Search

We use an epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) based approach to develop a regionally optimized background earthquake rates from ETAS (ROBERE) method for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. ROBERE fits parameters to the full seismicity catalog for a region with maximum-likelihood estimation, including uncertainty. It then averages the earthquake rates over a suite of catalogs from which foreshocks and aftershocks have been removed using stochastic declustering while maintaining the same Gaussian smoothing currently used for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). The NSHM currently determines these rates by smoothing a single catalog from which foreshocks and aftershocks have been removed using the method of Gardner and Knopoff (1974; hereafter, GK74). The parameters used in GK74 were determined from subjectively identified aftershock sequences, unlike ROBERE, in which both background rate and aftershock triggering parameters are objectively fitted. A major difference between the impacts of the two methods is GK74 significantly reduces the b-value, a critical value for seismic hazard analysis, whereas ROBERE maintains the original b-value from the full catalog. We apply these methods to the induced seismicity in Oklahoma and Kansas and tectonic activity in the San Francisco Bay Region. Using GK74 gives lower overall earthquake rates but estimates higher hazard due to the reduction in the b-value. ROBERE provides higher earthquake rates, at the magnitude of completeness, but lower hazard because it does not alter the b-value. We test two other declustering methods that produce results closer to ROBERE but do not use objectively fit parameters, include uncertainty, and may not work as well in other areas. We suggest adopting ROBERE for the NSHM so that our hazard estimates are based on an objective analysis, including uncertainty, and do not depend strongly on potentially biased b-values, which was never the goal of the existing methodology.

Communicating probabilities of natural hazards to varied audiences is a notoriously difficult task. Many of these challenges were encountered during the 2016 Bombay Beach, California, swarm of ~100 2≤M≤4.3 earthquakes, which began on 26 September 2016 and lasted for several days. The swarm’s proximity to the southern end of the San Andreas fault caused concern that a larger earthquake could be triggered. Within 1–2 days, different forecast models were used to evaluate the likelihood of a larger event with two agencies (the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) releasing probabilities and forecasts for larger earthquakes. Our research explores communication and news media efforts, as well as how people on a microblogging social media site (Twitter) responded to these forecasts. Our findings suggest that news media used a combination of information sources, basing their articles on what they learned from social media, as well as using information provided by government agencies. As the swarm slowed down, there is evidence of the continued interplay between news media and social media, with the USGS issuing revised probability reports and scientists from the USGS and other institutions participating in media interviews. In reporting on the swarm, news media often used language more generally than the scientists; terms such as probability, likelihood, chance, and possibility were used interchangeably. Knowledge of how news media used scientific information from the 2016 Bombay Beach forecasts can assist local, state, and federal agencies in developing effective communication strategies to respond to future earthquakes.

Earthquake swarms, typically modeled as time‐varying changes in background seismicity, which are driven by external processes such as fluid flow or aseismic creep, present challenges for operational earthquake forecasting. Although the time decay of aftershock sequences can be estimated with the modified Omori law, it is difficult to forecast the temporal behavior of seismicity rates during a swarm. To explore these issues, we apply the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model (Ogata, 1988) to the 2015 San Ramon, California swarm, which lasted several weeks and had almost 100 2≤M≤3.6 earthquakes. We develop three‐day forecasts during the swarm based on an ETAS model fit to all prior seismicity in the region as well as an ETAS model fit only to previous swarms in the region, which is better at capturing the higher background rate during the swarm. We also explore forecasts in which the background rate is updated periodically during the swarm using data over different lookback windows and find generally these models perform better than the models in which the background rate is fixed. Finally, we construct ensemble forecasts by combining the different models weighted according to their performance. The ensemble forecasts outperform all of the individual models and allow us to avoid making arbitrary choices at the outset of a swarm as to which single model will perform the best.

The 24 August 2014 M w 6.0 South Napa mainshock produced fewer aftershocks than expected for a California earthquake of its magnitude. In the first 4.5 days, only 59 M ≥1.8 aftershocks occurred, the largest of which was an M 3.9 that happened a little over two days after the mainshock. We investigate the aftershock productivity of the South Napa sequence and compare it with other M ≥5.5 California strike‐slip mainshock–aftershock sequences. While the productivity of the South Napa sequence is among the lowest, northern California mainshocks generally have fewer aftershocks than mainshocks further south, although the productivities vary widely in both regions. An epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model (Ogata, 1988) fit to Napa seismicity from 1980 to 23 August 2014 fits the sequence well and suggests that low‐productivity sequences are typical of this area. Utilizing regional variations in productivity could improve operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) by improving the model used immediately after the mainshock. We show this by comparing the daily rate of M ≥2 aftershocks to forecasts made with the generic California model (Reasenberg and Jones, 1989; hereafter, RJ89), RJ89 models with productivity updated daily, a generic California ETAS model, an ETAS model based on premainshock seismicity, and ETAS models updated daily following the mainshock. RJ89 models for which only the productivity is updated provide better forecasts than the generic RJ89 California model, and the Napa‐specific ETAS models forecast the aftershock rates more accurately than either generic model. Therefore, forecasts that use localized initial parameters and that rapidly update the productivity may be better for OEF than using a generic model and/or updating all parameters.

