Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “earthquake hazards”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 901 records · Page 50Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Three-dimensional seismic velocity models for the San Francisco Bay region, California from joint body-wave and surface-wave tomography validated by waveform simulation

A high-resolution seismic velocity model for both P and S waves is essential for the San Francisco Bay (SFB) region to accurately simulate earthquake ground motions and assess seismic hazards in this high-risk region. We present new three-dimensional P-wave and S-wave velocity (Vp and Vs) models of the SFB region developed using joint tomographic inversion with a rich set of earthquake and active-source body-wave data and ambient-noise surface-wave data. We designed a dynamic balance strategy to effectively balance the contributions of body-wave and surface-wave data during each iteration of the inversion. Owing to the complementary resolution of body-wave and surface-wave data, our new models are significantly improved compared to previous tomographic models. Major geologic features in the SFB region, including low-velocity basins, high-velocity Franciscan Complex, granite, and gabbro rocks, and across-fault velocity contrasts, are imaged in our Vp and Vs models. Compared to the geology-based U.S. Geological Survey velocity model, our new model has better defined structures for some important areas that are of great concern for seismic hazard assessment, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the 2014 magnitude 6.0 South Napa earthquake area. We validated our model by simulating waveforms for a set of moderate-magnitude earthquakes. The good performance of our model in waveform simulation indicates its potential for improving ground motion simulation and seismic hazard assessment in the SFB region.

California↗
USGS2018

A flatfile of ground motion intensity measurements from induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

We have produced a uniformly processed database of orientation-independent (RotD50, RotD100) ground motion intensity measurements containing peak horizontal ground motions (accelerations and velocities) and 5-percent-damped pseudospectral accelerations (0.1–10 s) from more than 3,800 M ≥ 3 earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas that occurred between January 2009 and December 2016. Ground motion time series were collected from regional, national, and temporary seismic arrays out to 500 km. We relocated the majority of the earthquake hypocenters using a multiple-event relocation algorithm to produce a set of near-uniformly processed hypocentral locations. Ground motion processing followed standard methods, with the primary objective of reducing the effects of noise on the measurements. Regional wave-propagation features and the high seismicity rate required careful selection of signal windows to ensure that we captured the entire ground motion record and that contaminating signals from extraneous earthquakes did not contribute to the database. Processing was carried out with an automated scheme and resulted in a database comprising more than 174,000 records ( https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73B5X8N ). We anticipate that these results will be useful for improved understanding of earthquake ground motions and for seismic hazard applications.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗
USGS2006

Uncertainty of earthquake losses due to model uncertainty of input ground motions in the Los Angeles area

In a recent study we used the Monte Carlo simulation method to evaluate the ground-motion uncertainty of the 2002 update of the California probabilistic seismic hazard model. The resulting ground-motion distribution is used in this article to evaluate the contribution of the hazard model to the uncertainty in earthquake loss ratio, the ratio of the expected loss to the total value of a structure. We use the Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) methodology for loss estimation because it is a widely used and publicly available risk model and intended for regional studies by public agencies and for use by governmental decision makers. We found that the loss ratio uncertainty depends not only on the ground-motion uncertainty but also on the mean ground-motion level. The ground-motion uncertainty, as measured by the coefficient of variation (COV), is amplified when converting to the loss ratio uncertainty because loss increases concavely with ground motion. By comparing the ground-motion uncertainty with the corresponding loss ratio uncertainty for the structural damage of light wood-frame buildings in Los Angeles area, we show that the COV of loss ratio is almost twice the COV of ground motion with a return period of 475 years around the San Andreas fault and other major faults in the area. The loss ratio for the 2475-year ground-motion maps is about a factor of three higher than for the 475-year maps. However, the uncertainties in ground motion and loss ratio for the longer return periods are lower than for the shorter return periods because the uncertainty parameters in the hazard logic tree are independent of the return period, but the mean ground motion increases with return period.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2020

Repeatable source, path, and site effects from the 2019 Ridgecrest M7.1 earthquake sequence

