Geology topics

Jessica R. Murray

Publications and source records attributed to Jessica R. Murray.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

A ground-motion model derived using a generalized mean rupture distance for large slab interface earthquakes

Source–station distance is a central input to ground‐motion models (GMMs) for predicting seismic shaking. GMM development uses distance metrics including the Joyner–Boore distance, which is the shortest distance from an observation point to the surface projection of the earthquake rupture, and R rup the shortest distance to the rupture in three dimensions. Thompson and Baltay (2018) proposed the generalized mean rupture distance R p to address observed near‐fault ground‐motion saturation. R p accounts for the contribution to the shaking of all parts of the rupture and provides a simple method for incorporating spatially variable slip. They used R p to develop a GMM for shallow crustal earthquakes, assuming uniform slip. Here, we investigate the improvement offered by an R p ‐based GMM for large subduction interface earthquakes by recalibrating the path term for a published GMM ( Parker et al. , 2022 ) using R p derived from distributed slip models (DSMs). Inspection of within‐event and total residuals indicates that the recalibrated model fits the data at least as well as an alternative in which the path term was recalibrated using R rup and the same dataset. Incorporating slip information in its entirety or trimming the DSM geometry is preferable to assuming uniform moment release on a prescribed model fault that extends beyond the actual ruptured area. R p tuned to minimize model uncertainty is closer to the maximum distance to rupture for peak ground velocity (PGV) than acceleration, possibly reflecting the contribution to high‐frequency shaking of slip on local asperities. However, when the moment is concentrated far from stations, PGV is fit adequately with R p closer to R rup ⁠ . Our results suggest incorporating slip‐derived moment release through R p could improve GMMs for slab interface events, especially if the implementation of R p ‐based models is refined using a larger dataset of earthquakes with greater geographic diversity to account for regional ground‐motion variations.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

The potential impact of three-dimensional distributed slip models derived from real-time GNSS data on the performance of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system for slab interface earthquakes

The ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning (EEW) system is designed to warn users of imminent strong ground motion with sufficient time to take protective actions. ShakeAlert currently uses three algorithms to characterize the earthquake source. One estimates the location and magnitude using the first few seconds of the P wave and, while fast, tends to underestimate magnitude for M w 7.0+ earthquakes. A second estimates the location, orientation, length, and corresponding magnitude of a line source using observed peak ground acceleration and contributes primarily to M w 5.5+ earthquakes. The third infers earthquake magnitude from peak ground displacement measured using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data and offers nonsaturating magnitudes for M w 7.0+ earthquakes. Other EEW algorithms exist that infer temporally evolving spatially variable slip on a 3D fault surface from real‐time GNSS data, information that might enable more accurate and timely alerts in the event of large‐magnitude subduction interface earthquakes. Here, we evaluate the potential contribution of one such algorithm, BEFORES ( Minson et al. , 2014 ), to improve ShakeAlert performance through a simulated real‐time implementation of Bayesian evidence‐based fault orientation and real‐time earthquake slip (BEFORES) and other ShakeAlert algorithms using data for eight M w 7.6+ earthquakes. The test results demonstrate that BEFORES can produce well‐constrained and accurate magnitude estimates as soon as or sooner than other EEW algorithms, in turn enabling it to increase the amount of warning time users receive in many cases. However, with a modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) threshold of 3.5, which is commonly used for issuing alerts, BEFORES would tend to alert large geographic regions that did not feel strong shaking (MMI 6+). This effect can be mitigated using a higher alert threshold of MMI 4.5 without negative impact on the amount of warning time obtainable with BEFORES.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2026

ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System performance during the Mw 7.0 offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake

The 5 December 2024 M w 7.0 Offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake was a challenging test of the U.S. West Coast ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system due to its offshore epicenter and limited near‐source station coverage. We analyzed real‐time performance of all components of the ShakeAlert system, including the seismic algorithms (earthquake point‐source integrated code [EPIC] and Finite‐fault rupture Detector [FinDer]), the geodetic algorithm (Geodetic First Approximation of Size and Time–peak ground displacement [GFAST‐PGD]), and network telemetry during the event. EPIC created the first solution for this earthquake 15 s after origin time with an initial magnitude estimate of M 5.6 and location error of 10 km from the Advanced National Seismic System epicenter. An early spurious trigger from station CE.89101 fortuitously maintained location accuracy and, correspondingly, magnitude accuracy. FinDer contributed its first solution at 18 s with a location estimate closer to the seismic network and produced two distinct rupture geometries, leading to minor fluctuations in estimated intensity contours. GFAST‐PGD did not meet alerting thresholds but otherwise performed as expected. Network latencies were <2 s for most stations, supporting the rapid detection of this earthquake by the system. Roughly five million alerts were delivered to cell phone devices in California and Oregon during this event. This was also the first instance of a school district‐wide ShakeAlert‐powered system being activated. Comparisons to recorded seismograms demonstrate that the maximum warning times before potentially damaging shaking (intensity 6+) were in the range of 5–55 s. Although the ShakeAlert system provided accurate solutions and useful alert delivery, this earthquake raised awareness of potential issues within the system, including the need for improved offshore location estimates, a combination of solutions from ShakeAlert servers, and handling of spurious triggers.

California↗

USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2023

Slip deficit rates on southern Cascadia faults resolved with viscoelastic earthquake cycle modeling of geodetic deformation

The fore‐arc of the southern Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ), north of the Mendocino triple junction (MTJ), is home to a network of Quaternary‐active crustal faults that accumulate strain due to the interaction of the North American, Juan de Fuca (Gorda), and Pacific plates. These faults, including the Little Salmon and Mad River fault (LSF and MRF) zones, are located near the most populated parts of California’s north coast and show paleoseismic evidence for three slip events of several‐meter scale in the past 1700 yr. However, the geodetic slip rates of these faults are poorly constrained. In this work, we analyze a new compilation of interseismic geodetic velocities from Global Navigation Satellite Systems, leveling, and tide gauge data near the MTJ to constrain present‐day slip deficit rates on upper‐plate faults and coupling on the megathrust. We construct Green’s functions for interseismic slip deficit for discrete faults embedded in an elastic plate overlying a viscoelastic mantle. We then use a constrained least‐squares inversion to determine best‐fitting slip rates on the major faults and investigate slip rate trade‐offs between faults. Results indicate that the LSF and MRF systems together accumulate 4–5 mm/yr of reverse‐slip deficit, although their separate slip rates cannot be determined independently. Modeling of the horizontal and vertical velocities suggests that the southernmost CSZ is coupled interseismically to deeper than 25 km depth. We also find that 6–17 mm/yr of right‐lateral slip deficit extends north of the MTJ and into the southern Cascadia fore‐arc. These results reinforce the notion that both the southernmost Cascadia megathrust and the smaller fore‐arc faults above it contribute to regional seismic hazard.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2023

Incorporation of real-time earthquake magnitudes estimated via peak ground displacement scaling in the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system

The United States earthquake early warning (EEW) system, ShakeAlert®, currently employs two algorithms based on seismic data alone to characterize the earthquake source, reporting the weighted average of their magnitude estimates. Nonsaturating magnitude estimates derived in real time from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data using peak ground displacement (PGD) scaling relationships offer complementary information with the potential to improve EEW reliability for large earthquakes. We have adapted a method that estimates magnitude from PGD ( Crowell et al. , 2016 ) for possible production use by ShakeAlert. To evaluate the potential contribution of the modified algorithm, we installed it on the ShakeAlert development system for real‐time operation and for retrospective analyses using a suite of GNSS data that we compiled. Because of the colored noise structure of typical real‐time GNSS positions, observed PGD values drift over time periods relevant to EEW. To mitigate this effect, we implemented logic within the modified algorithm to control when it issues initial and updated PGD‐derived magnitude estimates ( ⁠ M PGD "> M PGD "> M PGD PGD ⁠ ), and to quantify M PGD "> M PGD PGD uncertainty for use in combining it with estimates from other ShakeAlert algorithms running in parallel. Our analysis suggests that, with these strategies, spuriously large M PGD "> M PGD PGD will seldom be incorporated in ShakeAlert’s magnitude estimate. Retrospective analysis of data from moderate‐to‐great earthquakes demonstrates that the modified algorithm can contribute to better magnitude estimates for M w > 7.0 "> M w > 7.0 w>7.0 events. GNSS station distribution throughout the ShakeAlert region limits how soon the modified algorithm can begin estimating magnitude in some locations. Furthermore, both the station density and the GNSS noise levels limit the minimum magnitude for which the modified algorithm is likely to contribute to the weighted average. This might be addressed by alternative GNSS processing strategies that reduce noise.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2022

