled the tally for the 

Vincennes earthquake to obtain the figures in parentheses.

3

Earthquake is known only from sand dikes in a single exposure. M6.0 was chosen as slightly larger than the estimated

threshold for liquefaction of the sediments in the exposure.

4

Areas estimated from maps of liquefaction fields in Obermeier (1998) and McNulty and Obermeier (1999).

5

See text.
19

Table 6. Excluded features. 

[Ref field cites source or sources that describe feature. L, scarp length; D, single-earthquake displacement, M, moment 

magnitude; SCR, stable continental region] 

Feature Locale Ref1 Reason for exclusion

North America

Liquefaction features Charlevoix, Quebec TA10 Unknown upper bound on M.

-------------do----------- Toronto, Ontario TD10 ---------------do-----------------

-------------do----------- Marianna, Arkansas TM10, TO06 ---------------do-----------------

-------------do----------- St. Louis, Missouri T12 ---------------do-----------------

-------------do----------- Arkansas and Louisiana CG08, CO04, T12 ---------------do-----------------

-------------do----------- Newbury, Massachusetts TS91 ---------------do-----------------

-------------do----------- Central Virginia OM98 ---------------do-----------------

Hovey Lake fault Kentucky CO08, CO09, W05 L, D highly uncertain.

Europe

Geleen fault Belgium C07, VA08, VB09 L highly uncertain.

Geleen fault The Netherlands C07, H03, H05, VA08 Tectonic origin disputed.

Peelrand fault The Netherlands VB02 L, D highly uncertain.

Rurrand fault Germany C07, L01, VV01 Faulting history unclear.

Markgrafneusiedl fault Austria D05, DH10, DH11, H11, HI05 In orogen too young to be SCR.

El Camp fault Spain B92, M01a, M01b In crust extended too recently to be

 SCR.

Mino River terraces Portugal and Spain V12 Tectonic origin not shown.

Tagus River Valley Portugal BO12, CB04, CV06 No active fault trenched.

Asia

Eupcheon fault South Korea K11 In crust extended too recently to be

 SCR.

1

B92, Bartrina and others (1992); BO12, Besana-Ostman and others (2012); C07, Camelbeeck and others (2007); CB04, 

Cabral and others (2004); CG08, Cox and Gordon (2008); CO04, Cox and others (2004); CO08, Counts and others (2008); 

CO09, Counts and others (2009); CV06, Carvalho and others (2006); D05, Decker and others (2005); DH10, Decker and 

Hintersberger (2010); DH11, Decker and Hintersberger (2011); H03, Houtgast and others (2003); H05, Houtgast and others 

(2005); H11, Hintersberger and others (2011); HI05, Hinsch and others (2005); K11, Kim and others (2011); L01, Lehmann 

and others (2001); M01a, Masana and others (2001a); M01b, Masana and others (2001b); OM98, Obermeier and McNulty 

(1998); T12, Tuttle and Hartleb (2012); TA10, Tuttle and Atkinson (2010); TD10, Tuttle and others (2010b); TM10, Tuttle 

and others (2010a); TO06, Tuttle and others (2006); TS91, Tuttle and Seeber (1991); V12, Viveen and others (2012); VA08, 

Vanneste and others (2008); VB02, van den Berg and others (2002); VB09, Vanderberghe and others (2009); VV01, 

Vanneste and Verbeeck (2001); W05, Woolery (2005). 
20

References Cited

Ambraseys, N.N., 1988, Engineering seismology: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 

v. 19, p. 1–105. 

Baldwin, J.N., Witter, R., Vaughn, J.D., Harris, J., Sexton, J., Lake, M., and Forman, S., 2004, 

Paleoseismic investigation of the Idalia Hill fault zone along the Commerce geophysical lineament, 

Idalia, Missouri: Final Technical Report to U.S. Geological Survey for Award 03–HQ–GR–0095, 

42 p., 1 pl. 

Baldwin, J.N., Witter, R.C., Vaughn, J.D., Harris, J.B., Sexton, J.L., Lake, M., Forman, S.L., and 

Barron, A.D., 2006, Geological characterization of the Idalia Hill fault zone and its structural 

association with the Commerce geophysical lineament, Idalia, Missouri: Bulletin of the Seismological 

Society of America, v. 96, no. 6, p. 2281–2303. 