We use a large instrumental dataset from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence ( Rekoske et al. , 2019 , 2020 ) to examine repeatable source‐, path‐, and site‐specific ground motions. A mixed‐effects analysis is used to partition total residuals relative to the Boore et al. (2014 ; hereafter, BSSA14) ground‐motion model. We calculate the Arias intensity stress drop for the earthquakes and find strong correlation with our event terms, indicating that they are consistent with source processes. We look for physically meaningful trends in the partitioned residuals and test the ability of BSSA14 to capture the behavior we observe in the data. We find that BSSA14 is a good match to the median observations for M > 4 "> M > 4 M>4 ⁠ . However, we find bias for individual events, especially those with small magnitude and hypocentral depth ≥ 7    km "> depth ≥ 7 km depth≥7 km ⁠ , for which peak ground acceleration is underpredicted by a factor of 2.5. Although the site amplification term captures the median site response when all sites are considered together, it does not capture variations at individual stations across a range of site conditions. We find strong basin amplification in the Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Gabriel basins. We find weak amplification in the San Bernardino basin, which is contrary to simulation‐based findings showing a channeling effect from an event with a north–south azimuth. This and an additional set of ground motions from earthquakes southwest of Los Angeles suggest that there is an azimuth‐dependent southern California basin response related to the orientation of regional structures when ground motion from waves traveling south–north are compared with those in the east–west direction. These findings exhibit the power of large, spatially dense ground‐motion datasets and make clear that nonergodic models are a way to reduce bias and uncertainty in ground‐motion estimation for applications like the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model and the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning System.

California↗
USGS1994

Seismic hazards at Kilauea and Mauna Loa volcanoes, Hawaii

A significant seismic hazard exists in south Hawaii from large tectonic earthquakes that can reach magnitude 8 and intensity XII. This paper quantifies the hazard by estimating the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) in south Hawaii which occurs with a 90% probability of not being exceeded during exposure times from 10 to 250 years. The largest earthquakes occur beneath active, unbuttressed and mobile flanks of volcanos in their shield building stage. The flanks are compressed and pushed laterally by rift zone intrusions. The largest earthquakes are thus not directly caused by volcanic activity. Historic earthquakes (since 1823) and the best Hawaiian Volcano Observatory catalog (since 1970) under the south side of the island define linear frequency-magnitude distributions that imply average recurrence intervals for M greater than 5.5 earthquakes of 3.4-5 years, for M greater than 7 events of 29-44 years, and for M greater than 8 earthquakes of 120-190 years. These estimated recurrences are compatable with the 107 year interval between the two major April 2, 1868 (M(approximately)7.9) and November 29, 1975 (M=7.2) earthquakes. Frequency-magnitude distributions define the activity levels of 19 different seismic source zones for probabilistic ground motion estimations. The available measurements of PGA (33 from 7 moderate earthquakes) are insufficient to define a new attenuation curve. We use the Boore et al. (1993) curve shifted upward by a factor of 1.2 to fit Hawaiian data. Amplification of sites on volcanic ash or unconsolidated soil are about two times those of hard lava sites. On a map for a 50 year exposure time with a 90% probability of not being exceeded, the peak ground accelerations are 1.0 g Kilauea's and Mauna Loa's mobile south flanks and 0.9 g in the Kaoiki seismic zone. This hazard from strong ground shaking is comparable to that near the San Andreas Fault in California or the subduction zone in the Gulf of Alaska.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

Maps showing seismic landslide hazards in Anchorage, Alaska

The devastating landslides that accompanied the great 1964 Alaska earthquake showed that seismically triggered landslides are one of the greatest geologic hazards in Anchorage. Maps quantifying seismic landslide hazards are therefore important for planning, zoning, and emergency-response preparation. The accompanying maps portray seismic landslide hazards for the following conditions: (1) deep, translational landslides, which occur only during great subduction-zone earthquakes that have return periods of =300-900 yr; (2) shallow landslides for a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.69 g, which has a return period of 2,475 yr, or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 yr; and (3) shallow landslides for a PGA of 0.43 g, which has a return period of 475 yr, or a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 yr. Deep, translational landslide hazards were delineated based on previous studies of such landslides, with some modifications based on field observations of locations of deep landslides. Shallow-landslide hazards were delineated using a Newmark-type displacement analysis for the two probabilistic ground motions modeled.

