USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Seismological Research Letteres”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
USGS2021

Short‐period surface‐wave tomography in the continental United States— A resource for research

The variation of phase and group velocity dispersion of Love and Rayleigh waves was determined for the continental United States and adjacent Canada. By processing ambient noise from the broadband channels of the Transportable Array (TA) of USArray and several Program for the Array Seismic Studies of the Continental Lithosphere experiments and using some earthquake recordings, the effort was focused on determining dispersion down to periods as short as 2 s. The relatively short distances between TA stations permitted the use of a 25    km × 25    km "> 25 km × 25 km grid for the four independent tomographic inversions (Love and Rayleigh and phase and group velocity). One reason for trying to obtain short‐period dispersion was to have a data set capable of constraining upper crust velocity models for use in determining regional moment tensors. The benefit of focusing on short‐period dispersion is apparent in the tomography maps—shallow geologic structures such as the Mid‐Continent Rift, and the Michigan, Illinois, Anadarko, Arkoma, and Appalachian basins are imaged. In our processing, we noted that the phase velocities were more robustly determined than the group velocities. We also noted that the inability to obtain dispersion at short periods shows distinct regional patterns that may be related to the local upper crust structure.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Preface to the Focus Section on the 2020 Intermountain West earthquakes

The Intermountain West region of the United States extends from the eastern margin of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains in the west to the Rocky Mountains in the east. The region is characterized by dextral shear along the eastern margin of the Sierra Nevada and nearly east-west extension in the Basin and Range. This region experienced four significant earthquake sequences in the first half of 2020. The most significant mainshocks were the 18 March 2020 Mw 5.7 earthquake north of Magna, Utah (a suburb of Salt Lake City), the 31 March 2020 Mw 6.5 earthquake northwest of Stanley, Idaho, the 15 May 2020 Mw 6.5 earthquake in the Monte Cristo Range, northwest of Tonopah, Nevada, and the 24 June 2020 Mw 5.8 earthquake near Lone Pine, California. The 15 articles appearing in this focus section explore timely and important topics associated with these sequences, including kinematic rupture models, near-field ground motions, aftershock statistics, geologic observations, seismic hazard implications, and seismotectonics. It is noteworthy that the efforts to record and characterize these earthquake sequences took place during travel and work restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

lsforce: A Python-based single-force seismic inversion framework for massive landslides

We present an open‐source Python package, lsforce, for performing single‐force source inversions of long‐period (tens to hundreds of seconds) seismic signals. Although the software is designed primarily for landslides, it can be used for any single‐force seismic source. The package allows users to produce estimates of the three‐component time series of forces exerted on the Earth by a landslide with postprocessing options to estimate the trajectory of its center of mass. Green’s functions for a user‐selected 1D Earth model are obtained automatically from the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Synthetics Engine webservice or can be computed for custom 1D Earth models using Computer Programs in Seismology. lsforce implements the two most commonly used source parameterizations: a fully flexible, high‐resolution approach and a more stable but lower‐resolution method of overlapping triangle sources. Regularization options include a blended zeroth‐, first‐, and second‐order semiautomated Tikhonov regularization scheme, as well as additional optional constraints on start times, end times, and on the sum of forces. Uncertainty due to data selection can be assessed using either a leave‐one‐out approach or a modified jackknife technique that randomly excludes subsets of the data for multiple re‐inversions. Numerous built‐in plotting methods allow for easy quality control and assessment of results. In this article, we briefly outline the theory and methodology, describe our implementation, and demonstrate the usage of lsforce using the well‐studied 28 June 2016 Lamplugh rock avalanche in Alaska. Despite the rapidly increasing prevalence of landslide single‐force inversions in the landslide and seismology literature over the past decade, to our knowledge this is the first open‐source code for performing such inversions.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Automated detection of clipping in broadband earthquake records