Bartrina, M.T., Cabrera, L., Jurado, M.J., Guimera, J., and Roca, E., 1992, Evolution of the central 

Catalan margin of the Valencia trough (western Mediterranean): Tectonophysics, v. 203, p. 219–247. 

Bear, G.W., Rupp, J.A., and Rudman, A.J., 1997, Seismic interpretation of the deep structure of the 

Wabash Valley fault system: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 4, p. 624–640. 

Besana-Ostman, G.M., Vilanova, S.P., Nemser, E.S., Falcao-Flor, A., Heleno, S., Ferreira, H., and 

Fonseca, J.D., 2012, Large Holocene earthquakes in the Lower Tagus Valley fault zone, central 

Portugal: Seismological Research Letters, v. 83, no. 1, p. 67–76. 

Bevington, P.R., and Robinson, D.K., 1992, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences 

(2 ed.): New York, McGraw-Hill, 328 p. 

Broadbent, T., and Allan Cartography, 1994, Appendix G—Maps of the stable continental regions, in

Johnston, A.C., Coppersmith, K.J., Kanter, L.R., and Cornell, C.A., eds., The earthquakes of stable 

continental regions, v. 5: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, 15 plates, scales 

1:12,500,000 and 1:20,000,000. 

Cabral, J., Ribeiro, P., Figueiredo, P., Pimental, N., and Martins, A., 2004, The Azambuja fault—An 

active structure located in an intraplate basin with significant seismicity (Lower Tagus Valley, 

Portugal): Journal of Seismology, v. 8, p. 347–362. 

Camelbeeck, T., Vanneste, K., Alexandre, P., Verbeeck, K., Petermans, T., Rosset, P., Everaerts, M., 

Warnant, R., and Van Camp, M., 2007, Relevance of active faulting and seismicity studies to 

assessments of long-term earthquake activity and maximum magnitude in intraplate northwest 

Europe, between the lower Rhine embayment and the North Sea, in Stein, S., and Mazzotti, S., eds., 

Continental intraplate earthquakes—Science, hazard, and policy issues: Boulder, Colo., Geological 

Society of America Special Paper 425, p. 193–224. 

Carvalho, J., Cabral, J., Goncalves, R., Torres, L., and Mendes-Victor, L., 2006, Geophysical methods 

applied to fault characterization and earthquake potential assessment in the Lower Tagus Valley, 

Portugal: Tectonophysics, v. 418, p. 277–297. 

Castilla, R.A., and Audemard, F.A., 2007, Sand blows as a potential tool for magnitude estimation of 

pre-instrumental earthquakes: Journal of Seismology, v. 11, p. 473–487. 

Chinnery, M.A., 1979, Investigations of the seismological input to the safety design of nuclear power 

reactors in New England: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report NUREG/CR–0563, 72 p. 

Clark, D., Cupper, M., Sandiford, M., and Kiernan, K., 2011a, Style and timing of late Quaternary 

faulting on the Lake Edgar fault, southwest Tasmania, Australia—Implications for hazard assessment 

in intracratonic areas, in Audemard, F.A., Michetti, A.M., and McCalpin, J.A., eds., Geological 

criteria for evaluating seismicity revisited—Forty years of paleoseismic investigations and the natural 

record of past earthquakes: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America Special Paper 479, 

p. 109–131. 
21

Clark, D., McPherson, A., and Collins, C., 2011b, Australia’s seismogenic neotectonic record—A case 

for heterogeneous intraplate deformation: Geoscience Australia Record 2011/11, 95 p. 

Clark, D., Dentith, M., Wyrwoll, K.-H., Yanchou, L., Dent, V., and Featherstone, C., 2008, The Hyden 

fault scarp, Western Australia—Paleoseismic evidence for repeated Quaternary displacement in an 

intracratonic setting: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 55, p. 379–395. 

Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, Conclusions regarding maximum earthquake assessment, in Johnston, A.C., 

Coppersmith, K.J., Kanter, L.R., and Cornell, C.A., eds., The earthquakes of stable continental 

regions, v. 1: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, p. 6-1–6-24. 

Coppersmith, K.J., Johnston, A.C., Metzger, A.G., and Arabasz, W.J., 1987, Methods for assessing 

maximum earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power 

Research Institute, working report EPRI RP2556–12, 312 p. 