We produce a one‐year 2017 seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes that updates the 2016 one‐year forecast; this map is intended to provide information to the public and to facilitate the development of induced seismicity forecasting models, methods, and data. The 2017 hazard model applies the same methodology and input logic tree as the 2016 forecast, but with an updated earthquake catalog. We also evaluate the 2016 seismic‐hazard forecast to improve future assessments. The 2016 forecast indicated high seismic hazard (greater than 1% probability of potentially damaging ground shaking in one year) in five focus areas: Oklahoma–Kansas, the Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border), north Texas, north Arkansas, and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. During 2016, several damaging induced earthquakes occurred in Oklahoma within the highest hazard region of the 2016 forecast; all of the 21 moment magnitude ( M ) ≥4 and 3 M ≥5 earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard area in the 2016 forecast. Outside the Oklahoma–Kansas focus area, two earthquakes with M ≥4 occurred near Trinidad, Colorado (in the Raton basin focus area), but no earthquakes with M ≥2.7 were observed in the north Texas or north Arkansas focus areas. Several observations of damaging ground‐shaking levels were also recorded in the highest hazard region of Oklahoma. The 2017 forecasted seismic rates are lower in regions of induced activity due to lower rates of earthquakes in 2016 compared with 2015, which may be related to decreased wastewater injection caused by regulatory actions or by a decrease in unconventional oil and gas production. Nevertheless, the 2017 forecasted hazard is still significantly elevated in Oklahoma compared to the hazard calculated from seismicity before 2009.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a one‐year (2016) probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes that are constructed with probabilistic methods using alternative data and inputs. This hazard assessment builds on our 2016 final model (Petersen et al. , 2016) by adding sensitivity studies, illustrating hazard in new ways, incorporating new population data, and discussing potential improvements. The model considers short‐term seismic activity rates (primarily 2014–2015) and assumes that the activity rates will remain stationary over short time intervals. The final model considers different ways of categorizing induced and natural earthquakes by incorporating two equally weighted earthquake rate submodels that are composed of alternative earthquake inputs for catalog duration, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground‐motion models. These alternatives represent uncertainties on how we calculate earthquake occurrence and the diversity of opinion within the science community. In this article, we also test sensitivity to the minimum moment magnitude between M 4 and M 4.7 and the choice of applying a declustered catalog with b =1.0 rather than the full catalog with b =1.3. We incorporate two earthquake rate submodels: in the informed submodel we classify earthquakes as induced or natural, and in the adaptive submodel we do not differentiate. The alternative submodel hazard maps both depict high hazard and these are combined in the final model. Results depict several ground‐shaking measures as well as intensity and include maps showing a high‐hazard level (1% probability of exceedance in 1 year or greater). Ground motions reach 0.6 g horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g PGA in the Raton basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in central Arkansas, and in north‐central Texas near Dallas–Fort Worth. The chance of having levels of ground motions corresponding to modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) VI or greater earthquake shaking is 2%–12% per year in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas and New Madrid similar to the chance of damage at sites in high‐hazard portions of California caused by natural earthquakes. Hazard is also significant in the Raton basin of Colorado/New Mexico; north‐central Arkansas; Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas; and in a few other areas. Hazard probabilities are much lower (by about half or more) for exceeding MMI VII or VIII. Hazard is 3‐ to 10‐fold higher near some areas of active‐induced earthquakes than in the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), which did not consider induced earthquakes. This study in conjunction with the LandScan TM Database (2013) indicates that about 8 million people live in areas of active injection wells that have a greater than 1% chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking (MMI≥VI) in 2016. The final model has high uncertainty, and engineers, regulators, and industry should use these assessments cautiously to make informed decisions on mitigating the potential effects of induced and natural earthquakes.

The Brawley seismic zone (BSZ), in the Salton trough of southern California, has a history of earthquake swarms and geothermal energy exploitation. Some earthquake rate changes may have been induced by fluid extraction and injection activity at local geothermal fields, particularly at the North Brawley Geothermal Field (NBGF) and at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field (SSGF). We explore this issue by examining earthquake rate changes and interevent distance distributions in these fields. In Oklahoma and Arkansas, where considerable wastewater injection occurs, increases in background seismicity rate and aftershock productivity and decreases in interevent distance were indicative of fluid‐injection‐induced seismicity. Here, we test if similar changes occur that may be associated with fluid injection and extraction in geothermal areas. We use stochastic epidemic‐type aftershock sequence models to detect changes in the underlying seismogenic processes, shown by statistically significant changes in the model parameters. The most robust model changes in the SSGF roughly occur when large changes in net fluid production occur, but a similar correlation is not seen in the NBGF. Also, although both background seismicity rate and aftershock productivity increased for fluid‐injection‐induced earthquake rate changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas, the background rate increases significantly in the BSZ only, roughly corresponding with net fluid production rate increases. Moreover, in both fields the interevent spacing does not change significantly during active energy projects. This suggests that, although geothermal field activities in a tectonically active region may not significantly change the physics of earthquake interactions, earthquake rates may still be driven by fluid injection or extraction rates, particularly in the SSGF.