Because the amount of available ground‐motion data has increased over the last decades, the need for automated processing algorithms has also increased. One difficulty with automated processing is to screen clipped records. Clipping occurs when the ground‐motion amplitude exceeds the dynamic range of the linear response of the instrument. Clipped records in which the amplitude exceeds the dynamic range are relatively easy to identify visually yet challenging for automated algorithms. In this article, we seek to identify a reliable and fully automated clipping detection algorithm tailored to near‐real‐time earthquake response needs. We consider multiple alternative algorithms, including (1) an algorithm based on the percentage difference in adjacent data points, (2) the standard deviation of the data within a moving window, (3) the shape of the histogram of the recorded amplitudes, (4) the second derivative of the data, and (5) the amplitude of the data. To quantitatively compare these algorithms, we construct development and holdout datasets from earthquakes across a range of geographic regions, tectonic environments, and instrument types. We manually classify each record for the presence of clipping and use the classified records. We then develop an artificial neural network model that combines all the individual algorithms. Testing on the holdout dataset, the standard deviation and histogram approaches are the most accurate individual algorithms, with an overall accuracy of about 93%. The combined artificial neural network method yields an overall accuracy of 95%, and the choice of classification threshold can balance precision and recall.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Effect of fixing earthquake depth in ShakeAlert algorithms on performance for intraslab earthquakes

We investigate whether assuming a fixed shallow depth in the ShakeAlert network‐based earthquake early warning system is sufficient to produce accurate ground‐motion based alerts for intraslab earthquakes. ShakeAlert currently uses a fixed focal depth of 8 km to estimate earthquake location and magnitude. This is an appropriate way to reduce computational costs without compromising alert accuracy in California, where earthquakes typically occur on shallow crustal faults. In the Pacific Northwest (PNW), however, the most common moderate‐magnitude events occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca slab at depths between ∼35 and 65 km. Using a dataset of seismic recordings from 37 M w 4.5+ intraslab earthquakes from the PNW and Chile, we replay events through the Earthquake Point‐Source Integrated Code and eqInfo2GM algorithms to estimate source parameters and compute modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) alert threshold contours. Each event is replayed twice—once using a fixed 8 km depth and a second time using the actual catalog earthquake depth. For each depth scenario, we analyze MMI III and IV contours using various performance metrics to determine the number of correctly alerted sites and measure warning times. We determine that shallow depth replays are more likely to produce errors in location estimates of greater than 50 km if the event is located outside of a seismic network. When located within a seismic network, shallow and catalog depth replays have similar epicenter estimates. Results show that applying catalog earthquake depth does not improve the accuracy of magnitude estimates or MMI alert threshold contours, or increase warning times. We conclude that using a fixed shallow earthquake depth for intraslab earthquakes will not significantly impact alert accuracy in the PNW.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2021

Comment on “Which earthquake accounts matter” by Susan E. Hough and Stacey S. Martin

In their analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) data Hough and Martin (2021) claim, among other assertions, that the following: Socioeconomic and geopolitical factors can introduce biases in the USGS’ characterization of earthquakes and their effects, especially if online data collection systems are not designed to be broadly accessible; These biases can, in turn, potentially cascade in myriad ways, potentially shaping our understanding of an earthquake’s impact and the characterization of seismic hazard; and Caution should be urged when relying on data from the DYFI system to characterize the distribution of shaking from large earthquakes in India and other parts of the world (outside of the United States). Claims of inequity in access, systematic data biases, or urging caution in the usage of data from critical governmental earthquake information systems should not be made, nor taken, lightly. Several assertions made by Hough and Martin (hereafter, H&M) about the nature of DYFI contributors—and the data they provide—leave a false narrative concerning DYFI system accessibility and quality that H&M have not adequately substantiated. I describe several shortcomings of H&M’s demographic statistics and methodology, focusing on four main concerns. First, DYFI has revolutionized and greatly facilitated access to reporting intensities, in contrast to H&M claims to the contrary. Second, because DYFI does not directly collect demographic data other than the observer’s location, any demographic analyses require extraordinary inferences, well outside the normal bounds of sociodemographic analyses. Third, independent of accessibility and the geographic distribution of contributions from the public, the macroseismic data collected are nonetheless representative of the shaking and impact at each location, of quality, rapid, and thus extremely useful. Lastly, H&M fail to cite critical and pertinent prior, highly relevant scholarly studies, and as such, they misrepresent the novelty of their own work as well as miss key practical matters detailed in those prior studies. Prior to rebutting what H&M claim DYFI does not do, I will remind the reader the ways in which DYFI excels.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Wastewater disposal has not significantly altered the regional stress state in southern Kansas