Counts, R.C., Van Arsdale, R.B., and Woolery, E.W., 2009, Investigation of Quaternary displacement 

on the Uniontown fault, western Kentucky [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 41, no. 1, p. 20. 

Counts, R.C., Woolery, E., and Van Arsdale, R.B., 2008, Quaternary faulting in Union County, 

Kentucky—Preliminary results [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, 

no. 5, p. 80. 

Cox, R.T., Cherryhomes, J., Harris, J.B., Larsen, D., Van Arsdale, R.B., and Forman, S.L., 2006, 

Paleoseismology of the southeastern Reelfoot rift in western Tennessee and implications for intraplate 

fault zone evolution: Tectonics, v. 25, 17 p. 

Cox, R.T., and Gordon, J., 2008, Sand blows on late Quaternary surfaces in northeast Louisiana [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 151. 

Cox, R.T., Larsen, D., Forman, S.L., Woods, J., Morat, J., and Galluzzi, J., 2004, Preliminary 

assessment of sand blows in the southern Mississippi embayment: Bulletin of the Seismological 

Society of America, v. 94, no. 3, p. 1,125–1,142. 

Cox, R.T., Van Arsdale, R.B., Harris, J.B., and Larsen, D., 2001, Neotectonics of the southeastern 

Reelfoot rift margin, Central United States, and implications for regional strain accommodation: 

Geology, v. 29, no. 5, p. 419–422. 

Crone, A.J., De Martini, P.M., Machette, M.N., Okumura, K., and Prescott, J.R., 2003, Paleoseismicity 

of two historically quiescent faults in Australia—Implications for fault behavior in stable continental 

regions: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 93, p. 1913–1934. 

Crone, A.J., and Luza, K.V., 1990, Style and timing of Holocene surface faulting on the Meers fault, 

southwestern Oklahoma: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 102, p. 1–17. 

Crone, A.J., Machette, M.N., Bradley, L.A., and Mahan, S.A., 1997, Late Quaternary surface faulting 

on the Cheraw fault, southeastern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Map I–2591, 1 sheet, pamphlet, 7 p., accessed on February 12, 2014, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2591/I2591.pdf. 

Crone, A.J., and Wheeler, R.L., 2000, Data for Quaternary faults, liquefaction features, and possible 

tectonic features in the Central and Eastern United States, east of the Rocky Mountain front: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2000–0260, 341 p. 

Decker, K., and Hintersberger, E., 2010, Characterizing very slow faults in an active pull-apart setting, 

Vienna basin, Austria [abs.]: Seismological Research Letters, v. 81, no. 2, p. 325. 

Decker, K., and Hintersberger, E., 2011, Assessing maximum credible earthquake (MCE) magnitudes 

for a slow intra-plate fault system in the Vienna basin, Austria [abs.]: Seismological Research Letters, 

v. 82, no. 2, p. 301. 
22

Decker, K., Peresson, H., and Hinsch, R., 2005, Active tectonics and Quaternary basin formation along 

the Vienna basin transform fault: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 307–322. 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), United States Department of Energy, and United States 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2012, Technical report—Central and Eastern United States seismic 

source characterization for nuclear facilities: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, 

United States Department of Energy, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 v., 

2,685 p., accessed on February 12, 2014, at http://www.ceus-ssc.com/index.htm. 

Estrada-Roldan, B.E., 2008, Neotectonic and paleoseismological studies in the southwest of Western 

Australia: Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia, University of Western Australia, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 362 p. 

Ferry, M., Meghraoui, M., Delouris, B., and Giardini, D., 2005, Evidence for Holocene paleoseismicity 

along the Basel-Reinach active normal fault (Switzerland)—A seismic source for the 1356 earthquake 

in the upper Rhine graben: Geophysical Journal International, v. 160, p. 554–572. 

Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E.V., Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and 

Hopper, M., 1996, National seismic-hazard maps—Documentation June 1996: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 1996–532, 70 p., accessed on February 12, 2014, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr96532. 

Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, 

R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S., 2002, Documentation for the 

2002 update of the national seismic hazard maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–

0420, 39 p., accessed on February 12, 2014, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr02420. 

