Morgan P Moschetti, PhD
Morgan Moschetti is a research scientist in the Earthquake Hazards Program.
Professional Experience
2017–present Adjunct faculty, Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
2011–present Research Geophysicist, USGS, Golden, Colorado
Project chief, Ground Motion Project (2018–present)
NAT External grants coordinator (2017–present)
2009–2011 Research Geophysicist–Mendenhall postdoctoral, USGS, Golden, Colorado
Education and Certifications
PhD, Geophysics, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, 2009, Dissertation title: Radially anisotropic shear-velocity structure of the crust and uppermost mantle beneath the western US from ambient noise tomography
MS, Geo-engineering (Applied Geophysics), Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2005
MS, Chemistry (Physical Chemistry), Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2004
BS with College Honors, Biochemistry, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, 1998
Science and Products
2017 One‐year seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes
Finite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves
Seismic‐hazard forecast for 2016 including induced and natural earthquakes in the central and eastern United States
Likelihood testing of seismicity-based rate forecasts of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas
2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes
Get your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products
Seismic hazard in the eastern United States
Seismic hazard in the Nation's breadbasket
2014 Update of the Pacific Northwest portion of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps
The 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model
Seismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model
Ground motion models used in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps
Science and Products
- Science
- Data
- Maps
- Publications
Filter Total Items: 57
2017 One‐year seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes
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 tAuthorsMark D. Petersen, Charles Mueller, Morgan P. Moschetti, Susan M. Hoover, Allison Shumway, Daniel E. McNamara, Robert Williams, Andrea L. Llenos, William L. Ellsworth, Justin L. Rubinstein, Arthur F. McGarr, Kenneth S. RukstalesFinite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves
Inverting geophysical data has provided fundamental information about the behavior of earthquake rupture. However, inferring kinematic source model parameters for finite‐fault ruptures is an intrinsically underdetermined problem (the problem of nonuniqueness), because we are restricted to finite noisy observations. Although many studies use least‐squares techniques to make the finite‐fault problemAuthorsBrandon Clayton, Stephen H. Hartzell, Morgan P. Moschetti, Sarah E. MinsonSeismic‐hazard forecast for 2016 including induced and natural earthquakes in the central and eastern United States
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 sensiAuthorsMark D. Petersen, Charles Mueller, Morgan P. Moschetti, Susan M. Hoover, Andrea L. Llenos, William L. Ellsworth, Andrew J. Michael, Justin L. Rubinstein, Arthur F. McGarr, Kenneth S. RukstalesLikelihood testing of seismicity-based rate forecasts of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas
Likelihood testing of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas has identified the parameters that optimize the forecasting ability of smoothed seismicity models and quantified the recent temporal stability of the spatial seismicity patterns. Use of the most recent 1-year period of earthquake data and use of 10–20-km smoothing distances produced the greatest likelihood. The likelihood that the loAuthorsMorgan P. Moschetti, Susan M. Hoover, Charles Mueller2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a 1-year seismic hazard forecast for 2016 for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes. The model assumes that earthquake rates calculated from several different time windows will remain relatively stationary and can be used to forecast earthquake hazard and damage intensity forAuthorsMark D. Petersen, Charles S. Mueller, Morgan P. Moschetti, Susan M. Hoover, Andrea L. Llenos, William L. Ellsworth, Andrew J. Michael, Justin L. Rubinstein, Arthur F. McGarr, Kenneth S. RukstalesGet your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products
Introduction Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise. At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probAuthorsSuzanne C. Perry, Michael L. Blanpied, Erin R. Burkett, Nnenia M. Campbell, Anders Carlson, Dale A. Cox, Carolyn L. Driedger, David P. Eisenman, Katherine T. Fox-Glassman, Sherry Hoffman, Susanna M. Hoffman, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Lucile M. Jones, Nicolas Luco, Sabine M. Marx, Sean M. McGowan, Dennis S. Mileti, Morgan P. Moschetti, David Ozman, Elizabeth Pastor, Mark D. Petersen, Keith A. Porter, David W. Ramsey, Liesel A. Ritchie, Jessica K. Fitzpatrick, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Timothy L. Sellnow, Wendy L. Vaughon, David J. Wald, Lisa A. Wald, Anne Wein, Christina ZarcadoolasSeismic hazard in the eastern United States
The U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard maps for the central and eastern United States were updated in 2014. We analyze results and changes for the eastern part of the region. Ratio maps are presented, along with tables of ground motions and deaggregations for selected cities. The Charleston fault model was revised, and a new fault source for Charlevoix was added. Background seismicity sources uAuthorsCharles Mueller, Oliver S. Boyd, Mark D. Petersen, Morgan P. Moschetti, Sanaz Rezaeian, Allison ShumwaySeismic hazard in the Nation's breadbasket
The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps were updated in 2014 and included several important changes for the central United States (CUS). Background seismicity sources were improved using a new moment-magnitude-based catalog; a new adaptive, nearest-neighbor smoothing kernel was implemented; and maximum magnitudes for background sources were updated. Areal source zones developed by the Central and EaAuthorsOliver S. Boyd, Kathleen Haller, Nicolas Luco, Morgan P. Moschetti, Charles Mueller, Mark D. Petersen, Sanaz Rezaeian, Justin L. Rubinstein2014 Update of the Pacific Northwest portion of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps
Several aspects of the earthquake characterization were changed for the Pacific Northwest portion of the 2014 update of the national seismic hazard maps, reflecting recent scientific findings. New logic trees were developed for the recurrence parameters of M8-9 earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) and for the eastern edge of their rupture zones. These logic trees reflect recent findinAuthorsArthur Frankel, Rui Chen, Mark D. Petersen, Morgan P. Moschetti, Brian L. SherrodThe 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model
New seismic hazard maps have been developed for the conterminous United States using the latest data, models, and methods available for assessing earthquake hazard. The hazard models incorporate new information on earthquake rupture behavior observed in recent earthquakes; fault studies that use both geologic and geodetic strain rate data; earthquake catalogs through 2012 that include new assessmeAuthorsMark D. Petersen, Morgan P. Moschetti, Peter M. Powers, Charles Mueller, Kathleen Haller, Arthur Frankel, Yuehua Zeng, Sanaz Rezaeian, Stephen Harmsen, Oliver S. Boyd, Edward H. Field, Rui Chen, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Nicolas Luco, Russell Wheeler, Robert Williams, Anna H. OlsenSeismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model
We present the updated seismic source characterization (SSC) for the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. Construction of the seismic source models employs the methodology that was developed for the 1996 NSHM but includes new and updated data, data types, source models, and source parameters that reflect the current state of knowledge of earthAuthorsMorgan P. Moschetti, Peter M. Powers, Mark D. Petersen, Oliver S. Boyd, Rui Chen, Edward H. Field, Arthur Frankel, Kathleen Haller, Stephen Harmsen, Charles S. Mueller, Russell Wheeler, Yuehua ZengGround motion models used in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps
The National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) are an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States. This paper compares hazard using the new suite of ground motion models (GMMs) relative to hazard using the suite of GMMs applied in the previous version of the maps. The new source characterization models are used for both cases. A previous paper (Rezaeian et al. 2014) discussedAuthorsSanaz Rezaeian, Mark D. Petersen, Morgan P. Moschetti