Alaska↗
USGS2009

Maps Showing Seismic Landslide Hazards in Anchorage, Alaska

The devastating landslides that accompanied the great 1964 Alaska earthquake showed that seismically triggered landslides are one of the greatest geologic hazards in Anchorage. Maps quantifying seismic landslide hazards are therefore important for planning, zoning, and emergency-response preparation. The accompanying maps portray seismic landslide hazards for the following conditions: (1) deep, translational landslides, which occur only during great subduction-zone earthquakes that have return periods of =~300-900 yr; (2) shallow landslides for a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.69 g, which has a return period of 2,475 yr, or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 yr; and (3) shallow landslides for a PGA of 0.43 g, which has a return period of 475 yr, or a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 yr. Deep, translational landslide hazard zones were delineated based on previous studies of such landslides, with some modifications based on field observations of locations of deep landslides. Shallow-landslide hazards were delineated using a Newmark-type displacement analysis for the two probabilistic ground motions modeled.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2022

Volcano and earthquake monitoring plan for the Yellowstone Caldera system, 2022–2032

Executive Summary The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) is a consortium of nine Federal, State, and academic agencies that: (1) provides timely monitoring and hazards assessment of volcanic, hydrothermal, and earthquake activity in and around Yellowstone National Park, and (2) conducts research to develop new approaches to volcano monitoring and better understand volcanic activity in the Yellowstone region and elsewhere. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) arm of YVO is also responsible for monitoring and reporting on volcanic activity in the Intermountain West of the United States. The previous YVO monitoring plan for the Yellowstone region spanned 2006–2015 and focused on strengthening the region-wide coverage, or backbone, of monitoring systems (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, 2006). The goals of that plan have largely been achieved thanks to significant investments in instrumentation and infrastructure, especially by the National Science Foundation EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory (now known as the Network Of The Americas, or NOTA) and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. This revision of the monitoring plan, covering 2022–2032, builds upon these improvements to monitoring systems in the Yellowstone region while also accounting for new insights into the dynamics of the area’s seismic, volcanic, and hydrothermal activity. These additional improvements are designed to fill gaps in the monitoring network and to better understand and track hazards associated with hydrothermal processes. These improvements include: Conversion of remaining analog seismic stations to digital, Addition of Global Positioning System (GPS) stations in the vicinity of Norris Geyser Basin and other areas where changes in deformation rate and style have been observed, Implementation of continuous gas monitoring in several areas of Yellowstone National Park, and Improvements to lake, meteorological, and hydrological monitoring to better track hydrothermal activity, including that occurring on lake bottoms, and to aid in understanding of whether such activity might be influenced by external forces, like environmental conditions. The 2022–2032 monitoring plan for the Yellowstone volcanic system also proposes to improve monitoring of hydrothermal areas to better understand these dynamic systems and their associated hazards. To date, only a single seismometer has been placed within one of Yellowstone National Park’s geyser basins because seismic noise associated with boiling water can hinder interpretation of overall seismic and magmatic activity, but this concern has been mitigated by improvements to backbone monitoring. Deployment of geophysical, geochemical, hydrological, and geological monitoring instruments in geyser basins will be accompanied by campaigns to measure gas and water chemistry and flux, as well as aerial and satellite surveys of gas and thermal emissions. Close collaboration between YVO member institutions and other research agencies is needed to achieve these monitoring goals and to use the derived data to advance understanding of how Yellowstone Caldera and similar volcanic systems work. At the same time, attention must be paid to minimize the impact of monitoring efforts and infrastructure on the environment. YVO thus commits to serving as stewards of the natural, cultural, and historical resources in and around Yellowstone National Park while maximizing scientific gain for the betterment of society.