Gardner, T., Webb, J., Pezzia, C., Amborn, T., Tunnell, R., Flanagan, S., Merritts, D., Marshall, J., 

Fabel, D., and Cupper, M.L., 2009, Episodic intraplate deformation of stable continental margins—

Evidence from late Neogene and Quaternary marine terraces, Cape Liptrap, southeastern Australia: 

Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 28, p. 39–53. 

Gradstein, F., Ogg, J., and Smith, A., eds., 2004, A geologic time scale 2004: Cambridge, United 

Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 589 p., 1 folded plate. 

Green, R.L., Obermeier, S.F., and Olson, S.M., 2005, Engineering geologic and geotechnical analysis of 

paleoseismic shaking using liquefaction effects—Field examples: Engineering Geology, v. 76, 

p. 263–293. 

Harrison, R.W., Hoffman, D., Vaughn, J.D., Palmer, J.R., Wiscombe, C.L., McGeehin, J.P., 

Stephenson, W.J., Odum, J.K., Williams, R.A., and Forman, S.L., 1999, An example of neotectonism 

in a continental interior—Thebes Gap, Midcontinent, United States: Tectonophysics, v. 305, 

p. 399–417. 

Hildenbrand, T.G., and Hendricks, J.D., 1995, Geophysical setting of the Reelfoot rift and relations 

between rift structures and the New Madrid seismic zone: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1538–E, 30 p. 

Hinsch, R., Decker, K., and Wagreich, M., 2005, 3-D mapping of segmented active faults in the 

southern Vienna basin: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 321–336. 

Hintersberger, E.M., Decker, K., and Lomax, J., 2011, The extended (paleo)seismological story of the 

Vienna basin and the largest earthquake north of the Alps [abs.]: Seismological Research Letters, 

v. 82, no. 2, p. 301–302. 

Houtgast, R.F., Van Balen, R.T., and Kasse, C., 2005, Late Quaternary evolution of the Feldbiss fault 

(Roer Valley rift system, The Netherlands) based on trenching, and its potential relation to glacial 

unloading: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 491–510. 
23

Houtgast, R.F., Van Balen, R.T., Kasse, C., and Vandenberghe, J., 2003, Late Quaternary tectonic 

evolution and postseismic near surface fault displacements along the Geleen fault (Feldbiss fault 

zone-Roer Valley rift system, The Netherlands), based on trenching: Netherlands Journal of Earth 

Sciences/Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 82, no. 2, p. 177–196. 

Johnston, A.C., 1989a, The effect of large ice sheets on earthquake genesis, in Gregersen, S., and 

Basham, P.W., eds., Earthquakes at North-Atlantic passive margins—Neotectonics and postglacial 

rebound: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 581–599. 

Johnston, A.C., 1989b, The seismicity of “stable continental interiors,” in Gregersen, S., and Basham, 

P.W., eds., Earthquakes at North-Atlantic passive margins—Neotectonics and postglacial rebound: 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 299–327. 

Johnston, A.C., 1994, Seismotectonic interpretations and conclusions from the stable continental region 

seismicity database, in Johnston, A.C., Coppersmith, K.J., Kanter, L.R., and Cornell, C.A., eds., The 

earthquakes of stable continental regions—v. 1: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, 

p. 4-1–4-103. 

Johnston, A.C., 1996a, Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions—I. 

Instrumental seismicity: Geophysical Journal International, v. 124, p. 381–414. 

Johnston, A.C., 1996b, Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions—II. 

Historical seismicity: Geophysical Journal International, v. 125, p. 639–678. 

Johnston, A.C., 1996c, Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions—III. 

New Madrid 1811–1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755: Geophysical Journal International, 

v. 126, p. 314–344. 

Johnston, A.C., Coppersmith, K.J., Kanter, L.R., and Cornell, C.A., eds., 1994, The earthquakes of 

stable continental regions: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, 5 v., 2,519 p., 16 

folded plates, 1 diskette, accessed on February 12, 2014, at 

http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/Default.aspx. 

Kanter, L.R., 1994, Tectonic interpretation of stable continental crust, in Johnston, A.C., Coppersmith, 

K.J., Kanter, L.R., and Cornell, C.A., eds., The earthquakes of stable continental regions, v. 1: Palo 

Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, p. 2-1–2-98, accessed on February 12, 2014, at 

http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/Default.aspx. 