Western U.S. deformation models for the 2023 update to the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

This report describes geodetic and geologic information used to constrain deformation models of the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), a set of deformation models to interpret these data, and their implications for earthquake rates in the western United States. Recent updates provide a much larger data set of Global Positioning System crustal velocities than used in the 2014 NSHM, as well as hundreds of new faults considered as active sources for the 2023 NSHM. These data are interpreted by four geodetic models of deformation that estimate fault slip rates and their uncertainties together with off‐fault moment release rates. Key innovations in the 2023 NSHM relative to past practice include (1) the addition of two new (in addition to two existing) deformation models, (2) the revision and expansion of the geologic slip rate database, (3) accounting for fault creep through development of a creep‐rate model that is employed by the four deformation models, and (4) accounting for time‐dependent earthquake‐cycle effects through development of viscoelastic models of the earthquake cycle along the San Andreas fault and the Cascadia subduction zone. The effort includes development of a geologic deformation model that complements the four geodetic models. The current deformation models provide a new assessment of outstanding discrepancies between geologic and geodetic slip rates, at the same time highlighting the need for both geologic and geodetic slip rates to robustly inform the earthquake rate model.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2022

Creep rate models for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Physically constrained inversions for the distribution of creep on California faults

Widespread surface creep is observed across a number of active faults included in the United States (US) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). In northern California, creep occurs on the central section of the San Andreas fault, along the Hayward and Calaveras faults through the San Francisco Bay Area, and to the north coast region along the Maacama and Bartlett Springs faults. In southern California, creep is observed across the Coachella segment of the San Andreas fault, through the Brawley Seismic Zone, and along the Imperial and Superstition Hills faults. Seismic hazard assessments for California have accounted for creep using various data and methods, including the most recent Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) in 2013. The purpose of this study is to expand and update the UCERF3 creep rate data set for the 2023 release of the US NSHM and to invert geodetic data and the surface creep rate data for the spatial distribution of interseismic fault creep on California faults using an elastic model with physical creep constraints. The updated surface creep rate compilation consists of a variety of data types including alignment arrays, offset cultural markers, creepmeters, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, and Global Positioning System data. We compile a total of 497 surface creep rate measurements, 400 of which are new and 97 of which appear in the UCERF3 compilation. We compute creep rate distributions for each of the five 2023 NSHM geodetic‐based and geologic‐based deformation models. Computed creep rates are used to reduce the total fault moment rate available for earthquake sequences in the NSHM model. We find that, despite relatively large variability in model long‐term slip rates across all five deformation models, the variability in depth‐averaged creep rate across all models is relatively small, typically 5–10 mm/yr along the creeping San Andreas fault section and only 2–4 mm/yr along the Maacama and Rodgers Creek‐Hayward faults.

California↗

USGS2021

The impact of 3D finite‐fault information on ground‐motion forecasting for earthquake early warning

We identify aspects of finite‐source parameterization that strongly affect the accuracy of estimated ground motion for earthquake early warning (EEW). EEW systems aim to alert users to impending shaking before it reaches them. The U.S. West Coast EEW system, ShakeAlert, currently uses two algorithms based on seismic data to characterize the earthquake’s location, magnitude, and origin time, treating it as a point or line source. From this information, ShakeAlert calculates shaking intensity and alerts locations where shaking estimates exceed a threshold. Several geodetic EEW algorithms under development would provide 3D finite‐fault information. We investigate conditions under which this information produces sufficiently better intensity estimates to potentially improve alerting. Using scenario crustal and subduction interface sources, we (1) identify the most influential source geometry parameters for an EEW algorithm’s shaking forecast, and (2) assess the intensity alert thresholds and magnitude ranges for which more detailed source characterization affects alert accuracy. We find that alert regions determined using 3D‐source representations of correct magnitude and faulting mechanism are generally more accurate than those obtained using line sources. If a line‐source representation is used and magnitude is calculated from the estimated length, then incorrect length estimates significantly degrade alert region accuracy. In detail, the value of 3D‐source characterization depends on the user’s chosen alert threshold, tectonic regime, and faulting style. For the suite of source models we tested, the error in shaking intensity introduced by incorrect geometry could reach levels comparable to the intrinsic uncertainty in ground‐motion calculations (e.g., 0.5–1.3 modified Mercalli intensity [MMI] units for MMI 4.5) but, especially for crustal sources, was often less. For subduction interface sources, 3D representations substantially improved alert area accuracy compared to line sources, and incorrect geometry parameters were more likely to cause error in calculated shaking intensity that exceeded uncertainties.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2021

