SCEC Award Number 17091 View PDF
Proposal Category Workshop Proposal
Proposal Title Third Workshop on Operational Earthquake Forecasting
Investigator(s)
Name Organization
Edward Field United States Geological Survey
Other Participants WGCEP, NEPEC, CEPEC, Potentail OEF User
SCEC Priorities 5c, 5b, 5d SCEC Groups EFP, CSEP, EEII
Report Due Date 06/15/2018 Date Report Submitted 07/05/2017
Project Abstract
 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 involved 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 were 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 was to provide guidance to the USGS on what level of effort should be put into developing these capabilities. After giving additional background information, this report describes the variety of OEF products that could be generated, and then summarizes the status of currently viable OEF models. Information on potential early adopters and the USGS implementation plan (derived from the meeting) can be obtained from Ned Field.
Intellectual Merit The workshop addressed the short-term predictability of earthquake triggering for use in Operational Earthquake Forecasting.
Broader Impacts The workshop included a wide range of potential users articulating their possible early adoption of an Operational Earthquake Forecasting system, and also provided a primary means for the USGS to evaluate whether deploying such a system would be worthwhile.
Exemplary Figure Figure 4. Average rate of M≥2.5 earthquakes following an M 7.1 earthquake on the Hayward fault according to UCERF3-ETAS (left) and an otherwise equivalent result from a pure (no faults) ETAS model (right), based on 200,000 simulations.