1. WGCEP Workshop What Represents Best Available Science in terms of Time-Dependent Earthquake Probabilities? Introduction by Ned Field

2. Best Available Science? Poisson Model (long-term rates) Quasi-Periodic Recurrence Models BPT Renewal Time or Slip predictable Static-Stress Interaction Models Clock change BPT-step Rate & State Clock change w/ Rate & State Hardebeck (2004) approach Empirical Rate Change Models Clustering Models Foreshock/Afershock statistics (e.g., STEP; ETAS)

4. Summary (in brief) of Previous: “Working Groups on California Earthquake Probabilities” (WGCEP, 1988, 1990, 1995, 2002) They generally segmented faults and applied elastic- rebound-theory-motivated (quasi-periodic) renewal models to define time-dependent earthquake probabilities...

5. Reid’s (1910) Elastic Rebound Hypothesis: EQ Time Stress Loading EQ Stress Loading EQ

6. more noisy system Perfectly Periodic Lognormal or BPT distribution Reid’s (1910) Elastic Rebound Hypothesis:

7. They divided the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Hayward, and Imperial Faults into segments and assumed each ruptures only in a single-magnitude (“characteristic”) earthquake. WGCEP 1988

8. COV I = 0.2 Mean Recurrence Interval from: 1)Ave of those observed previously. 2)Slip in last event divided by slip rate. 3)Ave slip divided by slip rate.

9. WGCEP 1990 Updated WGCEP (1988) for San Francisco Bay Area in light of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (and some new data). e.g., applied a clock change to account for influence of Loma Prieta on Peninsula segment (seg #3).

10. Focused on southern Cal. (SCEC’s Phase II report). 2) Allowed neighboring segments to sometimes rupture together as “cascade” events 3) Included lesser faults and background seismicity (to account for unknown faults) Innovations: WGCEP 1995 1) Updated WGCEP (1988) segment probabilities (COV I = 0.5 +/- 0.2)

11. WGCEP 1995 Problem : predicted twice as many mag 6-7 events as have been observed historically, which led to a lively debate on this apparent earthquake “deficit”: Need to allow “huge” events (Mag≥8) potentially anywhere (Jackson, 1996) But such events would leave obvious scars (Schwartz, 1996; Hough, 1996) Problem results from several factors; solution exists ( e.g., Stirling and Wesnousky (1997); Stein & Hanks (1998); and Field et al., (1999) )

12. WGCEP 1995 Problem : predicted twice as many mag 6-7 events as have been observed historically, which led to a lively debate on this apparent earthquake “deficit”: Need to allow “huge” events (Mag≥8) potentially anywhere (Jackson, 1996) But such events would leave obvious scars (Schwartz, 1996; Hough, 1996) Problem results from several factors; solution exists ( e.g., Stirling and Wesnousky (1997); Stein & Hanks (1998); and Field et al., (1999) ) Note: these two were part of the working group … implying a lack of “consensus” … RELM

13. Focused on Bay Area 2) “Consensus process” rather than consensus model 3) Extensive treatment of epistemic uncertainties (logic-tree branches) Other Innovations: WGCEP 2002 1) Updated WGCEP (1990) segment probabilities based on a more elaborate earthquake rate model; allowed cascades

14. Current Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) Development of a Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF)

15. 22% of our funding comes from the California Earthquake Authority (CEA)

16. Northridge caused 93% of insurers to halt or significantly reduce coverage. CEA was created (via state legislation) to resolve the crisis. CEA is a privately financed, publicly managed (and tax exempt) organization that offers basic earthquake insurance for California homeowners and renters. It’s governed by: CA Governor, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Speaker of the Assembly, and Chairperson of the Senate Rules Committee. CEA policies are sold only through participating insurance companies (two-thirds of California homeowners policies). Policies carry a 15% deductible. Today the CEA has $7.2 billion to pay claims. CEA is required by law to use “best-available science”. California Earthquake Authority (CEA):

17. Best Available Science? California Insurance Code section 10089.40 (a) "Rates shall be based on the best available scientific information for assessing the risk of earthquake frequency, severity and loss.” “Scientific information from geologists, seismologists, or similar experts shall not be conclusive to support the establishment of different rates … unless that information, as analyzed by experts such as the United States Geological Survey, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and experts in the scientific or academic community, clearly shows a higher risk of earthquake frequency, severity, or loss between those most populous rating territories to support those differences.”