Commentary: The role of geodetic algorithms for earthquake early warning in Cascadia

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system issues public alerts in California and will soon extend to Oregon and Washington. The Cascadia subduction zone presents significant new challenges and opportunities for EEW. Initial publications suggested that EEW algorithms based on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data could provide improved warning for intraslab events and dramatically improved warning for offshore megathrust events, both of which contribute significantly to hazard in Cascadia. We find that some expectations in these publications were unrealistic, and we demonstrate that in general geodetic algorithms would not produce timely warnings for intraslab events nor warning times of two minutes or more for severe shaking from megathrust earthquakes. Nonetheless, lessons from recent earthquakes in Japan and California, for which alerts from seismic algorithms suffered from magnitude saturation and high data latencies, demonstrate the urgent need for rigorous testing of geodetic EEW as a potential complement to seismic EEW.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Kinematics of fault slip associated with the July 4-6 2019 Ridgecrest, Californai earthquakes sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence produced observable crustal deformation over much of central and southern California, as well as surface rupture over several tens of kilometers. To obtain a detailed picture of the fault slip involved in the 4 July M 6.4 foreshock and 6 July M 7.1 mainshock, we combine strong‐motion seismic waveforms with crustal deformation observations to obtain kinematic and static slip models of both events. We sample the regional seismic wavefield for both the foreshock and mainshock with three‐component records from 31 stations of the California Integrated Seismic Network. The deformation observations include Global Positioning System (GPS), Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), and borehole strainmeter recordings of the dynamic strain field. These data collectively constrain the kinematic coseismic slip distributions of the events, with measurements variously observing coseismic slip from one event (e.g., seismic waveforms, kinematic solutions from continuous GPS, and strainmeter time series) or coseismic slip from both events combined (InSAR). We find that the foreshock ruptured two separate faults, one with left‐lateral strike slip on a northeast–southwest‐trending fault and the other with right‐lateral strike slip on an orthogonal fault, with unilateral rupture propagation along both. The mainshock ruptured a series of northwest–southeast‐trending faults with right‐lateral strike slip concentrated in the uppermost 6 km with exceptionally low‐rupture velocity averaging 1.0 – 1.5    km / s ">

California↗

USGS2020

Rapid geodetic observations of spatiotemporally varying postseismic deformation following the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: The U.S. Geological Survey response

The U.S. Geological Survey’s geodetic response to the 4–5 July 2019 (Pacific time) Ridgecrest earthquake sequence comprised primarily the installation and/or reoccupation of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) monumentation. Our response focused primarily on the United States’ Navy’s China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station base (NAWSCL). This focus was because much of the surface rupture occurred on the NAWSCL and because of NAWSCL access restrictions only permitting Federal and State of California personnel. In total, we measured or are still measuring at 24 sites, 14 of which were on the NAWSCL and, as of this writing, operational. The majority of sites were set up as continuous stations logging at either 1 sample per second or 1 sample per 15 s. Two stations were recording a 200 m cross‐rupture aperture starting ∼10 hr after the M 6.4 event, and they recorded the coseismic displacements of the M 7.1. Approximately, 1 hr after the M 7.1 event, two new stations were recording a ∼200 m cross‐rupture aperture of the surface rupture. In the days following, we established the rest of the stations ranging to a distance of ∼15 km from the M 7.1 principal rupture trace. The lack of differential displacement across the M 6.4 rupture during the M 7.1 event suggests that it did not reactivate the M 6.4 plane. The lack of differential cross‐fault displacement for both events suggests that rapid shallow afterslip did not occur at those two locations. The postseismic time series from these stations shows centimeters of horizontal displacement over periods of a few months. They record a mixture of fault‐parallel and fault‐normal displacements that, in conjunction with analysis of more spatially complete Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar displacement fields, suggest that both poroelastic and afterslip phenomena occur along the M 6.4 and 7.1 rupture planes. Using preliminary data from these and other regional stations, we also explore the Ridgecrest sequence’s effect on regional GNSS time series and the differentiation of long‐term postseismic motions and secular deformation rates. We find that redefining a common‐mode noise filter using different GNSS stations that are assumed to be unaffected by the earthquakes results in small but systematic differences in the regional velocity field estimate.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2019

