This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by _n agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees; makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informatio., apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, marufacturcr, or otherwise dees not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors c×prcssed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of lhc United States Government or any agency thereof,-i-Ii , P' IPI' IpIl Ipl i, _e,' _1-ii-TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd) Figure Number Title area due to the general absence of suitable deposits over the Cape Fear Arch. (From Amiek et al., 1989) 6. Age of liquefaction features. Dates for both southern and northern outliers are shown as well as dates determined for large earthquakes occurring in the Charleston area. Dotted pattern denotes earthquake ages determined from multiple liquefaction :dtes. Striped pattern denotes earthquake ages based on dates from only one liquefaction site. Arrows indicate the probable occurrence of at least one older liquefaction episode in both the Charleston and northern areas. (From Amick et al., 1989.) 7. Relationship between seismic moment (Mo) and felt area (AO for stable continental regions (from Johnston, in prep.). 8. Relationship between seismic moment (Mo) and the area contained within the intensity IV isoseismal (Aw) (from Johnston, in prep.). 10. Relationship between rupture length and static stress drop for two proposed seismic moments for the 1886 Charleston earthquake, assuming the downdip rupture width is 20 km and using the formula cited in Nuttli (1983). 11. Linear regression of surface rupture length on moment magnitude for ali slip types (from Wells and Coppersmith, in prep.). The expected surface rupture length for Mw 7.5 is 94 km. 12. Linear regression of subsurface rupture length on moment magnitude for ali slip typ_t (from Wells and Coppe"smith, in prep.). The expected subsurface rupture length for Mw 7.5 is 104 km. 13_ Linear regression of rupture area on moment magnitude for ali slip types (fl'om Wells and Coppersmith, in prep.). The expected rupture area for Mw 7.5 is 2,018 km2.-iii-TABLE OF CON"IT_aNTS (cont'd) LIST OF FIGURF_ (cont'd) Figure Number 14, Relationship between surface rupture length and moment magnitude for interplate earthquakes and stable continental region (SCR) earthquakes (from Wells and Coppersmith, in prep.). 15. Relationship between subsurface rupture length and moment magnitude for interplate earthquakes and stable continental region (SCR) earthquakes (from Wells and Coppersmith, in prep.) 16. Relationship be...