18. “Seismic Event” “Seismic Event” means one or more earthquakes that occur within a 360-hour period. The seismic event commences upon the initial earthquake, and all earthquakes or aftershocks that occur within the 360 hours immediately following the initial earthquake are considered for purposes of this policy to be part of the same seismic event. from page 6 of CEA’s “Basic Earthquake Policy--Homeowners” doc

19. Coordinated with the next National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program (NSHMP) time-independent model This will be used by CEA to set earthquake insurance rates (they want 5-year forecasts, maybe 1-year in future) WGCEP Goals: 198819901995 2002 UCERF To provide the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) with a statewide, time-dependent ERF that uses “best available science” and is endorsed by the USGS, CGS, and SCEC, and is evaluated by a Scientific Review Panel (SRP), CEPEC, and NEPEC

20. NSF CEA USGS CGS SCEC MOC State of CA USGS Menlo Park USGS Golden Sources of WGCEP funding Geoscience organizations Management oversight committee WGCEP ExCom Subcom. A Subcom. B Subcom. C … … Working group leadership Task-oriented subcommittees Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities WGCEP Organization & Funding Sources SCEC will provide CEA with a single-point interface to the project. SRP Scientific review panel Thomas H. Jordan (SCEC, Chair) Rufus Catchings (USGS, Menlo Park  ) Jill McCarthy (USGS, Golden ) Michael Reichle (CGS) Ned Field (USGS, Chair) Thomas Parsons (USGS, Menlo Park) Chris Wills (CGS) Ray Weldon (U of O) Mark Petersen (USGS, Golden) Ross Stein (USGS, Menlo Park) Bill Ellsworth (chair) Art Frankel David Jackson Steve Wesnousky Lloyd Cluff Allin Cornell Mike Blanpied David Schwartz Plus many others

21. Delivery Schedule February 8, 2006 (to CEA) UCERF 1.0 & S. SAF Assessment to CEA Aug 31, 2006 (to CEA) Fault Section Database 2.0 Earthquake Rate Model 2.0 (preliminary for NSHMP) April 1, 2007 (to NSHMP) Revised Earthquake Rate Model 2.x (for use in 2007 NSHMP revision) September 30, 2007 (to CEA) UCERF 2 (reviewed by SRP, NEPEC, and CEPEC)

22. 1)Everything takes longer than you expect Some planned on innovations won’t pan out Focus on what’s important 2)There will be problems with the final model The best time to solve these problems is right away (while fresh in the mind) Burnout makes this problematic Important Lessons from Previous WGCEPs: Thus: Plan for both the near and long term (e.g., build a living, adaptive, extensible infrastructure)

23. Deploy as extensible, adaptive (living) model i.e., modifications can be made as warranted by scientific developments, the collection of new data, or following the occurrence of significant earthquakes. The model can be “living” to the extent that update & evaluation process can occur in short order. How do we plan to achieve this?

24. Black Box Deformation Model(s) Earthquake Prob Model(s) Earthquake Rate Model(s) Black Box Black Box UCERF Model Components (generalization of WGCEP-2002) Fault Model(s)

25. The computer code The models &/or applications Object Oriented (Modular) Framework - building on OpenSHA

26. Black Box Deformation Model(s) Earthquake Prob Model(s) Earthquake Rate Model(s) Black Box Black Box UCERF Model Components (generalization of WGCEP-2002) Fault Model(s) Fault-slip rates (at least) Long-term rate of all possible events (on and off modeled faults) Time-dependent probabilities

27. Black Box Deformation Model(s) Earthquake Prob Model(s) Earthquake Rate Model(s) Black Box Black Box Fault Model(s) Fault Section Database Paleo Sites Database GPS Database Historical Qk Catalog Instrumental Qk Catalog UCERF Model Components

28. Black Box Deformation Model(s) Earthquake Prob Model(s) Earthquake Rate Model(s) Black Box Black Box UCERF Model Components Fault Model(s) Object Oriented (Modular) Framework Makes logic trees very easy to handle …

29. OpenSHA Hazard Curve Calculator WGCEP-2002 Hazard Curves (Field et al. 2005, SRL) Distributed Object Technologies (Maechling et al., 2005, SRL) WGCEP-2002 (10,000 branches) Now w/ NGAs & ERM 2.2 also

30. Issue with Logic Trees 1)They take time and resources to implement and document 2)Must be careful about correlations (Page and Carlson, 2006, BSSA) 3)Is anyone using them? 4)How do we know which are important or worth pursuing (especially in terms of loss)?

31. Demo Loss Calculator?

32. Logic Trees What we need is not all possible branches, but the minimum number of branches that span the range of viability and importance

33. Best Available Science? Poisson Model (long-term rates) Quasi-Periodic Recurrence Models BPT Renewal Time or Slip predictable Static-Stress Interaction Models Clock change BPT-step Rate & State Clock change w/ Rate & State Hardebeck (2004) approach Empirical Rate-Change Models Clustering Models Foreshock/Afershock statistics (e.g., STEP; ETAS)