USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70283754

Panel review of the USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time-independent earthquake rupture forecast

Abstract

This report documents the assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF) Review Panel of the draft ERF for the conterminous United States (CONUS‐ERF23) proposed for the 2023 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23). Panel members participated with the ERF Development Team in several verification and validation exercises, including spot checks of the hazard estimates at key localities. The ERF23 forecast is substantially different from its predecessor, yielding relative differences in hazard that exceed ±50% in some low‐hazard areas. These stem primarily from the new model ingredients—new faults, revised deformation rates, and updated seismicity catalogs—rather than from changes in the modeling methodology. The panel found that the main hazard changes are scientifically justified at the long return periods (≥475 yr) for which NSHM23 is applicable. Based on its evaluation of the model, the panel offered six actionable recommendations for improvements to the draft ERF23 for the western United States and two for the Cascadia subduction zone. All eight recommendations were adopted by the USGS for the revised ERF, as documented by Field et al. (2023) . The panel concluded that CONUS‐ERF23 represents a significant scientific advance over ERF18 and should be incorporated, after suitable revision, into NSHM23. The panel also considered changes to the CONUS‐ERF that cannot be feasibly implemented in NSHM23 but could lead to future improvements. Among these aspirational recommendations, the panel prioritized the development of time‐dependent extensions of ERF23 that include models of seismic renewal and clustering. The panel endorsed USGS efforts to extend the NSHM to a national earthquake forecasting enterprise capable of continually updating and disseminating authoritative information about future earthquake occurrence through a well‐designed hazard‐risk interface. Operational earthquake forecasting will place new and heavy demands on USGS cyberinfrastructure, requiring a more integrated approach to software development and workflow management.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 25.08° to 49.38905° latitude; -124.68721° to -66.96466° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas H. Jordan, Norm A Abrahamson, John G. Anderson, Glenn Biasi, Kenneth W. Campbell, Timothy Dawson, Heather DeShon, Matthew Gerstenberger, Nick Gregor, Keith I. Kelson, Yajie Lee, Nico Luco, Warner Marzocchi, Badie Rowshandel, David P. Schwartz, Nilesh Shome, Gabriel Toro, Ray J. Weldon, Ivan Wong. 2023-12-22. Panel review of the USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time-independent earthquake rupture forecast. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230140

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