Kim, Y.-S., Kihm, J.-H., and Jin, K., 2011, Interpretation of rupture history of a low slip-rate active 

fault by analysis of progressive displacement accumulation—An example from the Quaternary 

Eupcheon fault, SE Korea: Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 168, p. 273–288. 

Lehmann, K., Klostermann, J., and Pelzing, R., 2001, Paleoseismological investigations at the Rurrand 

fault, lower Rhine embayment: Netherlands Journal of Earth Sciences/Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 80, 

no. 3–4, p. 139–154. 

Leonard, M., 2010, Earthquake fault scaling—Self-consistent relating of rupture length, width, average 

displacement, and moment release: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 100, no. 5A, 

p. 1971–1988. 

Lundqvist, J., and Lagerback, R., 1976, The Paarve fault—A late-glacial fault in the Precambrian of 

Swedish Lapland: Geologiska Foreningens i Stockholm Forhandlingar, v. 98, p. 45–51. 

Masana, E., Villamarin, J.A., Sanchez Cabanero, J., Plaza, J., and Santanach, P., 2001a, Seismogenic 

faulting in an area of low seismic activity—Paleoseismicity of the El Camp fault (Northeast Spain): 

Netherlands Journal of Earth Sciences/Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 80, no. 3–4, p. 229–241. 

Masana, E., Villamarin, J.A., and Santanach, P., 2001b, Paleoseismic results from multiple trenching 

analysis along a silent fault—The El Camp fault (Tarragona, northeastern Iberian Peninsula): Acta 

Geologica Hispanica, v. 36, no. 3–4, p. 329–354. 
24

McCalpin, J.P., ed., 2009, Paleoseismology (2nd ed.): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Academic Press, 

649 p. 

McNulty, W.E., and Obermeier, S.F., 1999, Liquefaction evidence for at least two strong Holocene 

paleo-earthquakes in central and southwestern Illinois, USA: Environmental and Engineering 

Geoscience, v. 5, p. 133–146. 

McPherson, A., Clark, D., Cupper, M., Collins, C.D.N., and Nelson, G., 2012, The Cadell fault—A 

record of long-term fault behavior in south-eastern Australia, in Churchman, G., Cresswell, R., and 

Singh, B., eds., Combined Australian Regolith Scientists Association and Australian Clay Minerals 

Society, Proceedings, February 7–9, 2012: Mildura, Victoria, Australia, p. 7–16. 

Meghraoui, M., Camelbeeck, T., Vanneste, K., Brondeel, M., and Jongmans, D., 2000, Active faulting 

and paleoseismology along the Bree fault, lower Rhine graben, Belgium: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 105, no. B6, p. 13,809–13,841. 

Meghraoui, M., Delouis, B., Ferry, M., Giardini, D., Huggenberger, P., Spottke, I., and Granet, M., 

2001, Active normal faulting in the upper Rhine graben and paleoseismic identification of the 1356 

Basel earthquake: Science, v. 293, p. 2070–2073. 

Morner, N.-A., 2004, Active faults and paleoseismicity in Fennoscandia, especially Sweden—Primary 

structures and secondary effects: Tectonophysics, v. 380, p. 139–157. 

Morner, N.-A., 2005, An interpretation and catalog of paleoseismicity in Sweden: Tectonophysics, 

v. 408, p. 265–307. 

Muir Wood, R., 1989, Extraordinary deglaciation reverse faulting in northern Fennoscandia, in

Gregersen, S., and Basham, P.W., eds., Earthquakes at North-Atlantic passive margins—Neotectonics 

and postglacial rebound: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 141–173. 

Munson, P.J., and Munson, C.A., 1996, Paleoliquefaction evidence for recurrent strong earthquakes 

since 20,000 years BP in the Wabash Valley area of Indiana: Final Technical Report to U. S. 

Geological Survey for Award 14–08–0001–02117, 137 p. 

Munson, P.J., Obermeier, S.F., Munson, C.A., and Hajic, E.R., 1997, Liquefaction evidence for 

Holocene and latest Pleistocene seismicity in the southern halves of Indiana and Illinois—A 

preliminary overview: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 4, p. 521–536. 

