Proceedings of preparing for a significant central United States earthquake: Science needs of the response and recovery community

Emitt C. Witt

doi:10.3133/sir20105173

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20105173

Proceedings of preparing for a significant central United States earthquake: Science needs of the response and recovery community

Emitt C. Witt

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Imagine waking up at 2 o'clock in the morning by a violent rumbling that causes ceilings to fall, furniture to topple over, and windows to break. Your home is crumbling, it is dark, and by the time you realize what is going on the shaking stops. You quickly determine that your family members are okay, but you also realize your power is out, all the windows are broken, and there is substantial damage to your home possibly making it unsafe to remain inside. The temperature outside is in the 20s, there is a heavy snow on the ground, and the flu season is at its peak with two of your family members affected. Unfortunately your family is one of thousands in a similar circumstance and the response to your needs may not be immediate, if at all. Could an earthquake like this happen unannounced? It did in the Central United States during the great New Madrid earthquake of 1811-12. A resident of New Madrid, Missouri writes (Martin, 1848 ): 'On the 16th of December 1811, about 2 o'clock, AM, we were visited by a violent shock of an earthquake accompanied by a very awful noise resembling loud but distant thunder, but more hoarse and vibrating, which was followed in a few minutes by the complete saturation of the atmosphere with sulphurious vapor, causing total darkness. The screams of the affrighted inhabitants running to and fro, not knowing where to go, or what to do-the cries of the fowls and beasts of every species-the crackling of trees falling, and the roar of the Mississippi-the current of which was retrograde for a few minutes, owing as is supposed to an irruption in its bed-formed a scene truly horrible.' Eliza Bryan, March 22, 1816 The residents of the Central United States during the great New Madrid earthquake were accustomed to living rugged life styles. Electrical power was not a reality, water was drawn from shallow hand-dug wells or retrieved from streams, food was hunted or grown, and the homes typically were log structures with dirt floors. Though these inhabitants were primitive by today's standards, they could survive because they did not rely on the supporting infrastructure we rely on today. What would you do if such an event struck as you read this? As a society, are we prepared for a similar event? Could you live for an extended period without power, refrigeration, heat, air conditioning, or fresh water? Missouri and its adjacent states have experienced more than 450 recorded earthquakes greater than magnitude 3 since 1964 (Petersen and others, 2008); however, none of these Central United States earthquakes has been as severe as the 1811-12 event. The 1811-12 events actually were a series of three very large earthquakes followed by many smaller but significant aftershocks (Johnston and Schweig, 1984). Ground shaking was reported as far away as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Charleston, South Carolina.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 34° to 42° latitude; -95° to -85° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Emitt C. Witt. 2010. Proceedings of preparing for a significant central United States earthquake: Science needs of the response and recovery community. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20105173

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