EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Susan E. Hough

Publications and source records attributed to Susan E. Hough.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Only very strong shaking can break a tree

A handful of credible accounts, both recent and historical, describe trees being broken during earthquakes. Apart from landslides and tsunamis, such accounts are uncommon, suggesting that trees break only when ground acceleration is extreme or when trees are especially vulnerable to breakage. Here, I consider the question: what ground acceleration is required to break a living tree? I present simplified first‐principles calculations, considering the properties of common trees, focusing on tall, thin trees that can be approximated as uniform vertical cantilevers. The results suggest that, possibly excepting tall trees with heavy canopies, standing trees can only be broken by shaking approaching or exceeding 1 g , as anticipated by the rarity of documented accounts of snapped trees. I briefly consider several well‐documented instances of tree damage during strong earthquakes, drawing inferences about local ground motions.

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2026

Preface to the focus section on intraplate earthquakes

More than a half century after plate tectonics provided an overarching framework to explain earthquakes along active plate boundaries, numerous theories have been proposed to explain where, why, and how often earthquakes occur well away from active plate boundaries, but a paradigm remains elusive. Even the classification of earthquakes away from active plate boundaries as "intraplate" raises issues, with potentially important distinctions between Stable Continental Regions and more actively deforming regions including passive margins and failed rifts. Some of the largest known intraplate earthquakes themselves remain enigmatic, having occurred before the modern instrumental era. Hazard assessments are often data-limited: low fault-slip rates relative to landscape modification rates result in poor discoverability of fault sources, challenging the characterization of source zones and earthquake recurrence; the completeness and homogenization of instrumental earthquake catalogs using uncertain magnitude conversions can lead to uncertainties in earthquake recurrence; and, limited strong-motion observations for large-magnitude events at near-source distances leads to uncertainties in the selection and development of ground-motion models for seismic hazard studies. Data from recent intraplate earthquakes around the world—from the moment magnitude M 7.7 2001 Bhuj, India, earthquake 25 years ago to the 2024 M 4.8 Tewksbury, New Jersey earthquake—have yielded both new insights and new questions. The papers in this special focus discuss many of the long-standing challenges involved with intraplate earthquake investigations and provide a snapshot of the state of the art with current research to advance our understanding.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2025

Did they feel it? Legacy maroseismic data illuminates an engimatic 20th century earthquake

The challenges and the importance of preserving legacy instrumental records of earthquakes are now well-recognized (e.g., Richards & Hellweg, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200053 ). Seismologists may not be aware of parallel challenges and opportunities with legacy macroseismic data for earthquakes in the United States. For much of the 20th century, macroseismic data were collected by a series of U.S. government agencies using a standard questionnaire distributed on postcards. Published summaries of postcards provide macroseismic data akin to modern Did You Feel It? questionnaire responses. In this paper we focus on the M 6.5 Fickle Hill, California earthquake, on 21 December 1954 (Hellweg et al., 2025) as a proof-of-concept, illustrating the potential of what we dub Did They Feel It? (DTFI) data to improve our understanding of significant 20th century U.S. earthquakes for which instrumental data are sparse. Legacy macroseismic data interpreted following modern conventions can potentially constrain traditional ShakeMaps at a level of detail and accuracy that in some respects rival maps for modern earthquakes. The updated ShakeMap for the 1954 Fickle Hill earthquake, also drawing from recently published media and first-person accounts, supports the location, depth, and stress drop value estimated from available instrumental data (Hellweg et al., 2025).

California↗

USGS2025

Revisiting an enigma on California's north coast: The Mw6.5 Fickle Hill earthquake of 21 December 1954

Many earthquakes occur along the North Coast of California in the vicinity of the Mendocino Triple Junction (MTJ), where the Pacific, Gorda, and North American (NA) plates meet, and on the adjacent plate boundaries. The MTJ marks the nexus of the Mendocino and San Andreas faults with the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ). Historically, most large earthquakes around the MTJ have been within the offshore Gorda plate and its subducted portion beneath the NA plate. North of the MTJ, active faults mapped in the NA plate are part of the CSZ fold‐and‐thrust belt. Although some events have been detected in the NA plate, no large historic events have been associated with mapped surface faults. The 21 December 1954 M w 6.5 earthquake in Humboldt County is one possible exception. Using published data from catalogs and articles, unpublished data from Berkeley’s archives, and S ‐ P times interpreted from two U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) accelerometers, we determine a probability cloud for the earthquake’s hypocenter using NonLinLoc. The highest probability location lies beneath Fickle Hill just east of the city of Arcata, California, at 40.87° N, 124.03° W, and ∼11 km depth. Using P ‐wave polarities from Berkeley stations and the digitized waveforms from the accelerometers, we find that the focal mechanism most consistent with the data indicates thrust movement with strike, dip, and rake of 350°, 10°, and 90°, respectively, at a depth of 14 km. Given the depth uncertainties of both this event and the megathrust, this implies that the earthquake most likely took place on the subduction interface rather than on the mapped faults in the Mad River fault zone that trend 322° and dip to the northeast. The revisited intensity in the epicentral region also supports a location beneath Fickle Hill to the east of the city of Arcata, California.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2025

Reflections on a trio of North American earthquakes in 1925

In 1925, three moderately large damaging earthquakes occurred in North America over four months: the 28 February (local time; LT) M 6.2 Charlevoix, 27 June (LT) M 6.6 Montana, and 29 June M 6.5 Santa Barbara earthquakes. The centennial anniversaries of these events motivated this retrospective consideration focused on the ground motions generated by the three events, including a reconsideration of early intensity assignments for the Montana earthquake. At the time, these three earthquakes appeared to support the arguments of some geologists who downplayed the severity of seismic hazard in southern California relative to other parts of the country. Some of the arguments advanced at that time, for example that Los Angeles “has the least to fear from ‘Acts of God’ of any city under the American flag,” ( Hill, 1928 ) sound naïve if not laughable now, but a comparison of well‐constrained shaking distributions for the three earthquakes reveals the dramatic difference in wave propagation efficiency in western versus eastern North America (ENAM), which leads to moderate ENAM events being felt to much larger distances. At M 6.2, the 1925 Charlevoix earthquake was a notably large event in ENAM. This earthquake was the largest event in eastern Canada since 1870 and caused damage in the epicentral region in addition to towns as far away as 200 km, with felt shaking extending over 1000 km. In contrast, felt shaking from the Santa Barbara earthquake barely extended beyond ∼200 km. Compiling published intensity distributions for larger ENAM earthquakes, we show that perceptible earthquake shaking is not uncommon in ENAM over century time scales, but experience with weakly felt shaking may incline people to downplay potential earthquake risk.

California, Montana, Quebec↗