Geology topics

Peter M. Powers

Publications and source records attributed to Peter M. Powers.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Evaluating the U.S. Geological Survey’s earthquake shaking hazard forecasts and their implications on seismic risk

We analyze the last six update cycles of the long-term probabilistic earthquake shaking hazard forecast from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and discuss the changes in hazard estimates from the 1996 to the latest 2023 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous U.S. We summarize how our understanding of earthquake hazards has evolved over the last two decades and quantify the implications of changing hazards on people, buildings, and lifeline infrastructure. The net effect of changes in hazard estimates, with reference to the mean hazard from the 2023 NSHM update that has 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, suggests an overall increase in total geographic areas facing very strong shaking levels (modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII or more) when compared with any of the previous cycles. This increase puts ~159.2 million people (an increase from 111.8 million when using the 2018 NSHM), ~47.3 million residential buildings (an increase from 32.5 million with the 2018 NSHM), and ~$25.6 trillion of economic exposure of all buildings (an increase from $17.4 trillion when using the 2018 NSHM) at risk from earthquakes. We demonstrate that small changes in hazard estimates do not necessarily imply small changes in risk estimates. Therefore, changes in risk estimates can be used to highlight key USGS NSHM updates for improving risk mitigation efforts.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

USGS2026

2025 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overview of model and hazard results

The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The first version of the PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and therefore this 2025 update includes over 20 years of new geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, methods, and models. Updates follow similar efforts performed in the recent 2023 50-state NSHM. However, this is the first NSHM in which we: (1) apply an inversion methodology to subduction interface fault sources in the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) model; (2) develop scaled backbone median ground-motion models and independent aleatory variability models that are applied in the ground-motion characterization (GMC) model; and (3) calculate epistemic uncertainty related to alternative scenarios in the ERF and GMC models for all grid points in the study region. Long-term time-independent mean hazard calculations were performed for peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration at 21 spectral periods from 0.01- to 10.0-s, for eight National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site conditions ranging from V S30 = 150 to 1500 m/s, and for 2%, 5%, and 10% in 50-year probabilities of exceedance (return periods of 2475, 975, and 475 years, respectively). Epistemic uncertainty, in the form of selected percentiles, is also provided for a suite of test sites and all grid points in the study region for limited periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. Selected results, including comparisons with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, are shown and discussed for selected periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. When comparing the 2025 PRVI NSHM with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, hazard is generally higher at shorter periods and lower at longer periods, as a result of updates in both ERF and GMC models. The 2025 PRVI NSHM is applicable for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

Ground-motion characterization for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

We develop the ground-motion characterization (GMC) for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NSHM-PRVI) for earthquakes in active crustal, subduction interface, and subduction intraslab regimes. Using ground-motion models (GMMs) from the Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 and NGA-Subduction projects, the GMC is parameterized by scaled-backbone models for median ground motions and by independent logic trees of aleatory variability. We introduce several novel GMC features into the U.S. NSHM: (1) use of regional ground-motion data for modeling median ground motions; (2) development of scaled-backbone models for median ground motions; and (3) development of independent logic trees of aleatory variability from variance components of GMMs and computed from multiple ground-motion datasets, and incorporating regional ground-motion data effects on variability. We compute probabilistic seismic hazard curves and maps to evaluate the contributions from the GMC components and for comparison with the 2003 GMC. Contributions of the GMC to epistemic uncertainty in seismic hazard are evaluated through spatial variations in epistemic uncertainty in hazard maps, comparisons between mean hazard curves and fractiles, as well as investigations of the contributions of logic-tree branches to hazard maps and curves. Comparisons between seismic hazard from the 2025 and 2003 GMCs allow examination of the changes in hazard curves and mapped values with 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. The 2025 GMC exhibits modest changes in median predictions, relative to the 2003 GMC; overall, values of aleatory variability are higher, except at long periods ( ), resulting in changes to probabilistic ground motions at low probabilities of exceedance (<10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Changes in hazard at 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years are also relatively modest (within 20%) at most sites, with the impacts from the 2025 GMC exhibiting minor reductions and increases at 0.2 and 1.0 s periods, respectively, relative to the 2003 GMC.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

The 2025 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model Update: Ground motion model selection and comparison