Wyoming↗
USGS2018

Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults

In this paper we summarize data, methods, and models developed for a probabilistic assessment of fault displacement hazards across the U.S. We compare earthquake displacement data and empirical fault displacement models that have been developed for normal faults, strike-slip faults, and reverse faults. In general, the data and models are similar near the center of the fault for the three faulting types, but differ near the ends with the strike-slip data being lower than the reverse and normal faulting data. We also compare these U.S. models with data and equations developed using Japanese fault displacement data. The Japan model is also similar to the U.S. models near the center of the fault but decays less rapidly near the ends of the fault. In addition, we discuss impacts of models developed to analyze off-fault strain on secondary faults, multi-strand displacement hazard, and various mapping quality factors. For our study, we show example fault displacements for a M 7 fault with recurrence of 800 and 1600 years. We conclude that a deterministic assessment of fault displacements is often higher than the probabilistic displacements for less active faults with earthquake rupture recurrence that is longer than the hazard return period of interest. Fault displacement hazard is applied in engineering applications for buildings, bridges, pipelines, and nuclear facilities. We present three applications for fault displacement hazard at nuclear facilities and important structures.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2025

A comprehensive geologic framework of the National Crustal Model for seismic hazard studies in the conterminous United States

A three-dimensional (3D) geologic framework has been developed for the conterminous United States (U.S.) as part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Crustal Model to enhance seismic hazard modeling. The geologic framework is created from geologic maps and multiple subsurface geologic unit boundaries including the base of the Miocene, Cenozoic, Phanerozoic, and the Mohorovičić discontinuity. Modifications are made to surficial geologic maps to remove discontinuities across state and country borders. The subsurface distribution of rock type and age is extrapolated from the surface, seeded with subsurface geologic information, and constrained by a map of basement geology. The framework provides the basis for estimates of subsurface seismic velocity and density that is needed to improve estimates of earthquake ground shaking and seismic hazard. The present framework greatly expands and updates a previously published 3D geologic framework of the western part of the U.S. that was itself a first-of-its-kind digital 3D portrayal of the nation.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2011

Probabilistic fault displacement hazards for the southern san andreas fault using scenarios and empirical slips

We apply a probabilistic method to develop fault displacement hazard maps and profiles for the southern San Andreas Fault. Two slip models are applied: (1) scenario slip, defined by the ShakeOut rupture model, and (2) empirical slip, calculated using regression equations relating global slip to earthquake magnitude and distance along the fault. The hazard is assessed using a range of magnitudes defined by the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast and the ShakeOut. For hazard mapping we develop a methodology to partition displacement among multiple fault branches basedon geological observations. Estimated displacement hazard extends a few kilometers wide in areas of multiple mapped fault branches and poor mapping accuracy. Scenario and empirical displacement hazard differs by a factor of two or three, particularly along the southernmost section of the San Andreas Fault. We recommend the empirical slip model with site-specific geological data to constrain uncertainties for engineering applications. ?? 2011, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2014

Undersampling power-law size distributions: effect on the assessment of extreme natural hazards

The effect of undersampling on estimating the size of extreme natural hazards from historical data is examined. Tests using synthetic catalogs indicate that the tail of an empirical size distribution sampled from a pure Pareto probability distribution can range from having one-to-several unusually large events to appearing depleted, relative to the parent distribution. Both of these effects are artifacts caused by limited catalog length. It is more difficult to diagnose the artificially depleted empirical distributions, since one expects that a pure Pareto distribution is physically limited in some way. Using maximum likelihood methods and the method of moments, we estimate the power-law exponent and the corner size parameter of tapered Pareto distributions for several natural hazard examples: tsunamis, floods, and earthquakes. Each of these examples has varying catalog lengths and measurement thresholds, relative to the largest event sizes. In many cases where there are only several orders of magnitude between the measurement threshold and the largest events, joint two-parameter estimation techniques are necessary to account for estimation dependence between the power-law scaling exponent and the corner size parameter. Results indicate that whereas the corner size parameter of a tapered Pareto distribution can be estimated, its upper confidence bound cannot be determined and the estimate itself is often unstable with time. Correspondingly, one cannot statistically reject a pure Pareto null hypothesis using natural hazard catalog data. Although physical limits to the hazard source size and by attenuation mechanisms from source to site constrain the maximum hazard size, historical data alone often cannot reliably determine the corner size parameter. Probabilistic assessments incorporating theoretical constraints on source size and propagation effects are preferred over deterministic assessments of extreme natural hazards based on historic data.

