Last updated October 4th, 2019
- 07 Feb 2019 08:41:24 PDT, (34.703, -116.287), depth 1.6km, 12km W of Ludlow, California
- Aftershocks: so far (17 May 2019, 08:43AM PDT) there have been 81 aftershocks recorded, the largest M4.0 (smallest M0.4). More may be expected in the next few days, the largest expected is approximately 1 magnitude unit smaller than the mainshock. There is a small chance (about 5%) that a larger quake could occur, with the likelihood decreasing over time.
- There were 13 events during the 3 days prior to the earthquake (within a 10 km radius), the largest was M3.2 (2019/02/07).
- Historical seismicity: since our records began in 1932 we’ve had 62 events of M4 or greater within 10km of today’s event, the largest was M7.1 (1999/10/16) and the most recent was M4.1 on 23 Feb 2016.
- CFM fault associations: most likely Hector Mine rupture dipping (91.6%). Alternates: Not associated with a CFM modeled fault (7.9%), Other CFM faults (0.5%).*
- Nearby faults: Unnamed fault east of Pisgah (5.1 km), Lavic Lake fault zone (Lavic Lake fault) (5.8 km), Pisgah-Bullion fault zone, Pisgah section (Pisgah fault) (9.8 km), Lavic Lake fault zone (10.5 km), Ludlow fault (11.1 km) and Pisgah-Bullion fault zone, Bullion section (Bullion fault) (12.9 km).**
- Links for: USGS earthquake page, ShakeMap, DYFI, waveforms.
- Visit our special reports page for further information on local notable earthquakes.
*Earthquakes can occur both near or on major known faults, and in places where no clear fault zones are known. Using the statistical method of Evans et al. (in prep. 2019) the location and focal mechanism of this earthquake suggest the above association with modeled faults in the Community Fault Model (CFM) provided by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) and Harvard University. Note that the CFM fault association may be different from the nearby faults list. Differences may arise due to different fault databases, and because the CFM fault association uses the hypocenter with relation to subsurface 3-dimensional fault orientation models, while the nearby faults list utilizes mapped surface traces as they relate to the epicenter.
CFM Fault: SCEC CFM 5.0 Fault name and closest segment if available; The CFM is maintained by Harvard University, Dept of Earth & Planetary Sciences.
Probability: The probability in percent the earthquake is associated with this fault.
SCSN: Caltech/USGS Southern California Seismic Network
**U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, accessed 2015, from USGS web site: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/
This information is subject to change as more up-to-date data become available.