We evaluate, select, and describe the ground-motion models (GMMs) used in the 2025 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). We identify the most appropriate models that align with GMM selection criteria for use in the PRVI region to improve the accuracy of seismic hazard assessments. The update incorporates globally applicable GMMs suited for the active crustal and subduction earthquakes in the region. We include region-specific adjustments to these GMMs derived from local site response analyses derived from ground motion records. The unadjusted and regionally-corrected GMMs are combined to create a robust model for predicting median ground motion. The model integrates epistemic uncertainty through a median ground motion logic tree that accounts for variations in magnitude and distance. This study compares the GMMs selected for the 2025 PRVI NSHM, including both as-provided and regionally adjusted NGA-West2 and NGA-Subduction models, with those used in the 2003 PRVI NSHM. We evaluate how changes in model selection, weighting, aleatory variability, and epistemic uncertainty influence seismic hazard estimates. Trends with distance, magnitude, and spectral period are analyzed to evaluate how the scaling behavior of the newer GMMs differs from that of earlier models. Relative to the GMMs used in the 2003 NSHM for this region, the 2025 models generally predict lower ground motions. Comparisons with additional GMMs indicate that the adjustments applied for PRVI are consistent with regional-specific modifications developed elsewhere globally. The increase in aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty in the 2025 update results in a notable increase in hazard levels from these wider uncertainty bounds. These changes can result in as much as a 10%–20% variation in probabilistic ground motion at the 2% in 50 years exceedance level for hazard maps computed across the region for representative site classes and periods.

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

Subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool: Implementation in the USGS 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically releases updates to National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the United States and its territories leveraging current scientific knowledge and methodologies to guide public policy, building codes, and risk assessments regarding potential ground shaking due to earthquakes that may result in infrastructure damage. In subduction zones, there is a need to separate the earthquake catalog into tectonic regimes to create specific seismicity models for which the most appropriate ground‐motion models are then applied. Here, we describe newly developed methods and software, called CatSep, that classifies subduction zone events into three primary tectonic regimes: crustal, interface, and intraslab. This method incorporates information about the location of the earthquake relative to the subducting slab, the depth of the Mohorovičić discontinuity, and the earthquake’s moment tensor. Applying this method is a first step in the NSHM workflow for regions covering U.S. subduction zones. Results using this subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands NSHM earthquake catalog are presented and analyzed.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2024

An Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone interface earthquake recurrence model from geology and geodesy

We present an earthquake recurrence model for the subduction interface of the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone from geodetic and paleoseismic data. To capture variations in rupture behavior along strike, we define fault sections based on geodetic coupling, prehistoric earthquake and tsunami recurrence, historical ruptures, and geologic and geophysical structure. In the 1964 M w 9.2 rupture area, which spans four fault sections, recurrence rates for section participation in presumed great ( M w 8.5+) events vary from ∼600 years (Prince William Sound section) to ∼380 years (Kodiak section), geodetic character varies substantially along strike, and geologic evidence indicates that rupture patches vary in space and time. Westward along the Semidi section, the recurrence of large, tsunamigenic ruptures is more frequent (∼220 years) based on geologic and geodetic data than previously assumed. The seismic potential of the Shumagin section, an area of low coupling, remains enigmatic despite a large ( M w 7.8) rupture in 2020. Prehistoric tsunami data indicate that inundation recurrence in the Fox Islands is ∼210 years. Paleoseismic data are lacking west of the Fox Islands, so rupture rates along the western 1900 km of the subduction interface to Komandorski are inferred from geodetic constraints.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Updating the crustal fault model for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model for Alaska

We present the crustal fault model for Alaska, based on geologic observations, as a primary input for the 2023 revision of the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model. We update the 2013 Alaska Quaternary fault and fold database to produce a simplified model of 105 fault sections and four fault zone polygons with basic geologic parameters including slip sense and rate. Significant updates include the following: (1) a slip rate of ∼53 mm/year on the Queen Charlotte Fault indicating it accommodates all of the plate boundary motion; (2) quantified slip rates on megathrust splay faults in the southern Prince William Sound region and near Kodiak Island; (3) improved details of structures in the Chugach-St. Elias orogen; (4) revision of the Castle Mountain Fault from right-lateral slip to a predominantly reverse fault; (5) improved Interior Alaska tectonic models that clarify relationships between the Denali, Totschunda, and thrust faults on both sides of the Alaska Range; (6) identified large earthquake sources in the eastern Brooks Range; and (7) omission of the Chatham Strait section of the Denali Fault. The fault model underscores that the collision of the Yakutat microplate is the dominant driver of active crustal faulting in most of Alaska.