Natural Hazards↗
USGS2010

Seismic hazard assessment: Issues and alternatives

Seismic hazard and risk are two very important concepts in engineering design and other policy considerations. Although seismic hazard and risk have often been used inter-changeably, they are fundamentally different. Furthermore, seismic risk is more important in engineering design and other policy considerations. Seismic hazard assessment is an effort by earth scientists to quantify seismic hazard and its associated uncertainty in time and space and to provide seismic hazard estimates for seismic risk assessment and other applications. Although seismic hazard assessment is more a scientific issue, it deserves special attention because of its significant implication to society. Two approaches, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA), are commonly used for seismic hazard assessment. Although PSHA has been pro-claimed as the best approach for seismic hazard assessment, it is scientifically flawed (i.e., the physics and mathematics that PSHA is based on are not valid). Use of PSHA could lead to either unsafe or overly conservative engineering design or public policy, each of which has dire consequences to society. On the other hand, DSHA is a viable approach for seismic hazard assessment even though it has been labeled as unreliable. The biggest drawback of DSHA is that the temporal characteristics (i.e., earthquake frequency of occurrence and the associated uncertainty) are often neglected. An alternative, seismic hazard analysis (SHA), utilizes earthquake science and statistics directly and provides a seismic hazard estimate that can be readily used for seismic risk assessment and other applications. ?? 2010 Springer Basel AG.

Pure and Applied Geophysics↗
USGS2014

The Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst: geographic information systems software for modeling hazard evacuation potential

Recent disasters such as the 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake and tsunami; the 2013 Colorado floods; and the 2014 Oso, Washington, mudslide have raised awareness of catastrophic, sudden-onset hazards that arrive within minutes of the events that trigger them, such as local earthquakes or landslides. Due to the limited amount of time between generation and arrival of sudden-onset hazards, evacuations are typically self-initiated, on foot, and across the landscape (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2012). Although evacuation to naturally occurring high ground may be feasible in some vulnerable communities, evacuation modeling has demonstrated that other communities may require vertical-evacuation structures within a hazard zone, such as berms or buildings, if at-risk individuals are to survive some types of sudden-onset hazards (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2013). Researchers use both static least-cost-distance (LCD) and dynamic agent-based models to assess the pedestrian evacuation potential of vulnerable communities. Although both types of models help to understand the evacuation landscape, LCD models provide a more general overview that is independent of population distributions, which may be difficult to quantify given the dynamic spatial and temporal nature of populations (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2012). Recent LCD efforts related to local tsunami threats have focused on an anisotropic (directionally dependent) path distance modeling approach that incorporates travel directionality, multiple travel speed assumptions, and cost surfaces that reflect variations in slope and land cover (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2012, 2013). The Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst software implements this anisotropic path-distance approach for pedestrian evacuation from sudden-onset hazards, with a particular focus at this time on local tsunami threats. The model estimates evacuation potential based on elevation, direction of movement, land cover, and travel speed and creates a map showing travel times to safety (a time map) throughout a hazard zone. Model results provide a general, static view of the evacuation landscape at different pedestrian travel speeds and can be used to identify areas outside the reach of naturally occurring high ground. In addition, data on the size and location of different populations within the hazard zone can be integrated with travel-time maps to create tables and graphs of at-risk population counts as a function of travel time to safety. As a decision-support tool, the Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst provides the capability to evaluate the effectiveness of various vertical-evacuation structures within a study area, both through time maps of the modeled travel-time landscape with a potential structure in place and through comparisons of population counts within reach of safety. The Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst is designed for use by researchers examining the pedestrian-evacuation potential of an at-risk community. In communities where modeled evacuation times exceed the event (for example, tsunami wave) arrival time, researchers can use the software with emergency managers to assess the area and population served by potential vertical-evacuation options. By automating and managing the modeling process, the software allows researchers to concentrate efforts on providing crucial and timely information on community vulnerability to sudden-onset hazards.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2009

Assessment of tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast using relationships between submarine landslides and earthquakes

