James A Smith
James A Smith is a Geophysicist with the Earthquake Hazards Program.
Science and Products
Elevation data from Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River, Colorado, 2025 Elevation data from Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River, Colorado, 2025
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Colorado Springs Utilities, has been collecting topographic data annually since 2012 at 10 study areas along Fountain Creek, Colorado. The 10 study areas are located along Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo. This data release presents topographic survey data, Light...
Data Release for the 2023 U.S. 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model - Overview Data Release for the 2023 U.S. 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model - Overview
This data release contains data sets associated with the 2023 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model Update. The 2023 50-State National Seimsic Hazard Model (NSHM) Update includes an update to the NSHMs for the conterminous U.S (CONUS, last updated in 2018), Alaska (AK, last updated in 2007), and Hawaii (last updated in 2001). Data sets include inputs like seismicity catalogs used as...
Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks in the Cascade Range, Washington Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks in the Cascade Range, Washington
Since 1979 the Geothermal Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey has carried out a multidisciplinary research effort in the Cascade Range. The goal of this research is to understand the geology, tectonics, and hydrology of the Cascades in order to characterize and quantify geothermal resource potential. A major goal of the program is compilation of a comprehensive geologic map of...
Filter Total Items: 88
Spatial scale dependence of error in fractional component cover maps Spatial scale dependence of error in fractional component cover maps
Geospatial products such as fractional vegetation cover maps often report overall, pixel-wise accuracy, but decision-making with these products often occurs at coarser scales. As such, data users often desire guidance on the appropriate spatial scale to apply these data. We worked toward establishing this guidance by assessing RCMAP (Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and...
Authors
Matthew Rigge, Brett Bunde, Sarah McCord, Georgia Harrison, Timothy Assal, James Smith
Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey
We describe automated ground‐motion processing software named gmprocess that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in support of near‐real‐time earthquake hazard products. Because of the open‐source development process, this software has benefitted from the involvement and contributions of a broad community and has been used for a wider range of applications than was...
Authors
Eric Thompson, Mike Hearne, Brad Aagaard, J.M. Rekoske, Charles Worden, Morgan Moschetti, Heather Elizabeth Hunsinger, Gabe C. Ferragut, Grace Parker, James Smith, Kyle Ken Smith, Albert Kottke
The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model
US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast...
Authors
Peter Powers, Jason Altekruse, Andrea Llenos, Andrew Michael, Kirstie Haynie, Peter J. Haeussler, Adrian Bender, Sanaz Rezaeian, Morgan Moschetti, James Smith, Richard Briggs, Robert Witter, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Demi Girot, Julie Herrick, Allison Shumway, Mark Petersen
Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia
We evaluate Cascadia subduction ground-motion models (GMMs), considered for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) update, by comparing observations to model predictions. The observations comprise regional recordings from intraslab earthquakes, including contributions from 2021 and 2022 events in southern Cascadia and global records from interface earthquakes. Since the 2018...
Authors
James Smith, Morgan Moschetti, Eric Thompson
The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models
The US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used to calculate earthquake ground-shaking intensities for design and rehabilitation of structures in the United States. The most recent 2014 and 2018 versions of the NSHM for the conterminous United States included major updates to ground-motion models (GMMs) for active and stable crustal tectonic settings; however...
Authors
Sanaz Rezaeian, Peter Powers, Jason Altekruse, Sean Ahdi, Mark Petersen, Allison Shumway, Arthur Frankel, Erin Wirth, James Smith, Morgan Moschetti, Kyle Withers, Julie Herrick
The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States
We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for...
Authors
Morgan Moschetti, Brad Aagaard, Sean Ahdi, Jason Altekruse, Oliver Boyd, Arthur Frankel, Julie Herrick, Mark Petersen, Peter Powers, Sanaz Rezaeian, Allison Shumway, James Smith, William Stephenson, Eric Thompson, Kyle Withers
Non-USGS Publications**
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.