Alaska, Yukon↗

USGS2024

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 (ERF) and ground motion models (GMMs). The ERF includes numerous additions to the finite-fault model, considers two deformation models, and introduces updated declustering and smoothing algorithms in the gridded background seismicity model. For the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone, megathrust earthquakes occur on an updated structural and segmentation model, and the moment magnitude (M) 8+ rupture and rate model include a logic tree branch that considers slip rates derived from geodetic models of interface coupling. The megathrust model considers multiple models of down-dip width, and magnitudes are computed using newly developed scaling relations. For subduction intraslab events and subduction interface events with M < 7, the 2023 update uses a smoothed seismicity model with rupture depths derived from Slab2. The 2023 model updates GMMs in all tectonic settings using the recently published Next Generation Attenuation Subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs for subduction interface and intraslab events, and the NGA-West2 GMMs for active crustal settings. Collectively, additions and updates to the Alaska NSHM result in hazard increases across most of south-central Alaska relative to the previous model, published in 2007. These changes are primarily due to the adoption of updated rate models for the large-magnitude interface events and the NGA-Sub GMMs that have much higher aleatory variability (sigma), consistent with global observations, and that include models of epistemic uncertainty.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

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, the subduction zone GMMs were largely unchanged. With the recent development of the next generation attenuation-subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs, and recent progress in the utilization of “M9” Cascadia earthquake simulations, we now have access to improved models of ground shaking in the US subduction zones and the Seattle basin. The new NGA-Sub GMMs support multi-period response spectra calculations. They provide global models and regional terms specific to Cascadia and terms that account for deep-basin effects. This article focuses on the updates to subduction GMMs for implementation in the 2023 NSHM and compares them to the GMMs of previous NSHMs. Individual subduction GMMs, their weighted averages, and their impact on the estimated mean hazard relative to the 2018 NSHM are discussed. The updated logic trees include three of the new NGA-Sub GMMs and retain two older models to represent epistemic uncertainty in both the median and standard deviation of ground-shaking intensities at all periods of interest. Epistemic uncertainty is further represented by a three-point logic tree for the NGA-Sub median models. Finally, in the Seattle region, basin amplification factors are adjusted at long periods based on the state-of-the-art M9 Cascadia earthquake simulations. The new models increase the estimated mean hazard values at short periods and short source-to-site distances for interface earthquakes, but decrease them otherwise, relative to the 2018 NSHM. On softer soils, the new models cause decreases to the estimated mean hazard for long periods in the Puget Lowlands basin but increases within the deep Seattle portion of this basin for short periods relative to the 2018 NSHM.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model

Several rupture directivity models (DMs) have been developed in recent years to describe the near-source spatial variations in ground motion amplitudes related to propagation of rupture along the fault. We recently organized an effort towards incorporating these directivity effects into the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), by first evaluating the community's work and potential methods to implement directivity adjustments into probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Guided by this evaluation and comparison among the considered DMs, we selected an approach that can be readily implemented into the USGS hazard software, that provides an azimuthally varying adjustment to the median ground motion and its aleatory variability. This method allows assessment of the impact on hazard levels and provides a platform to test the DM amplification predictions using a generalized coordinate system, necessary for consistent calculation of source-to-site distance terms for complex ruptures. We give examples of the directivity-related impact on hazard, progressing from a simple, hypothetical rupture, to more complex fault systems, composed of multiple rupture segments and sources. The directivity adjustments were constrained to strike-slip faulting, where DMs have good agreement. We find that rupture directivity adjustments using a simple median and aleatory adjustment approach can impact hazard both from a site perspective and on a regional scale, increasing shaking off the end of the fault trace up to 30--40\% and potentially reducing it for sites along strike. Statewide hazard maps of California show that the change in shaking along major faults can be a factor to consider for assessing long-period (>ls) near-source effects within the USGS NSHM going forward, reaching up to 10--20\%. Finally, we suggest consideration of minimum parameter ranges and baseline requirements as future DMs are developed to minimize single approach adaptations, to enable more consistent application within both ground motion and hazard studies.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

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 shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2 , and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2024

Earthquake rupture forecast model construction for the 2023 U.S. 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model Update: Central and eastern U.S. fault‐based source model

