This reply addresses the three main comments by Shlemon et al. (2001), namely that our article (1) provided inadequate reference to a large body of earlier work, (2) yielded a conclusion that had already been made, and (3) estimated a range in slip-rate uncertainty that is too large. We address these three issues individually. First, we acknowledge that the Northridge Hills fault was identified many years ago and that it was previously interpreted as a probable active fault. However, Shlemon et al. (2001) implied that Baldwin et al. (2000) failed to acknowledge the earlier work performed by others (Barnhart and Slosson, 1973; Saul, 1975; and Johnson et al., 1996). They also suggest that earlier geomorphic and geologic observations by Barnhart, Slosson, and Saul are sufficient to define the seismogenic potential of the Northridge Hills fault. We disagree. As stated in our article, the Northridge Park trench site “... was selected on the basis of detailed geologic and geomorphic mapping of surficial deposits in the northern San Fernando Valley (Hitchcock and Kelson, 1996; Wills and Hitchcock, 1999),” (p. 631) in addition to the earlier work performed by others (e.g., Barnhart and Slosson, 1973; Smith, 1977; Saul, 1979; Dibblee, 1992). We also referenced Johnson et al. (1996) throughout the manuscript. The detailed 1:24,000-scale mapping of surficial deposits summarized by Hitchcock and Kelson (1996) and Wills and Hitchcock (1999) has recently been published by the California Division of Mines and Geology as Map Sheet 50 (1:48,000-scale) (Hitchcock and Wills, 2000). Second, we acknowledge that the Northridge Hills fault was interpreted as a possible active fault (Barnhart and Slosson, 1973), but also note Barnhart and Slosson (1973) state “Proper credence to the …