Wastewater disposal is primarily responsible for the increased seismicity rate since ~2013 in southern Kansas. Previous work that used shear wave splitting (SWS) in southern Kansas interpreted a ~90º temporal rotation in the fast polarization direction and attributed it to increased pore pressures resulting from fluid injection. However, this interpreted rotation coincided with a change in the stations used to make the SWS measurements. We investigate the temporal variability of fast azimuths in southern Kansas by making SWS measurements on earthquake families with similar source-receiver paths recorded on a stable local seismic network. We select high-quality SWS measurements by investigating the stability of results across 65 different frequency bands between 0.5-15 Hz. We find that the fast polarization direction in southern Kansas is relatively constant with an average ENE (~N79ºE) orientation between 2014-2017. Our fast polarization measurements are primarily a reflection of the maximum principal horizontal stress direction (SHmax). We observe a slight spatial change in SHmax to the NE (~N55°E) near the Nemaha Ridge in Oklahoma. However, we do not observe any significant temporal rotation of SHmax or variation in delay time (i.e., crack density) in southern Kansas, contrary to the earlier study. The previously interpreted ~90º rotation may either be a reflection of a very local stress change or a misinterpretation of SWS results potentially due to the use of inconsistent source-receiver paths. Our SWS measurements cover the period of peak wastewater disposal and seismicity rates and suggest an absence of significant temporal rotations in the local anisotropy and stress orientations associated with wastewater disposal.

Kansas↗
USGS2021

Why do my squiggles look funny? A gallery of compromised seismic signals

Seismic instruments are highly sensitive and capable of recording a large range of different Earth signals. The high sensitivity of these instruments also makes them prone to various failures. Although many failures are very obvious, such as a dead channel, there are other more subtle failures that easily go unnoticed by both network operators and data users. This work documents several different types of failure modes in which the instrument is no longer faithfully recording ground‐motion data. Although some of these failure modes make the data completely unusable, there are also a number of failures in which the data can still be used for certain applications. Of course, the ideal situation is to identify as soon as possible when data become compromised and to have the network operator fix the station. However, knowing how the data became compromised can also help data users to identify if the data can still be used for their particular application. This work in no way attempts to exhaustively document recording failures but rather to communicate examples and equip the reader with ways of identifying failure modes.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Relational database for horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios

Frequency‐dependent horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios (HVSRs) of Fourier amplitudes from three‐component recordings can provide useful information for site response modeling. However, such information is not incorporated into most ground‐motion models, including those from Next‐Generation Attenuation projects, which instead use the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠ V S "> V S VS ⁠ ) in the upper 30 m of the site and sediment depth terms. To facilitate utilization of HVSR, we developed a publicly accessible relational database. This database is adapted from a similar repository for V S "> V S VS data and provides microtremor‐based HVSR data (mHVSR) and supporting metadata, but not parameters derived from the data. Users can interact with the data directly within a web portal that contains a graphical user interface (GUI) or through external tools that perform cloud‐based computations. Within the database GUI, the median horizontal‐component mHVSR can be plotted against frequency, with the mean and mean ± one standard deviation (representing variability across time windows) provided. Using external interactive tools (provided as a Jupyter Notebook and an R script), users can replot mHVSR (as in the database) or create polar plots. These tools can also derive parameters of potential interest for modeling purposes, including a binary variable indicating whether an mHVSR plot contains peaks, as well as the fitted properties of those peaks (frequencies, amplitudes, and widths). Metadata are also accessible, which includes site location, details about the instruments used to make the measurements, and data processing information related to windowing, antitrigger routines, and filtering.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