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2023 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), we make modest revisions and additions to the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) fault‐based seismic source model that result in locally substantial hazard changes. The CEUS fault‐based source model was last updated as part of the 2014 NSHM and considered new information from the Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS‐SSCn) Project. Since then, new geologic investigations have led to revised fault and fault‐zone inputs, and the release of databases of fault‐based sources in the CEUS. We have reviewed these databases and made minor revisions to six of the current fault‐based sources in the NSHM, as well as added five new fault‐based sources. Implementation of these sources follows the current NSHM methodology for CEUS fault‐based sources, as well as the incorporation of a new magnitude–area relationship and updated maximum magnitude and recurrence rate estimates following the methods used by the CEUS‐SSCn Project. Seismic hazard sensitivity calculations show some substantial local changes in hazard (−0.4 g to 1.1 g ) due to some of these revisions and additions, especially from the addition of the central Virginia, Joiner ridge, and Saline River sources and revisions made to the Meers and New Madrid sources.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

Framework for implementing damping scaling factors in U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models

Traditionally, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has focused on calculating ground motion hazard curves for elastic, 5%-damped pseudo spectral accelerations, Sa(T,5%), which are used as the basis for engineering design parameters and targets for ground motion selection and modification. However, structures and geotechnical systems can exhibit a wide range of damping ratios both above and below the 5% level, depending on the construction material, structural system, nonstructural elements, or subsurface soil properties. When spectral parameters at such damping levels are required for certain applications, 5%-damped accelerations have traditionally been extracted from PSHA-based hazard curves and adjusted outside of the hazard integral using damping scaling factors (DSF) such as those from Newmark & Hall (1982). Recent advances in the development of more rigorous and comprehensive damping scaling models (e.g., Rezaeian et al., 2014; Rezaeian et al., 2021) have allowed for the modeling of means and standard deviations of DSFs as functions of earthquake source and path properties for crustal, intraslab, and subduction interface tectonic environments. These DSF models can be applied to ground motion model (GMM) estimates of Sa(T,5%) for a given earthquake rupture scenario to produce a corresponding mean and standard deviation Sa at a specified damping ratio β, Sa(T,β). In this study, the DSF models of Rezaeian et al. (2014) and Rezaeian et al. (2021) are implemented within the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) PSHA framework to calculate probabilistic hazard curves for spectral accelerations at damping ratios from 0.5% to 30%. The DSF models are applied directly to the mean and standard deviation of Sa(T,5%) predictions from each GMM in the NSHM logic tree. Resulting hazard curves and uniform hazard and risk spectra for Sa(T,β) are presented for several geographic locations and compared with corresponding spectra estimated using current design practices by applying the same DSFs outside of the PSHA calculation. Key differences between the two methods for estimating Sa(T,β) are discussed, and potential strategies are presented for the implementation and usage of the hazard-consistent Sa(T,β) in building codes. Comparing the results to those from DSFs used in current design practices that are mainly based on Newmark & Hall (1982) is not explored in this study.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

The 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model: Changes in 2023 compared to 2018 ground motions

We present the 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for all 50 states that applies new smoothed seismicity, fault rupture, and ground motion models. New data and methods are introduced in the 2023 earthquake rupture forecast that include: new earthquake catalogs - excluding induced earthquakes, alternative declustering methods, spatially smoothed seismicity distributions, full-catalog scaled rates to account for aftershocks, updated CEUS-WUS attenuation boundary, new magnitude-scaling equations, new geodetic and geologic deformation models, and alternative fault system solutions accounting for a more complete representation of epistemic uncertainty potential for earthquake generation in Alaska, Hawaii, and the conterminous U.S. Improved ground motion models consider new Next Generation Attenuation NGASubduction, modified NGA-East, and adjustments to account for regional biases in ground shaking observations. Semi-empirical and 3D simulations of ground motion are applied to account for shaking at 21 oscillator periods, 2 peak motions, and 8 site conditions. Site effects models are constructed for western U.S. basins (Seattle, Portland/Tualatin, San Francisco, Central Valley of California, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City) and for sites with deep sedimentary wedges found across the central and eastern U.S. Gulf Coast and Atlantic coastal plain regions. These models result in substantial changes compared to the older NSHMs and are differentiated for the earthquake rupture forecast and ground motion model changes to display sensitivities and impacts.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2023

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2023

The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast for the conterminous United States, which gives authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time‐averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes throughout the region. In addition to updating virtually all model components, a major focus has been to provide a better representation of epistemic uncertainties. For example, we have improved the representation of multifault ruptures, both in terms of allowing more and less fault connectivity than in the previous models, and in sweeping over a broader range of viable models. An unprecedented level of diagnostic information has been provided for assessing the model, and the development was overseen by a 19‐member participatory review panel. Although we believe the new model embodies significant improvements and represents the best available science, we also discuss potential model limitations, including the applicability of logic tree branch weights with respect different types of hazard and risk metrics. Future improvements are also discussed, with deformation model enhancements being particularly worthy of pursuit, as well as better representation of sampling errors in the gridded seismicity components. We also plan to add time‐dependent components, and assess implications with a wider range of hazard and risk metrics.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2023