Nelson, W.J., 1995, Structural features in Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 100, 144 p., 

2 folded maps, scales 1:500,000 and 1:250,000. 

Obermeier, S.F., 1998, Liquefaction evidence for strong earthquakes of Holocene and latest Pleistocene 

ages in the States of Indiana and Illinois, USA: Engineering Geology, v. 50, p. 227–254. 

Obermeier, S.F., 2009, Using liquefaction-induced and other soft-sediment features for paleoseismic 

analysis, in McCalpin, J.P., ed., Paleoseismology (2nd ed.): Burlington, Mass., Academic Press, 

p. 497–564. 

Obermeier, S.F., and McNulty, W.E., 1998, Paleoliquefaction evidence for seismic quiescence in central 

Virginia during late and middle Holocene time [abs.]: EOS, Transactions of the American 

Geophysical Union, v. 79, no. 17 (Supplement), p. S342. 

Olson, S.M., Green, R.L., and Obermeier, S.F., 2005, Revised magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash 

Valley region of the Central United States: Seismological Research Letters, v. 76, no. 6, p. 756–771. 

Olson, S.M., Muhammad, K., Wen, Y., and Song, J., 2007, Uncertainties in paleoliquefaction 

analysis—Preliminary findings, in Geo-Denver 2007—New peaks in geotechnics, 2007: Denver, 

Colo., American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 1–10. 

Parrish, Shane, and Van Arsdale, Roy, 2004, Faulting along the southeastern margin of the Reelfoot rift 

in northwestern Tennessee revealed in deep seismic-reflection profiles: Seismological Research 

Letters, v. 75, no. 6, p. 784–793. 
25

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

R.L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, N., 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, 119 p., accessed February 12, 2014, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/. 

Quigley, M.C., Cupper, M.L., and Sandiford, M., 2006, Quaternary faults of south-central Australia—

Palaeoseismicity, slip rates and origin: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 53, p. 285–301. 

Rajendran, C.P., and Rajendran, K., 2001, Characteristics of deformation and past seismicity associated 

with the 1819 Kutch earthquake, northwestern India: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 

America, v. 91, no. 3, p. 407–426. 

Rockwell, T., Fonseca, J., Madden, C., Dawson, T., Owen, L.A., Vilanova, S., and Figueiredo, P., 2009, 

Palaeoseismology of the Vilarica segment of the Manteigas-Braganca fault in northeastern Portugal, 

in Reicherter, K., Michetti, A.M., and Silva, P.G., eds., Palaeoseismology—Historical and 

prehistorical records of earthquake ground effects for seismic hazard assessment: London, England, 

The Geological Society of London Special Publication 316, p. 237–258. 

Talwani, P., and Schaeffer, W.T., 2001, Recurrence rates of large earthquakes in the South Carolina 

Coastal Plain based on paleoliquefaction data: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 106, no. B4, 

p. 6621–6642. 

Tuttle, M., Al-Kadi, O., Mahdi, H., and Al-Shukri, H.J., 2010a, Repeated large earthquakes 4,800 to 

38,000 years ago towards the southwestern end of the Reelfoot rift fault system [abs.]: Geological 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 42, no. 5, p. 218. 

Tuttle, M.P., Dyer-Williams, K., Schroeder, H.A., and Herlihy, C.J., 2010b, Late Quaternary 

earthquake-induced liquefaction features in Greater Toronto [abs.]: Seismological Research Letters, 

v. 82, no. 1, p. 150. 

Tuttle, M., Chester, J., Lafferty, R., Dyer-Williams, K., and Cande, R., 1999, Paleoseismology study 

northwest of the New Madrid seismic zone: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR–

5730, 155 p. 

Tuttle, M.P., and Hartleb, R.D., 2012, Appendix E—CEUS paleoliquefaction database, uncertainties 

associated with paleoliquefaction data, and guidance for seismic source characterization, in Electric 

Power Research Institute, United States Department of Energy, and United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, eds., Technical report—Central and Eastern United States seismic source 

characterization for nuclear facilities: Palo Alto, Calif., Electric Power Research Institute, United 

States Department of Energy, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, p. E-1–E-135. 

