Exciting news! We're transitioning to the Statewide California Earthquake Center. Our new website is under construction, but we'll continue using this website for SCEC business in the meantime. We're also archiving the Southern Center site to preserve its rich history. A new and improved platform is coming soon!
Home  /  SCEC Annual Meetings and Workshops  /  2017 UCERF Workshop

2017 UCERF Workshop

Conveners: Ned Field and the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
Dates: April 3 - 6, 2017
Location: USGS Powell Center, Fort Collins, CO
SCEC Award and Report: 17091

SUMMARY: The ongoing WGCEP has developed and published a full OEF model for California, known as UCERF3-ETAS.  At the same time progress has been made with respect improving the relatively simple aftershock notifications issued by the USGS for other parts of the world.  This meeting will involve a comprehensive review of these capabilities, including examination of the scientific underpinnings as well as the potential usefulness.  With respect to the latter, several potential early adopters will be in attendance in order to articulate potential use cases and their perceived value.  Given the significant resources needed for further operationalization, the goal of this meeting is to provide guidance to the USGS on what level of effort should be put into developing these capabilities.

Questions for Reviewers

  1. Should the USGS replace Reasenberg-Jones models with ETAS models to quantify aftershock probabilities? 
  2. Should the USGS use the fault-based UCERF3-ETAS model in quantifying short-term earthquake probabilities in California?
  3. What type of testing is necessary and sufficient to qualify a short-term earthquake forecast model for general operational use or use in specific applications?
  4. Given the state of earthquake science and the potential utility of short-term forecasting, what level of effort should the USGS put into OEF?

Questions for Potential Users

  1. What hazard or risk metrics (e.g., Table 1) you are concerned about?
  2. What gains (increase relative to long-term risk) would you find actionable?
  3. What timeframes are you interested in (because gains decay with time)?
  4. Can you put a value on this information to you and/or your clients?

Table 1. List of various OEF hazard and risk products.

Potential OEF Products  
1) Magnitude Probability Distribution Probability of one or more events vs magnitude for specified region and timespan
2) Magnitude Probability Map Spatial distribution for events exceeding specified magnitude for timespan
3) Hazard Curve Probability that an intensity measure type (e.g. MMI, PGA, PGV, etc.) will exceed various values at a specified location and for a specified timespan
4) Hazard Map Spatial probability that an intensity measure type (e.g. MMI, PGA, etc.) will exceed a specified  value over a specified timespan
5) Loss Exceedance Curve Probability that loss will exceed various values over a specified timespan
6) Loss Exceedance Map Spatial distribution of loss exceedance probability for a specified value and timespan
7) Fault participation probability List or map for a chosen timespan.
8) Gains for 1-7 above Relative to long-term or pre-event conditions
9) Stochastic event sets Synthetic catalogs of events, possibly including finite-rupture surface information
10) Example aftershock scenanrio events e.g. ShakeMap, PAGER, and/or ShakeCast products for one or more events that might occur
 
UCERF3-ETAS Documents

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2017 - Best Available Science for OEF

07:00 - 08:00 Breakfast  
08:00 - 10:00 Session1   
  Powell Center Welcome & Logistics  Jill Baron & Leah Colasuonno
  Workshop Goals & Self-Introduction Ned Field
  Current Issues with OEF Tom Jordan
  Brief history of OEF at the USGS and Near-Term Goals Jeanne Hardebeck
  The Case of ETAS Andy Michael
10:00-10:10 Break  
  Progress on ETAS Implementation and Products Nicolas van der Elst
  Applicability of ETAS to Swarms & Induced Seismicity Andrea Llenos
  UCERF3-ETAS Ned Field
12:00 - 01:00 Lunch  
01:00 - 03:00 Session2  
  UCERF3-ETAS continued Ned Field
  Testing UCERF3-ETAS Morgan Page
03:00 - 03:10 Break  
03:10 - 05:00 Session3  
  Can Physics-Based Simulators Help? Bruce Shaw
  Discussion on Necessary and Sufficient Tests for OEF Models Max Werner
  General Discussion  

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 - OEF Use Cases and Valuation

07:00 - 08:00 Breakfast  
08:00 - 12:00 Session1  
  Introduction (& Examples Via U3ETAS-Impled Statewide Losses)  Ned Field
  Experiences in Italy Warner Marzocchi
  Experiences in New Zealand Matt Gerstenberger & Anne Wein
  NEPEC and CEPEC Procedures in Light of OEF Developments Mike Blanpied & John Parrish
  CalOES Perspective Kate Long
  FEMA Perspective Sean McGowan
  Post-Earthquake Building Tagging Nico Luco
  Bank and Utility Perspective Keith Porter
  PG&E (Utility) Perspective Katie Wooddell
  Caltrans Perspective Loren Turner
12:00 - 01:00 Lunch  
01:00 - 05:00 Session2  
  California Earthquake Authority (Insurance) Perspectice Shawna Ackerman
  Commercial Loss Modeling Perspective Ken Campbell
  Commercial Loss Modeling Perspective Nilesh Shome
  OEF in the Insurance Community Guillermo Franco (Presented by Nilesh Shome)
  One Concern (http://www.oneconcern.com) Perspective Abhineet Gupta
  Use of Induced Seismicity Models Mark Petersen
  East Bay Municipal Utility District Andrea Chen (Presented by Anne Wein)
Time remaining General Discussion Bruce Shaw

PARTICIPANTS

Not in Attendance:

Andrea Chen (EBMUD)
Craig Davis (LADWP)
Guillermo Franco (Guy Carpenter)
Sean McGowan (FEMA)
Jaesung Park (Nephila Advisors LLC)

It is SCEC policy to foster harassment-free environments wherever our science is conducted. By accepting an invitation to participate in a SCEC-supported event, by email or online registration, participants agree to abide by the SCEC Activities Code of Conduct.