This data release provides a map of the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m (Vs30) for California using the method described by Thompson and others (2014). There are two adjustments to the algorithm described by Thompson and others (2014), which is built on the geology-based Vs30 map by Wills and Clahan (2006). In this data release, we use the Wills and others (2015) updated geology-based Vs30 map. The second change is that we have adjusted the kriging procedure so that measured Vs30 values do not affect the predictions across distinctly different geologic units.

Epicenters of known M≥5 earthquakes from 1769 to 2016 are shown for California and a 100 km area bordering the state. Earthquakes are grouped by: M = 5-6; M = 6-7; M = 7+.

Epicenters of known M≥5 earthquakes from 1769 to 2016 are shown for California and a 100 km area bordering the state. Earthquakes are grouped by: M = 5-6; M = 6-7; M = 7+.

The California Geological Survey published maps of “Earthquake Shaking Potential for California” in 1999 and has revised the maps following each update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM). Similar to the NSHMs, the Earthquake Shaking Potential Maps for California depict expected intermediate period (1s or 1hz) ground motions with 2% exceedance probability in 50 years. Unlike the NSHMs, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map for California incorporates anticipated amplification of ground motions by local soil conditions. The current update of the Earthquake Shaking Potential Map for California (California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48) is based on the 2014 NSHMs developed by the United States Geological Survey (Petersen et al., 2014), a new map of the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30m of the earth’s surface for California (Wills et al., 2015), and a new semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification model (Seyhan and Stewart, 2014).

The California Geological Survey published maps of “Earthquake Shaking Potential for California” in 1999 and has revised the maps following each update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM). Similar to the NSHMs, the Earthquake Shaking Potential Maps for California depict expected intermediate period (1s or 1hz) ground motions with 2% exceedance probability in 50 years. Unlike the NSHMs, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map for California incorporates anticipated amplification of ground motions by local soil conditions. The current update of the Earthquake Shaking Potential Map for California (California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48) is based on the 2014 NSHMs developed by the United States Geological Survey (Petersen et al., 2014), a new map of the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30m of the earth’s surface for California (Wills et al., 2015), and a new semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification model (Seyhan and Stewart, 2014).

This dataset represents simplified geologic units that have been correlated to the time-averaged seismic shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the earth’s surface (Vs30). The geologic units were compiled from published maps that range in scale from 1:250,000 to 1:24,000, along with a system for subdividing younger alluvium based on surface slope. More information can be obtained from the associated article published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America: Wills, C.J., Gutierrez, C.I., Perez, F.G., and Branum, D.B., 2015, A next-generation Vs30 map for California based on geology and topography: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

,

,Data show fault-based seismic sources used in the time-independent component of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), which provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time-averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in California. Fault model slip rates are given in millimeters per year. The feature service depicts the surface traces of modeled faults, which are simplified from the CGS – USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold database (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). For modeled blind fault seismic sources, the traces represent the map-view fault tip projection of the subsurface fault. For additional information regarding modeled faults in UCERF3 please refer to Appendix A of the UCERF3 report (https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/).,For additional information about UCERF3 please see https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/sr_228.aspx for the full UCERF3 publication and supporting products.,

This dataset complements the following publication: Goldberg, D.E. & Haynie, K.L (2021) Ready for Real-Time: Performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems in 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Rapid Response Products, Seismological Research Letters, doi: 10.1785/0220210278. The availability of low-latency, high-rate Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) waveforms makes it possible to compute joint seismic and geodetic finite-fault models of significant earthquakes (typically M 6.0 or larger) using regional data (i.e. from strong-motion accelerometers and real-time GNSS). Notably, real-time GNSS displacement data has reduced accuracy when compared to post-processed displacements, due to inherent challenges in estimating satellite clocks and orbits in real-time (see associated manuscript for details). Here, we present the results of joint strong-motion accelerometer and GNSS finite-fault inversions for the 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California earthquake. We compare the results of the joint inversions that use post-processed GNSS to those making use of real-time GNSS displacements. Real-time GNSS displacements come from two different processing facilities: UNAVCO and Central Washington University (CWU). Two different weighting schemes (uniform and data norm weighting) are applied, resulting in a total of six joint inversions. A figure showing these six models is included here ("Finite-Fault Model Results") and is a reproduction of Figure 3 of the associated manuscript listed above. The inversion results are provided as text files with titles corresponding to their GNSS data processing type and the inversion data weighting scheme (e.g., "Strong-Motion and CWU Real-Time GNSS (Uniform Weight)." Please see the associated manuscript listed above for details about the GNSS processing types and weighting schemes applied. A summary table comparing the six models (above) and the USGS teleseismic inversion (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci38457511/finite-fault) is titled "Finite-Fault Model Comparison Summary". The resulting models are also used to create an estimate of the source dimensions as input to the USGS ShakeMap ground motion estimates. Estimated source dimension information is available in the table titled "Source Dimension Estimates for ShakeMap".

This dataset complements the following publication: Goldberg, D.E. & Haynie, K.L (2021) Ready for Real-Time: Performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems in 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Rapid Response Products, Seismological Research Letters, doi: 10.1785/0220210278. The availability of low-latency, high-rate Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) waveforms makes it possible to compute joint seismic and geodetic finite-fault models of significant earthquakes (typically M 6.0 or larger) using regional data (i.e. from strong-motion accelerometers and real-time GNSS). Notably, real-time GNSS displacement data has reduced accuracy when compared to post-processed displacements, due to inherent challenges in estimating satellite clocks and orbits in real-time (see associated manuscript for details). Here, we present the results of joint strong-motion accelerometer and GNSS finite-fault inversions for the 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California earthquake. We compare the results of the joint inversions that use post-processed GNSS to those making use of real-time GNSS displacements. Real-time GNSS displacements come from two different processing facilities: UNAVCO and Central Washington University (CWU). Two different weighting schemes (uniform and data norm weighting) are applied, resulting in a total of six joint inversions. A figure showing these six models is included here ("Finite-Fault Model Results") and is a reproduction of Figure 3 of the associated manuscript listed above. The inversion results are provided as text files with titles corresponding to their GNSS data processing type and the inversion data weighting scheme (e.g., "Strong-Motion and CWU Real-Time GNSS (Uniform Weight)." Please see the associated manuscript listed above for details about the GNSS processing types and weighting schemes applied. A summary table comparing the six models (above) and the USGS teleseismic inversion (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci38457511/finite-fault) is titled "Finite-Fault Model Comparison Summary". The resulting models are also used to create an estimate of the source dimensions as input to the USGS ShakeMap ground motion estimates. Estimated source dimension information is available in the table titled "Source Dimension Estimates for ShakeMap".