Coseismic slip and early afterslip of the M6.0 August 24, 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake

We employ strong motion seismograms and static offsets from the Global Positioning System, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, and other measurements in order to derive a coseismic slip and afterslip model of the M6.0 24 August 2014 South Napa earthquake. This earthquake ruptured an ∼13‐km‐long portion of the West Napa fault with predominantly right‐lateral strike slip. In the kinematic seismic slip inversions, we couple the coseismic slip and afterslip distributions by requiring both distributions to involve right‐lateral strike slip with positive amplitude, with the net static slip being the sum of the two. We consider several candidate fault geometries: a first involving two steeply east dipping fault planes that reach Earth's surface at the western surface trace (STW), where most surface rupture was observed, a second involving a steeply west dipping plane that also reaches Earth's surface at the STW, and a third involving a combination of two variably west dipping planes constrained to pass through the locus of postseismic seismicity located ∼1 km west of the STW. The data are best fit using the model of two east dipping fault planes, with coseismic slip up to ∼1.2 m on a dominant shallow asperity about 10 km north of the hypocenter and on deeper asperities on the southern part of the rupture. Afterslip up to 1 m is concentrated along the southern part of the rupture at depths 5 km, consistent with surface observations of afterslip. Seismic moments associated with coseismic slip and afterslip are 1.13×10 18 N m (Mw 6.00) and 3.64×10 17 N m, respectively.

California↗

USGS2019

Regional Global Navigation Satellite System networks for crustal deformation monitoring

Regional networks of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations cover seismically and volcanically active areas throughout the United States. Data from these networks have been used to produce high‐precision, three‐component velocity fields covering broad geographic regions as well as position time series that track time‐varying crustal deformation. This information has contributed to assessing interseismic strain accumulation and related seismic hazard, revealed previously unknown occurrences of aseismic fault slip, constrained coseismic slip estimates, and enabled monitoring of volcanic unrest and postseismic deformation. In addition, real‐time GNSS data are now widely available. Such observations proved invaluable for tracking the rapidly evolving eruption of Kīlauea in 2018. Real‐time earthquake source modeling using GNSS data is being incorporated into tsunami warning systems, and a vigorous research effort is focused on quantifying the contribution that real‐time GNSS can make to improve earthquake early warnings as part of the Advanced National Seismic System ShakeAlert system. Real‐time GNSS data can also aid in the tracking of ionospheric disturbances and precipitable water vapor for weather forecasting. Although regional GNSS and seismic networks generally have been established independently, their spatial footprints often overlap, and in some cases the same institution operates both types of networks. Further integration of GNSS and seismic networks would promote joint use of the two data types to better characterize earthquake sources and ground motion as well as offer opportunities for more efficient network operations. Looking ahead, upgrading network stations to leverage new GNSS technology could enable more precise positioning and robust real‐time operations. New computational approaches such as machine learning have the potential to enable full utilization of the large amounts of data generated by continuous GNSS networks. Development of seafloor Global Positioning System‐acoustic networks would provide unique information for fundamental and applied research on subduction zone seismic hazard and, potentially, monitoring.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2018

Development of a geodetic component for the U.S. West Coast Earthquake Early Warning System

