USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70273811

High-precision earthquake catalog for Minto Flats fault zone, central Alaska, reveals complex and conjugate faulting

Nealey E. Sims·Carl Tape·Natalia A. Ruppert·Michael E. West
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Minto Flats fault zone (MFFZ) in central Alaska is a left‐lateral strike‐slip fault system situated between the continental‐scale right‐lateral Denali and Kaltag‐Tintina faults. The MFFZ has the potential to generate magnitude 7 earthquakes, and it hosted a magnitude 6 earthquake in 1995. It has also produced exotic events, such as very‐low‐frequency earthquakes and nucleation signals. We use network‐matched filtering and relative earthquake relocation techniques to derive a detailed catalog of earthquake locations for the MFFZ. The catalog spans from August 2014 to December 2019, a time period including 13 temporary seismic stations in the region. Our results provide the most complete catalog for the MFFZ and include deeper events, clusters of shallow seismicity, and a complex and segmented fault structure not observed in the original regional catalog. We document right‐lateral strike‐slip faulting, conjugate to the main northeast‐striking left‐lateral faults of the MFFZ. Below Nenana basin, the relocated seismicity reveals northwest‐dipping left‐lateral faults, supporting the inference that deep crustal active faulting is associated with recent basin deformation.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of Seismological Society of AmericaArticle

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Nealey E. Sims, Carl Tape, Natalia A. Ruppert, Michael E. West. 2025-11-04. High-precision earthquake catalog for Minto Flats fault zone, central Alaska, reveals complex and conjugate faulting. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250177

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

Discover connections

Alaska placeArticle subjectBulletin of Seismological Society of America subjectMinto Flats fault zone placeUnited STates place

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

USGS2026

The U.S. Geological Survey 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands time-independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2025 U.S. Geological Survey Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI) time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast (ERF), developed for the 2025 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for PRVI. The updated ERF improves upon a prior model from 2003, including an expanded fault inventory with slip‐rate estimates, updated seismicity catalogs, and refined subduction zone geometries and deformation models. It applies the fault‐system inversion methodology to solve for rates of ruptures on modeled faults, adapted from the 2023 NSHM (NSHM23) for the western United States, including the first application of the inversion to model rates on a U.S. subduction interface. Off‐fault and intraslab seismicity are constrained by observed seismicity and use updated methods developed for NSHM23. Uncertainties in model components are substantial, and the ERF represents epistemic uncertainties through a comprehensive logic tree consisting of 1.7 billion logic‐tree branches combined across all sources.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗
USGS2025

The 1912 Ms 7.2 earthquake in the Denali region of central Alaska

The 2002 M w 7.9 earthquake in central Alaska ruptured 340 km on three faults—Susitna Glacier thrust fault, Denali fault, Totschunda fault—crossing both the Richardson Highway and the Alaska Pipeline. Its occurrence prompted renewed interest in historical large earthquakes that possibly originated on the Denali fault. One of these earthquakes was a M s 7.2 event on July 7, 1912, which we revisit with two approaches: (1) probabilistic relocation of the epicenter using globally recorded arrival times, and (2) compilation and reassessment of shaking intensity reports to estimate a macroseismic epicenter. Our preferred instrumental epicenter is west of the Parks Highway and in agreement with the maximum‐reported shaking, which was from the Parker–Browne expedition of Denali. We also relocated a M s 6.4 aftershock, whose epicenter is 11 km from the mainshock. Candidate faults for the 1912 earthquake include the Denali fault, the McLeod Creek thrust fault, and the Kantishna Hills thrust fault. Future analysis of active faults, paleoseismic results, 1912 instrumental data, and 1912 felt reports may help in interpreting the fault and mechanism of the 1912 earthquake.

Alaska↗
USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