When Punjab cried wolf: How a rumor triggered an “earthquake” in India

In recent years, earthquake felt reports contributed via online systems have provided increasingly valuable sources of data to characterize earthquakes and their effects. Contributed felt reports are accompanied by increases in website traffic, which are themselves potentially useful for the early detection of seismic events. In February 2017 the European‐Mediterranean Seismic Centre detected an unusual surge in traffic from the Punjab region in northwestern India, although no nearby seismic event was detected instrumentally. Had crowdsourcing detected a felt earthquake that instruments had missed? Or did Punjab cry wolf? In this Earthquake Lites report, we describe the sleuthing endeavor undertaken to find an answer.

Punjab↗
USGS2021

Reply to “comment on ‘which earthquake accounts matter?’ by Susan E. Hough and Stacey S. Martin” by David J. Wald

We thank David Wald ( Wald, 2021 ; henceforth, W21) for his interest in our recent article ( Hough and Martin, 2021 ; henceforth, HM21). Although different perspectives are vital in science, we are concerned that W21 misrepresents HM21 as an oblique criticism of the U.S. Geological Survey “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system, calling for HM21 to be retracted. Readers who are interested in the issues raised by HM21 and the statements made by us therein are referred to that article. In this brief reply, we respond to specific accusations made by W21 and return to the focus of HM21, calling attention to the extent to which macroseismic data sets and inferences drawn from them can be shaped by a lack of representation among individuals whose observations are available to science. HM21 never questioned the benefits of the community science DYFI project to science. HM21 noted, however, and we reiterate here, that community science also potentially benefits the community. Whether or not it matters for science, if participation in community science projects is unrepresentative across socioeconomic groups, it underscores the need for the scientific community to be proactive in its efforts to reach out to groups that have been underserved by current outreach and education programs. We appreciate this opportunity to continue the important conversation about representation.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

The 6 May 1947 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, earthquake

The State of Wisconsin is not known for earthquake activity. The authoritative public‐facing U.S. Geological Survey Comprehensive Catalog of earthquakes includes only three small (magnitude < 2) earthquakes in the state, all instrumentally recorded. Although other catalogs include more events in Wisconsin, experience has shown that many types of events, such as explosions and cryoseisms, have made their way into earthquake catalogs in this region. In this short report, I summarize available information about an earthquake that was felt in eastern Wisconsin at 15:27 local time on 6 May 1947. As what appears to be the largest historical earthquake in the State of Wisconsin, it is of public interest, its modest size notwithstanding. It appears that no useful instrumental records exist, due in part to a teleseismic event that occurred approximately 3 min later, generating surface waves that were recorded on early long‐period instruments in the region. Instrumental data may exist for this event but have not been found. Comparing the felt area with information from recent earthquakes in the region, I estimate an intensity magnitude of 3.8 for the event, with a subjectively estimated uncertainty range 3.5–4.1. Relatively strong effects, including reports of broken dishes in Milwaukee, and shaking described as short but especially sharp, suggest that the event may have been among the sprinkling of shallow earthquakes now known to occur in the upper Great Lakes region.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2021

SSA task force on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Toward a changing, inclusive future in earthquake science

