USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70023224

Preliminary report on the 16 October 1999 M 7.1 Hector mine, California, earthquake

Abstract

The M w 7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake occurred at 9:46 GMT on 16 October 1999. The event caused minimal damage because it was located in a remote, sparsely populated part of the Mojave Desert, approximately 47 miles east-southeast of Barstow, with epicentral coordinates 34.59°N 116.27°W and a hypocentral depth of 5 ± 3 km. Twelve foreshocks, M 1.9-3.8, preceded the mainshock during the previous twelve hours. All of these events were located close to the hypocenter of the mainshock. The Hector Mine earthquake occurred within the Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ). By virtue of its remote location, the societal impact of the Hector Mine earthquake was, fortunately, minimal in spite of the event's appreciable size. The ECSZ is characterized by high seismicity, a high tectonic strain rate, and a broad, distributed zone of north-northwest-trending faults (ECSZ; Figure 1 ; Dokka and Travis, 1990 ; Sauber et al., 1986 ; Sauber et al., 1994 ; Sieh et al., 1993 ). Data regarding the slip rates of faults within the ECSZ suggest that on the order of 15% of the Pacific-North American plate motion occurs along this zone ( Sauber et al., 1986 ; Wesnousky, 1986 ). Most of the faults in the ECSZ have low slip rates and long repeat times for major earthquakes, on the order of several thousands to tens of thousands of years. The occurrence of the Hector Mine earthquake within seven years and only about 30 km east of the 1992 M w 7.3 Landers earthquake suggests that the closely spaced surface faults in the ECSZ are mechanically related. The Hector Mine event involved rupture on two previously mapped fault zones—the Bullion Fault and an unnamed, more northerly-trending fault that is informally referred to in this paper as the Lavic Lake Fault (Dibblee, 1966 , 1967a , b ). Traces of the Bullion Fault exhibit evidence of Holocene displacement and were zoned as active in 1988 under California's Mquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ( Hart and Bryant, 1997 ). The pattern of rupture along more than one named fault was also observed from the 1992 Landers earthquake ( Hauksson et al., 1993 ; Sieh et al., 1994). Much of the fault zone that produced the Hector Mine earthquake had been buried by relatively young stream deposits, and the fault scarps in bedrock have a subdued morphology. It appears that these faults have not experienced significant offset for perhaps 10,000 years or more ( Hart, 1987 ). Planned future investigations will refine the age of the last event on these faults. The portion of the Lavic Lake Fault that ruptured between the northern end of the Bullion Mountains and Lavic Lake had not previously been mapped. However, our field investigations have identified ancient, subdued fault scarps along portions of the 1999 rupture zone in this area. It thus appears that the entire segment of the Lavic Lake Fault that was involved in the 1999 event had ruptured in the past. As is typical for most faults within the Eastern California Shear Zone, the rate of movement along the Lavic Lake Fault may be quite slow (<1 mm/yr) and should produce earthquakes only infrequently. This event is a reminder that faults that have ruptured in late Quaternary time, but that lack evidence of Holocene displacement, can still produce earthquakes in this low-slip-rate tectonic setting. Additionally, the Hector Mine earthquake is noteworthy for a couple of other reasons. First, it clearly produced triggered seismicity over much of southern California, from the rupture zone toward the south-southwest in particular. Second, as we will discuss, the event may provide new data and insight into recently developed paradigms concerning earthquake interactions and the role of static stress changes. Questions such as these will, of course, be the subject of extensive detailed analyses in years to come. Fortunately, the Hector Mine sequence will provide one of the best data sets obtained to date for a significant earthquake in the United States. Because it occurred when major upgrades to both the regional seismic network (TriNet) and the regional geodetic network (SCIGN) were well underway, the Earth science community will have abundant high-quality data with which to explore the important and interesting questions that have been raised. In this paper, we present and discuss the basic data and preliminary results from the Hector Mine earthquake.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.175453097578526° to 35.21420969483077° latitude; -117.0703125° to -115.631103515625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Behr, B. Bryant, D. Given, K. Gross, K. Hafner, J. Hardebeck, E. Hauksson, T. Heaton, S. Hough, K. Hudnut, K. Hutton, L. Jones, H. Kanamori, K. Kendrick, N. King, P. Maechling, A. Meltzner, D. Ponti, Thomas Rockwell, A. Shakal, M. Simons, K. Stark, D. Wald, L. Wald, L. Zhu. 2000. Preliminary report on the 16 October 1999 M 7.1 Hector mine, California, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.71.1.11

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

Intensity prediction equations for intraslab earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone

In the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW), intraslab earthquakes located within the subducting Juan de Fuca slab are responsible for most of the region’s moderate‐magnitude seismicity. Historically, these earthquakes have caused significant damage, such as the 2001 M 6.8 Nisqually, 1965 M 6.5 Seattle, and 1949 M 6.8 Olympia events. Intensity prediction equations (IPEs) aim to relate source‐to‐site distance and earthquake magnitude to the resultant felt shaking intensity at a particular location, and help to estimate hazard from earthquakes. We find that a commonly used IPE developed by Atkinson et al. (2014) does not accurately describe shaking intensity from most intraslab events in the PNW, likely because it was developed using primarily crustal fault earthquakes. In this study, we develop two new IPEs that provide an improved fit to observed intensities from Cascadia subduction zone intraslab earthquakes. To develop our IPEs, we compute linear mixed‐effects regressions using community decimal intensity data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s ‘Did You Feel It?’ program from 36 intraslab events that occurred in British Columbia, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and northern California from 2000 to 2025. We also investigate the relationship between the new intraslab IPEs and select parameters related to near‐surface conditions and deeper geologic structure that may be related to ground‐motion intensities, but find no correlations. These new IPEs provide a better fit to observations of intraslab earthquakes in the PNW than Atkinson et al. (2014) , particularly within 300 km of the epicenter. They also provide a better fit to the 2018 M 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, intraslab earthquake, suggesting that they may have broader applicability to global subduction zones.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