Science and Products
Elevation data from Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River, Colorado, 2025 Elevation data from Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek at the Arkansas River, Colorado, 2025
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Colorado Springs Utilities, has been collecting topographic data annually since 2012 at 10 study areas along Fountain Creek, Colorado. The 10 study areas are located along Fountain Creek between Colorado Springs and the confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River in Pueblo. This data release presents topographic survey data, Light...
Data Release for the 2023 U.S. 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model - Overview Data Release for the 2023 U.S. 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model - Overview
This data release contains data sets associated with the 2023 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model Update. The 2023 50-State National Seimsic Hazard Model (NSHM) Update includes an update to the NSHMs for the conterminous U.S (CONUS, last updated in 2018), Alaska (AK, last updated in 2007), and Hawaii (last updated in 2001). Data sets include inputs like seismicity catalogs used as...
Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks in the Cascade Range, Washington Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks in the Cascade Range, Washington
Since 1979 the Geothermal Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey has carried out a multidisciplinary research effort in the Cascade Range. The goal of this research is to understand the geology, tectonics, and hydrology of the Cascades in order to characterize and quantify geothermal resource potential. A major goal of the program is compilation of a comprehensive geologic map of...
Filter Total Items: 88
Spatial scale dependence of error in fractional component cover maps Spatial scale dependence of error in fractional component cover maps
Geospatial products such as fractional vegetation cover maps often report overall, pixel-wise accuracy, but decision-making with these products often occurs at coarser scales. As such, data users often desire guidance on the appropriate spatial scale to apply these data. We worked toward establishing this guidance by assessing RCMAP (Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and...
Authors
Matthew Rigge, Brett Bunde, Sarah McCord, Georgia Harrison, Timothy Assal, James Smith
Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey
We describe automated ground‐motion processing software named gmprocess that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in support of near‐real‐time earthquake hazard products. Because of the open‐source development process, this software has benefitted from the involvement and contributions of a broad community and has been used for a wider range of applications than was...
Authors
Eric Thompson, Mike Hearne, Brad Aagaard, J.M. Rekoske, Charles Worden, Morgan Moschetti, Heather Elizabeth Hunsinger, Gabe C. Ferragut, Grace Parker, James Smith, Kyle Ken Smith, Albert Kottke
The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model
US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast...
Authors
Peter Powers, Jason Altekruse, Andrea Llenos, Andrew Michael, Kirstie Haynie, Peter J. Haeussler, Adrian Bender, Sanaz Rezaeian, Morgan Moschetti, James Smith, Richard Briggs, Robert Witter, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Demi Girot, Julie Herrick, Allison Shumway, Mark Petersen
Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia
We evaluate Cascadia subduction ground-motion models (GMMs), considered for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) update, by comparing observations to model predictions. The observations comprise regional recordings from intraslab earthquakes, including contributions from 2021 and 2022 events in southern Cascadia and global records from interface earthquakes. Since the 2018...
Authors
James Smith, Morgan Moschetti, Eric Thompson
The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models
The US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used to calculate earthquake ground-shaking intensities for design and rehabilitation of structures in the United States. The most recent 2014 and 2018 versions of the NSHM for the conterminous United States included major updates to ground-motion models (GMMs) for active and stable crustal tectonic settings; however...
Authors
Sanaz Rezaeian, Peter Powers, Jason Altekruse, Sean Ahdi, Mark Petersen, Allison Shumway, Arthur Frankel, Erin Wirth, James Smith, Morgan Moschetti, Kyle Withers, Julie Herrick
The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States
We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for...
Authors
Morgan Moschetti, Brad Aagaard, Sean Ahdi, Jason Altekruse, Oliver Boyd, Arthur Frankel, Julie Herrick, Mark Petersen, Peter Powers, Sanaz Rezaeian, Allison Shumway, James Smith, William Stephenson, Eric Thompson, Kyle Withers
Non-USGS Publications**
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.