In the United States, a wide variety of studies show that the geoscience community does not reflect the broader societal makeup (e.g., Velasco and Jaurrieta de Velasco, 2010; Dutt, 2020; Howley, 2020). In fact, only about 10% of all Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Ph.D. degrees are awarded to people of color, although they represent more than a third of the population (Dutt, 2020). These numbers have changed little over the past 40 yr (e.g., Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; Dutt, 2020). Recent events in the United States have again raised awareness of this discrepancy in many fields; similar divergences may be present throughout the world. This discrepancy represents a tremendous loss of talent and contributes to ongoing bias and racism. As the premier international seismological professional society, Seismological Society of America (SSA) is committed, as stated in its ethics policy, to “freedom and transparency in research and education, which should be conducted in a supportive, inclusive, and respectful environment, free from any discrimination, harassment or bullying.” SSA convened the SSA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Task Force to identify specific and actionable recommendations that the Society can take to start to address the significant issues surrounding the systematic underrepresentation in seismology and related geosciences by marginalized groups on both short- and long- term time horizons. This report, written by the Task Force, outlines actionable items that SSA can undertake as well as a framework by which progress can be measured to help guide the Society and its members forward as a community to make earthquake science more just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive. We recognize that this document cannot address the multiple individual, cultural, and historical barriers that some members may face (e.g., Núñez et al., 2020), nor can it reflect all possibilities or all recommended practices (e.g., Ali et al., 2021). What this document does represent, however, is the beginning of what we hope to be a significant cultural change in how we conduct earthquake science as an organization, not the end of this process as the Task Force fulfills its charter. As a note, some of the recommendations that the Task Force has outlined here have already been implemented within SSA or are actively being considered. For completeness, we still include them here because this highlights the commitment to change that SSA leadership has embraced.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2021

Modeling seismic network detection thresholds using production picking algorithms

Estimating the detection threshold of a seismic network (the minimum magnitude earthquake that can be reliably located) is a critical part of network design and can drive network maintenance efforts. The ability of a station to detect an earthquake is often estimated by assuming the spectral amplitude for an earthquake of a given size, assuming an attenuation relationship, and comparing the predicted amplitude with the average station background noise level. This approach has significant uncertainty because of unknown regional attenuation and complications in computing small event power spectra, and it fails to account for the specific capabilities of the automatic seismic phase picker used in monitoring. We develop a data‐driven approach to determine network detection thresholds using a multiband phase picking algorithm that is currently in use at the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center. We apply this picking algorithm to cataloged earthquakes to determine an empirical relationship of the observability of earthquakes as a function of magnitude and distance. Using this relationship, we produce maps of detection threshold using station spatial configuration and station noise levels. We show that quiet, well‐sited stations significantly increase the detection capabilities of a network compared with a network composed of many noisy stations. Because our method is data driven, it has two distinct advantages: (1) it is less dependent on theoretical assumptions of source spectra and models of regional attenuation, and (2) it can easily be applied to any seismic network. This tool allows for an objective approach to the management of stations in regional seismic networks.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2022

Prospective and retrospective evaluation of the U.S. Geological Survey public aftershock forecast for the 2019-2021 Southwest Puerto Rico Earthquake and aftershocks

The M w "> M w 6.4 Southwest Puerto Rico Earthquake of 7 January 2020 was accompanied by a robust fore‐ and aftershock sequence. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has issued regular aftershock forecasts for more than a year since the mainshock, available on a public webpage. Forecasts were accompanied by interpretive and informational material, published in English and Spanish. Informational products included narrative “scenarios” for how the aftershock sequence could play out, infographics, and a report on the potential duration of the aftershock sequence through the next decade. Forecasts are based on the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model and generated using the USGS AftershockForecaster software—an interactive graphical user interface built on the OpenSHA platform ( Field et al. , 2003 ). The initial forecast is based on past sequences in similar tectonic environments; subsequent forecasts are tuned to the ongoing sequence via Bayesian model updating. Probabilistic aftershock forecasts for the next day, week, month, and year were publicly released and archived at a daily to monthly tempo, allowing for a truly prospective test of the forecast. Here, we evaluate the forecast over the first year of the recorded aftershocks. The ETAS‐based forecast performed well overall, successfully capturing both the chance of having at least one earthquake of a given magnitude in a forecast interval as well as the non‐Poissonian distribution of the total number of aftershocks within an interval. A retrospective analysis shows that the ETAS model is a substantial improvement over the existing Reasenberg and Jones (1989) forecast model. The exercise also reveals some limitations of the current model, in particular, with respect to nonstationarities in the aftershock magnitude distribution and model parameters throughout the evolving sequence.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS2021

An evaluation of the timing accuracy of global and regional seismic stations and networks