Magnitude conversion and earthquake recurrence rate models for the central and eastern United States

Development of Seismic Source Characterization (SSC) models, which is an essential part of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA), can help forecast the temporal and spatial distribution of future damaging earthquakes (𝑀 w ≥ 5) in seismically active regions. Because it is impossible to associate all earthquakes with known faults, seismic source models for PSHA often include sources of diffuse seismicity in which future earthquake scenarios are not localized on mapped faults. These sources of diffuse seismicity are referred to as area source zones, distributed seismicity zones, or just source zones. During the early years of PSHA studies, it was assumed that earthquakes in seismotectonic zones have (1) uniform spatial distribution, (2) Poisson temporal distribution, and (3) exponential magnitude distribution (NRC, 2012). In seismically active regions (e.g., the Western United States), where active faults are readily identified, models of the spatial distribution of earthquakes include both the fault source geometries and the distributed seismicity (background) source zones. Source characterization of active faults is complemented by paleoseismic studies with estimates of earthquake magnitudes, dates of occurrences, and slip rates, which provide important information for PSHA studies. In the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) very few Quaternary-active faults have the requisite information for use in PSHA (i.e., fault geometry and dimensions, event rates or slip rates, etc.), and we lack knowledge about the causative faults for most observed seismicity in the region. As a result, area source zones are frequently used in site-specific PSHA in the CEUS to represent diffuse seismicity that cannot be associated with faults. However, there are examples of active fault sources in the CEUS, such as the Meers fault, the Cheraw fault, and New Madrid region, where individual faults can be characterized. The source characterization models for background seismicity are based, to a large extent, on an assumption that spatial distribution of historical and recorded seismicity will not change substantially for time periods of interest for PSHA (approximately the next 50-100 years for engineered structures). Furthermore, studies such as those by Kafka (2007, 2009) found a correlation between the locations of small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes and the locations of large-magnitude earthquakes, indicating that we can, with some level of confidence, use the spatial pattern of smaller earthquakes to forecast the future pattern of damaging earthquakes. Within background seismicity zones, the earthquake rate forecast is developed using spatial smoothing of the small to moderate magnitude events in earthquake catalogs. Different methodologies are used for this purpose and can predict varying distributions of seismicity rates. This in turn affects the results of a seismic hazard analysis. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) use different methods for computing spatially smoothed seismicity rates in the CEUS; the USGS uses kernel-based spatial smoothing methods in developing the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), and the method adopted in the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) project is used when evaluating seismic hazard for nuclear power plant siting. These methods are described and the impact on seismic hazard are evaluated in this Research Information Letter (RIL). Another important input to estimating the rate of distributed seismicity is event magnitudes listed in earthquake catalogs. A substantial source of uncertainty in catalogs is the magnitude assigned to a given earthquake. Numerous different magnitude types exist, with each magnitude type computed in a different way. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, both the CEUS-SSC and the USGS NSHM have attempted to assemble a complete catalog with a uniform magnitude determination. To this end, moment magnitude, 𝑀 w , which is a physics-based measurement, has been adopted as the standard. However, 𝑀 w was not computed routinely until the past few decades. To address this issue, the CEUS-SSC conducted extensive analyses to determine conversion equations from which to take a routinely computed network (e.g., 𝑀 L or 𝑚 bLg ) and convert it into 𝑀 w . Another issue with using 𝑀 w is that it becomes increasingly difficult to compute for earthquakes with 𝑀 less than ~4. This study investigates the effects of moment magnitude estimation and spatial smoothing methods on estimation of the earthquake rate forecast and on seismic hazard. We investigate the validity of the magnitude conversion equations and their associated uncertainties by applying them to a case study for induced earthquakes in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma, and summarize the use of the decay of the seismic coda to estimate 𝑀 w for small earthquakes (𝑀 w < 4. Furthermore, the study documents a comparison and assessment of background seismicity smoothing methods implemented by the USGS for the NSHM and used by the CEUS-SSC for siting nuclear facilities based on probabilistic seismic hazard estimates from multiple source zones in the CEUS and for multiple sites.

central and eastern United States↗