The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP14) present the time-independent component of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), which provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time-averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in California. The primary achievements have been to relax fault segmentation and include multifault ruptures, both limitations of UCERF2. The rates of all earthquakes are solved for simultaneously and from a broader range of data, using a system-level inversion that is both conceptually simple and extensible. The inverse problem is large and underdetermined, so a range of models is sampled using an efficient simulated annealing algorithm. The approach is more derivative than prescriptive (e.g., magnitude-frequency distributions are no longer assumed), so new analysis tools were developed for exploring solutions. Epistemic uncertainties were also accounted for using 1440 alternative logic-tree branches, necessitating access to supercomputers. The most influential uncertainties include alternative deformation models (fault slip rates), a new smoothed seismicity algorithm, alternative values for the total rate of M w ≥ 5 events, and different scaling relationships, virtually all of which are new. As a notable first, three deformation models are based on kinematically consistent inversions of geodetic and geologic data, also providing slip-rate constraints on faults previously excluded due to lack of geologic data. The grand inversion constitutes a system-level framework for testing hypotheses and balancing the influence of different experts. For example, we demonstrate serious challenges with the Gutenberg-Richter hypothesis for individual faults. UCERF3 is still an approximation of the system, however, and the range of models is limited (e.g., constrained to stay close to UCERF2). Nevertheless, UCERF3 removes the apparent UCERF2 overprediction of M 6.5-7 earthquake rates and also includes types of multifault ruptures seen in nature. Although UCERF3 fits the data better than UCERF2 overall, there may be areas that warrant further site-specific investigation. Supporting products may be of general interest, and we list key assumptions and avenues for future model improvements. Manuscript OrganizationBecause of manuscript length and model complexity, we begin with an outline of this report to help readers navigate the various sections:

A-1. Plot of probability of surface rupture relative to magnitude A-2. Plot of depth to top of surface rupture relative to magnitude for earthquakes in Next Generation Attenuation database B-1. Plot of multisegment fault as defined in 1996 and 2002 maps B-2. Plot of multisegment fault as defined in 2008 maps D-1. Diagram of a virtual dipping fault D-2. Plots showing effect of including hanging-wall term on median ground motion D-3. Plot showing the increase in Rjb for vertical faults F-1. Ground motions for two sites in the Central and Eastern United States without cluster model F-2. Ground motions for two sites in the Central and Eastern United States with cluster model G-1. Map of fault sources in the Intermountain West G-2. Slip-rate changes for Intermountain West faults H-1. Map of fault sources in the Pacific Northwest J-1. Plot showing increase in characteristic rate due to magnitude rounding J-2. Plot showing uncertainty in assigned slip rate for selected faults in Utah Appendix Tables: A-1. Depth to top of rupture E-1. Sampling interval details for non-California faults, truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution G-1. Updated Intermountain West fault parameters G-2. Updated fault names for Intermountain West faults G-3. Intermountain West fault parameters by State H-1. Pacific Northwest fault parameters by State I-1. Rupture-model data for California Type-A faults I-2. List of significant changes to California Type-B faults I-3. Parameters for California Type-B faults I-4. Parameters for California Connected-B faults

The national seismic hazard maps for the conterminous United States have been updated to account for new methods, models, and data that have been obtained since the 2008 maps were released (Petersen and others, 2008). The input models are improved from those implemented in 2008 by using new ground motion models that have incorporated about twice as many earthquake strong ground shaking data and by incorporating many additional scientific studies that indicate broader ranges of earthquake source and ground motion models. These time-independent maps are shown for 2-percent and 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for peak horizontal ground acceleration as well as 5-hertz and 1-hertz spectral accelerations with 5-percent damping on a uniform firm rock site condition (760 meters per second shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m, V S30). In this report, the 2014 updated maps are compared with the 2008 version of the maps and indicate changes of plus or minus 20 percent over wide areas, with larger changes locally, caused by the modifications to the seismic source and ground motion inputs.

CyberShake, as part of the Southern California Earthquake Center's (SCEC) Community Modeling Environment, is developing a methodology that explicitly incorporates deterministic source and wave propagation effects within seismic hazard calculations through the use of physics-based 3D ground motion simulations. To calculate a waveform-based seismic hazard estimate for a site of interest, we begin with Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2.0 (UCERF2.0) and identify all ruptures within 200 km of the site of interest. We convert the UCERF2.0 rupture definition into multiple rupture variations with differing hypocenter locations and slip distributions, resulting in about 415,000 rupture variations per site. Strain Green Tensors are calculated for the site of interest using the SCEC Community Velocity Model, Version 4 (CVM4), and then, using reciprocity, we calculate synthetic seismograms for each rupture variation. Peak intensity measures are then extracted from these synthetics and combined with the original rupture probabilities to produce probabilistic seismic hazard curves for the site. Being explicitly site-based, CyberShake directly samples the ground motion variability at that site over many earthquake cycles (i.e., rupture scenarios) and alleviates the need for the ergodic assumption that is implicitly included in traditional empirically based calculations. Thus far, we have simulated ruptures at over 200 sites in the Los Angeles region for ground shaking periods of 2 s and longer, providing the basis for the first generation CyberShake hazard maps. Our results indicate that the combination of rupture directivity and basin response effects can lead to an increase in the hazard level for some sites, relative to that given by a conventional Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE). Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we find that the physics-based hazard results are much more sensitive to the assumed magnitude-area relations and magnitude uncertainty estimates used in the definition of the ruptures than is found in the traditional GMPE approach. This reinforces the need for continued development of a better understanding of earthquake source characterization and the constitutive relations that govern the earthquake rupture process.