Clock accuracy is a basic parameter of any seismic station and has become increasingly important for seismology as the community seeks to refine structures and dynamic processes of the Earth. In this study, we measure the arrival time differences of moderate repeating earthquakes with magnitude 5.0–5.9 in the time range of 1991–2017 at the same seismic stations by cross‐correlating their highly similar waveforms and thereby identify potential timing errors from the outliers of the measurements. The method has very high precision of about 10 ms and shows great potential to be used for routine inspection of the timing accuracy of historical and future digital seismic data. Here, we report 5131 probable cases of timing errors from 451 global and regional stations available from the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center, ranging from several tens of milliseconds to over 10 s. Clock accuracy seems to be a prevailing problem in permanent stations with long‐running histories. Although most of the timing errors have already been tagged with low timing quality, there are quite a few exceptions, which call for greater attention from network operators and the seismological community. In addition, seismic studies, especially those on temporal changes of the Earth’s media from absolute arrival times, should be careful to avoid misinterpreting timing errors as temporal changes, which is indeed a problem in some previous studies of the Earth’s inner core boundary.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2022

Ground failure triggered by the 7 January 2020 M6.4 Puerto Rico earthquake

The 7 January 2020 M 6.4 Puerto Rico earthquake, the mainshock of an extended earthquake sequence, triggered significant ground failure. In this study, we detail the ground failure that occurred based largely on a postearthquake field reconnaissance campaign that we conducted. We documented more than 300 landslides, mainly rock falls that were concentrated in areas where peak ground acceleration (PGA) exceeded 30% g ; sparse smaller landslides occurred in highly susceptible areas more than 50 km from the epicenter and at PGA values <10% g . Though some of the largest mass movements were in natural slopes, rock falls in road cuts had more impact because they caused widespread transportation disruption. Some structures also were damaged by landslides, but no landslide‐related fatalities were reported. Liquefaction and related lateral spreading were severe in some areas, causing damage to residential and commercial structures and a power plant. Most of the liquefaction occurred in coastal areas where shaking exceeded 50% g , though some of the most damaging instances were in Ponce, where shaking estimates were as low as 20% g . In this article, we summarize the most notable ground failures and detail the overall patterns that we observed. The observations and compiled inventory datasets presented here are valuable because no island‐wide hazard maps for earthquake‐triggered landslides or liquefaction have been developed for Puerto Rico, and postevent inventories are vital for such an effort. In general, the datasets presented here contribute to a global understanding of coseismic ground‐failure hazard by presenting detailed observations for a relatively moderate ground‐failure event with well‐constrained shaking estimates; current models and expectations are biased by the tendency to collect detailed datasets mainly for exceptional events.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS2021

Seismotectonic analysis of the 2019–2020 Puerto Rico sequence: The value of absolute earthquake relocations in improved interpretations of active tectonics

We present a new catalog of calibrated earthquake relocations from the 2019–2020 Puerto Rico earthquake sequence related to the 7 January 2020 M w 6.4 earthquake that occurred offshore of southwest Puerto Rico at a depth of 15.9 km. Utilizing these relocated earthquakes and associated moment tensor solutions, we can delineate several distinct fault systems that were activated during the sequence and show that the M w 6.4 mainshock may have resulted from positive changes in Coulomb stress from earlier events. Seismicity and mechanisms define (1) a west–southwest (∼260°) zone of seismicity comprised of largely sinistral strike‐slip and oblique‐slip earthquakes that mostly occurs later in the sequence and to the west of the mainshock, (2) an area of extensional faulting that includes the mainshock and occurs largely within the mainshock’s rupture area, and (3) an north–northeast (∼30°)‐striking zone of seismicity, consisting primarily of dextral strike‐slip events that occurs before and following the mainshock and generally above (shallower than) the normal‐faulting events. These linear features intersect within the M w 6.4 mainshock’s fault plane in southwest Puerto Rico. In addition, we show that earthquake relocations for M 4+ normal‐faulting events, when traced along their fault planes, daylight along east–west‐trending bathymetric features offshore of southwest Puerto Rico. Correlation of these normal‐faulting events with bathymetric features suggests an active fault system that may be a contributor to previously uncharacterized seismic hazards in southwest Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico↗