I (with co-authors) tend to provide data/ digital maps/descriptions of faults and folds. But, because we are not doing Holocene paleo-seismology, we have been leaving the recurrence intervals and magnitudes mostly alone. I have come up with published estimates of long-term slip rates. The shortest interval so far is the last 1 million years, but we have data to do it for as short as 200,000 and maybe 100,000 years in Santa Barbara Channel including the very active faults beneath the mainland coast.

I have been involved in (and lead on for some) providing digital fault representations to the Southern California Community Fault Model. The SCEC CFM has been used by others for a lot of things, likely including magnitude, and modeled slip rates.

As for San Joaquin Hills, if I (we) ever get around to publishing the offshore stuff, expect to see your insurance rates go up a little (although probably the site conditions if up on the hills are better than being on young thick sediments like would be the case for part of Long Beach). The published stuff (Grant et al) has an inferred SW-dipping blind thrust responsible for the active uplift of the Hills. A couple of these papers including Rivero et al 2000 (Geology) neglect that the basins (LA and offshore) are subsiding and greater thrust slip is needed to keep the hills rising above the regional subsidence. Also, I question the existence of the SW-dipping blind thrust, and my gut feeling is that the hills are uplifting mainly due to a thrust component of slip on the combined San mateo-Carlsbad-Newport-Inglewood "Flower structure". This fault system is longer/larger than the inferred blind thrust so could have a larger quake.

Chris