Submarine landslides along the continental slope of the U.S. Atlantic margin are potential sources for tsunamis along the U.S. East coast. The magnitude of potential tsunamis depends on the volume and location of the landslides, and tsunami frequency depends on their recurrence interval. However, the size and recurrence interval of submarine landslides along the U.S. Atlantic margin is poorly known. Well-studied landslide-generated tsunamis in other parts of the world have been shown to be associated with earthquakes. Because the size distribution and recurrence interval of earthquakes is generally better known than those for submarine landslides, we propose here to estimate the size and recurrence interval of submarine landslides from the size and recurrence interval of earthquakes in the near vicinity of the said landslides. To do so, we calculate maximum expected landslide size for a given earthquake magnitude, use recurrence interval of earthquakes to estimate recurrence interval of landslide, and assume a threshold landslide size that can generate a destructive tsunami. The maximum expected landslide size for a given earthquake magnitude is calculated in 3 ways: by slope stability analysis for catastrophic slope failure on the Atlantic continental margin, by using land-based compilation of maximum observed distance from earthquake to liquefaction, and by using land-based compilation of maximum observed area of earthquake-induced landslides. We find that the calculated distances and failure areas from the slope stability analysis is similar or slightly smaller than the maximum triggering distances and failure areas in subaerial observations. The results from all three methods compare well with the slope failure observations of the M w = 7.2, 1929 Grand Banks earthquake, the only historical tsunamigenic earthquake along the North American Atlantic margin. The results further suggest that a M w = 7.5 earthquake (the largest expected earthquake in the eastern U.S.) must be located offshore and within 100??km of the continental slope to induce a catastrophic slope failure. Thus, a repeat of the 1755 Cape Anne and 1881 Charleston earthquakes are not expected to cause landslides on the continental slope. The observed rate of seismicity offshore the U.S. Atlantic coast is very low with the exception of New England, where some microseismicity is observed. An extrapolation of annual strain rates from the Canadian Atlantic continental margin suggests that the New England margin may experience the equivalent of a magnitude 7 earthquake on average every 600-3000??yr. A minimum triggering earthquake magnitude of 5.5 is suggested for a sufficiently large submarine failure to generate a devastating tsunami and only if the epicenter is located within the continental slope.

Marine Geology↗
USGS2025

Cascading land surface hazards as a nexus in the Earth system

Earth’s surface is sculpted by numerous processes that move sediment, ranging from gradual and benign to abrupt and catastrophic. Although infrequent, high-magnitude sediment mobilization events can be hazardous to people and infrastructure, leaving topographic imprints on the landscape and remarkable narratives in the historical record. Hazardous events such as fires, storms, and earthquakes accelerate erosion and sediment transport, increasing landscape sensitivity to subsequent perturbations, thus forming a cascading hazard. Although the redistribution of sediment across Earth’s landscape can result in higher risks to vulnerable populations, cascading processes are commonly unaccounted for in hazard assessments. Cascading hazards can occur almost immediately after triggering events, such as coseismic landslides, or over months, years, or even decades after an initial perturbation, such as debris flows after wildfires or flooding in channels alluviated by volcanic debris. Sediment cascades span Earth’s surface, from mountaintops to river valleys, where erosion, deposition, and aggradation can lead to a myriad of hazardous processes, including decreased river conveyance capacity, which increases the likelihood of downstream flooding. An improved understanding of the magnitude, frequency, and persistence of cascading hazards is critical given the rapid changes in the frequency and severity of storms, fires, sea-level change, and cryospheric melting, as well as the expansion of high-population-density urban footprints in regions susceptible to solid Earth hazards. Understanding the full consequences and underlying physics of Earth’s cascading land surface hazards can help minimize future human and economic losses.

California↗
USGS2020

More fault connectivity Is needed in seismic hazard analysis

Did the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) go overboard with multifault ruptures? Schwartz (2018) argues that there are too many long ruptures in the model. Here, I address his concern and show that the UCERF3 rupture‐length distribution matches empirical data. I also present evidence that, if anything, the UCERF3 model could be improved by adding more connectivity to the fault system. Adding more connectivity would improve model misfits with data, particularly with paleoseismic data on the southern San Andreas fault; make the model less characteristic on the faults; potentially improve aftershock forecasts; and reduce model sensitivity to inadequacies and unknowns in the modeled fault system.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