An earthquake early warning (EEW) system, ShakeAlert, is under development for the West Coast of the United States. This system currently uses the first few seconds of waveforms recorded by seismic instrumentation to rapidly characterize earthquake magnitude, location, and origin time; ShakeAlert recently added a seismic line source algorithm. For large to great earthquakes, magnitudes estimated from the earliest seismic data alone generally saturate. Real‐time Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data can directly measure large displacements, enabling accurate magnitude estimates for M w 7 + "> M w 7 + events, possibly before rupture termination. GNSS‐measured displacements also track evolving slip and, alone or in combination with seismic data, constrain finite‐fault models. Particularly for large‐magnitude, long‐rupture events, GNSS‐based magnitude and rupture extent estimates can improve updates to predicted shaking and thus alert accuracy. GNSS data processing centers at ShakeAlert partner institutions provide real‐time streams to the EEW system, and three geodetic EEW algorithms have been developed through the ShakeAlert collaboration. These algorithms will undergo initial testing within ShakeAlert’s computational architecture using a suite of input data that includes simulated real‐time displacements from synthetic earthquakes and GNSS recordings from recent earthquakes worldwide. Performance will be evaluated using metrics and standards consistent with those adopted for ShakeAlert overall. This initial assessment will guide method refinement and synthesis of the most successful features into a candidate geodetic algorithm for the ShakeAlert production system. In parallel, improvements to geodetic networks and streamlining approaches to data processing and exchange will ensure robust geodetic data availability in the event of an earthquake.

West coast↗

USGS2018

Revised technical implementation plan for the ShakeAlert system—An earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), along with partner organizations, has developed an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the highest risk areas of the United States: namely, California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by providing alerts to institutional users and the public. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Alerts can then be sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System. However, these networks were not originally designed for EEW; old equipment needs to be updated and new stations must be added to construct EEW-capable networks. The ShakeAlert data-processing infrastructure includes redundant servers that are geographically distributed at monitoring centers in Seattle, Washington, as well as Menlo Park, Berkeley, and Pasadena in California. Three data-processing layers collect raw ground-motion data from field stations (data layer), analyze these data to estimate the area and intensity of the resulting shaking (production layer), and publish alert products as appropriate for end users (alert layer). The alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission, infrastructure, or expertise to perform public notifications and is therefore recruiting technology enablers from the private sector. Additionally, ShakeAlert will coordinate with both public and private partners to accomplish consistent and ongoing public communication, education, and outreach. The estimated cost of completing the ShakeAlert infrastructure and sensor networks is \$39.4 million and has an estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of \$28.6 million per year. Building a highly reliable data telemetry infrastructure would cost another \$20.5 million and operating this telemetry system would add \$49.8 million per year; however, these costs could be reduced if project partners provide bandwidth on existing systems.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Interseismic ground deformation and fault slip rates in the greater San Francisco Bay Area from two decades of space geodetic data

The detailed spatial variations of strain accumulation and creep on major faults in the northern San Francisco Bay Area (North Bay), which are important for seismic potential and evaluation of natural hazards, remain poorly understood. Here we combine interferometric synthetic aperture radar data from the ERS‐1/2 and Envisat satellites between 1992 and 2010 with continuous and campaign GPS data to obtain a high spatial and temporal coverage of ground deformation of the North Bay. The SAR data from both ascending and descending orbits are combined to separate horizontal and vertical components of the deformation. We jointly invert the horizontal component of the mean velocities derived from these data to infer the deep strike‐slip rates on major locked faults. We use the estimated deep rates to simulate the long‐wavelength deformation due to interseismic elastic strain accumulation along these locked faults. After removing the long‐wavelength signal from the InSAR horizontal mean velocity field, we estimate fault‐parallel surface creep rates of up to 2 mm/year along the central section of the Rodgers Creek fault and surface creep rates ranging between 2 and 4 mm/year along the Concord fault. No surface creep is geodetically resolved along the West Napa and Green Valley fault zones. We identified characteristically repeating earthquakes on the Rodgers Creek fault, the West Napa fault, the Green Valley fault, and the Concord fault. Nontectonic deformation in the Geysers geothermal field and in Late Cenozoic basins (Rohnert Park and Sonoma basins) are also observed, likely due to hydrological and sediment‐compaction processes, respectively.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