Tuttle, M.P., Al-Shukri, H., and Mahdi, H., 2006, Very large earthquakes centered southwest of the 

New Madrid seismic zone 5,000–7,000 years ago: Seismological Research Letters, v. 77, no. 6, 

p. 755–770. 

Tuttle, M.P., and Atkinson, G.M., 2010, Localization of large earthquakes in the Charlevoix seismic 

zone, Quebec, Canada, during the past 10,000 years: Seismological Research Letters, v. 81, no. 1, 

p. 140–147. 

Tuttle, M.P., Schweig, E.S., Sims, J.D., Lafferty, R.H., Wolf, L.W., and Haynes, M.L., 2002, The 

earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 

America, v. 92, p. 2080–2089. 

Tuttle, M.P., and Seeber, L., 1991, Historic and prehistoric earthquake-induced liquefaction in 

Newbury, Massachusetts: Geology, v. 19, p. 594–597. 

van den Berg, M., Vanneste, K., Dost, B., Lokhorst, A., van Eijk, M., and Verbeeck, K., 2002, 

Paleoseismic investigations along the Peel boundary fault—Geological setting, site selection and 
26

trenching results: Netherlands Journal of Earth Sciences/Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 81, no. 1, 

p. 39–60. 

Vanderberghe, D., Vanneste, K., Verbeeck, K., Paulissen, E., Buylaert, J.-P., DeCorte, F., and Van den 

houte, P., 2009, Late Weichselian and Holocene earthquake events along the Geleen fault in NE 

Belgium—OSL constraints: Quaternary International, v. 199, p. 56–74. 

Vanneste, K., Mees, F., and Verbeeck, K., 2008, Thin-section analysis as a tool to aid identification of 

paleoearthquakes on the “slow,” active Geleen fault, Roer Valley graben: Tectonophysics, v. 453, 

p. 94–109. 

Vanneste, K., and Verbeeck, K., 2001, Paleoseismological analysis of the Rurrand fault near Julich, 

Roer Valley graben, Germany—Coseismic or aseismic faulting history?: Netherlands Journal of Earth 

Sciences/Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 80, no. 3–4, p. 155–169. 

Vaughn, J.D., 1994, Paleoseismological studies in the western lowlands of southeast Missouri: Final 

Technical Report to U.S. Geological Survey for Award 14–08–0001–G1931, 29 p. 

Viveen, W., van Balen, R.T., Schoorl, J.M., Veldkamp, A., Temme, A.J.A.M., and Vidal-Romani, J.R., 

2012, Assessment of recent tectonic activity on the NW Iberian Atlantic margin by means of 

geomorphic indices and field studies of the lower Mino River terraces: Tectonophysics, v. 544–545, 

p. 13–30. 

Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture 

length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 

America, v. 84, p. 974–1002. 

Wheeler, R.L., 2008, Paleoseismic targets, seismic hazard, and urban areas in the Central and Eastern 

United States: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 98, no. 3, p. 1572–1580. 

Wheeler, R.L., 2009a, Methods of Mmax estimation east of the Rocky Mountains: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2009–1018, 43 p., accessed on February 12, 2014, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1018/. 

Wheeler, R.L., 2009b, Sizes of the largest possible earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United 

States—Summary of a workshop, September 8–9, 2008, Golden, Colo.: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009–1263, 304 p., accessed February 12, 2014, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1263. 

Wheeler, R.L., and Cramer, C.H., 2002, Updated seismic hazard in the southern Illinois Basin—

Geological and geophysical foundations for use in the 2002 USGS national seismic-hazard maps: 

Seismological Research Letters, v. 73, no. 5, p. 776–791. 

Wheeler, R.L., and Frankel, A., 2000, Geology in the 1996 USGS seismic-hazard maps, Central and 

Eastern United States: Seismological Research Letters, v. 71, no. 2, p. 273–282. 

Woolery, E.W., 2005, Geophysical and geological evidence of neotectonic deformation along the 

Hovey Lake fault, lower Wabash Valley fault system, Central United States: Bulletin of the 

Seismological Society of America, v. 95, no. 3, p. 1193–1201. 

Wyatt, D.E., Jr., and Stearns, R.G., 1988, Possible active fault zones in west Tennessee interpreted from 

surface lineaments and magnetic and gravity anomalies: Southeastern Geology, v. 28, no. 4, 

p. 191–210. ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141025A