Geology topics

Sara K. McBride

Publications and source records attributed to Sara K. McBride.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing university student experiences with earthquake early warning in the United States: Evaluating language planning and technology access

The growing literature on deaf and hard of hearing (DHH+) populations and disasters demonstrates that emergency communication (including alerts) is not reaching global DHH + individuals with dangerous impacts for morbidity and mortality. This is the first research study in the U.S. to qualitatively explore the experiences of DHH + persons with earthquake early warning (EEW) through group-based dialogue sessions. The study investigates eight DHH + university students'past earthquake experiences, access to EEW alerts, and perceptions of ShakeAlert Ⓡ , an EEW system for detecting earthquakes and alerting residents of California, Oregon, and Washington. Findings highlight key gaps in disaster alert usability within four thematic areas: lack of messaging in participants' language(s), unclear alert messaging, deficient message delivery mechanisms for deafblind persons, and insufficient access to earthquake information and training that leads to dependence on informal information networks. Weaknesses identified in these four themes reduce DHH + trust in EEW systems and compromise the capacity of alert recipients to take swift protective action or to mentally prepare before shaking starts. The study also underscores structural factors such as insufficient linguistic representation in disaster language planning and technology design, which ignores the linguistic and sensory access needs of DHH + individuals. Building on disaster language planning frameworks, we recommend involving DHH + populations to co-develop EEW alerts. By centering DHH + perspectives, this research contributes to ongoing efforts to ensure that EEW systems reach everyone.

California↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗

USGS2025

Preliminary field report of landslide hazards following Hurricane Helene

Executive Summary This report reflects our knowledge regarding the widespread landslide activity associated with Hurricane Helene observed during the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission assignment to North Carolina in October 2024. The material in this report was originally prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency under mission assignment DR-4827-NC. The data and commentary in this report are reflective of a report provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on October 18, 2024, as well as information provided in briefings at the Buncombe County Emergency Operations Center. The report has been modified for public dissemination. This assessment was based on systematic visual examination and mapping of landslide locations from aerial and satellite imagery, visual and photographic observations from low-level helicopter overflights and conversations with local landslide experts from the North Carolina Geological Survey and Appalachian Landslide Consultants PLLC, and more than 50 years of combined landslide hazard professional experience of the mission-assigned field team. No systematic field investigations were done by the USGS. While responding to the event, the USGS did not identify any landslides that posed an immediate major threat to recovery personnel in parts of nine counties in North Carolina (Avery, Buncombe, Henderson, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Watauga, and Yancey); however, threats from renewed landslide activity may remain heightened in localized areas for months or even years. Known areas of the most abundant landslide occurrence include Bat Cave, Lake Lure, Chimney Rock, Swannanoa, Black Mountain, Fairview, steep areas in Asheville, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The USGS shared detailed locations of known landslides with the Emergency Operations Centers. The thousands of landslide scars on hillsides and landslide deposits on flatter ground may present some threat to recovery activities. Soil and rocks will continue to erode from newly exposed landslide scars and may pose a threat to people and infrastructure who are immediately nearby. In general, the steeper and taller the landslide scar, the greater the potential threat. This threat is heightened during periods of rainfall and increases with the duration and intensity of rainstorms. Very heavy rainfall, or repeated rainfall events during short periods, could also initiate new landslides on steep slopes. Excavation of landslide deposits, particularly excavation of those deposits directly adjacent to steep slopes, may also pose a threat to nearby people and equipment. An interagency collaborative mapping effort led by the USGS that informed this assessment identified 1,155 landslide locations by the October 2024 briefings, but that number increased to 2,217 in a final reviewed version of the locations published in January 2025. Locations were mapped from satellite imagery, fixed-wing and helicopter surveys, media and social media, and field reports in the 3 weeks following the passage of the remnants of Hurricane Helene. USGS products outlined in this report are publicly available and include geotagged photographs from aerial reconnaissance, hazard models, an interactive view of mapped landslide locations, and landslide safety and education resources.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgini↗

USGS2025

Meet the people where they are: Assessing user needs for aftershock forecast products in El Salvador, Mexico and the United States

Aftershock forecasts can help communities reduce their seismic risk by conveying how many aftershocks can be expected following a large earthquake, and how the expected number of aftershocks and their corresponding ground shaking evolves over time and space. Prior work finds that graphical forecast products may communicate such information better than only text or numbers. To identify which visual products can serve multiple user groups, we held workshops with members of several professions, including emergency managers, engineers, critical infrastructure operators, public health specialists, science communicators, and more. We conducted these workshops in El Salvador, Mexico and the United States to understand which forecast products may be effective across different countries. In these workshops, users performed small-group activities to elicit the types of aftershock forecast information that would support decisions in their respective roles and how this information would optimally be displayed. Maps of shaking hazards were frequently requested across all professions and countries, even for dissimilar forecast uses. The design of these maps, and other product needs, were differentiated by profession, country and other factors. Other forecast products, including those showing forecasts about the magnitudes and time periods of future aftershocks, also served a variety of users, but for different types of decisions. We found a greater variation in user needs by profession than by country, and that user needs also vary with time, communication channel and other contextual factors. We discuss practical implications for user-centered visual communication of operational aftershock forecasts.

International Journal for Disaster Risk Reduction↗

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↗

USGS2025

Simulating human behavior under earthquake early warning

Earthquakes are a rapid-onset hazard where advance planning and learning plays a key role in mitigating injuries and death to individuals. Recent advances in earthquake detection have resulted in the development of earthquake early warning (EEW) systems. These systems can provide advance warning to predetermined geographic regions that an earthquake is in progress, which may result in individuals receiving warning seconds before significant shaking is felt at their location. This additional time could allow individuals to take more effective protective actions during the immediate disaster. To demonstrate this, we created an agent-based simulation of a basic apartment that allowed us to randomly and repeatedly simulate an individual receiving and responding to an EEW message. The results of our preliminary simulation show that, in our study environment, earthquake early warning alerts have the potential to allow for sufficient time for individuals to take protective actions.

Washington↗

USGS2024

Preliminary observations of the April 5th, 2024, Mw4.8 New Jersey earthquake

On 5 April 2024, 10:23 a.m. local time, a moment magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck Tewksbury Township, New Jersey, about 65 km west of New York City. Millions of people from Virginia to Maine and beyond felt the ground shaking, resulting in the largest number (>180,000) of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” reports of any earthquake. A team deployed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology documented structural and nonstructural damage, including substantial damage to a historic masonry building in Lebanon, New Jersey. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center reported a focal depth of about 5 km, consistent with a lack of signal in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data. The focal mechanism solution is strike slip with a substantial thrust component. Neither mechanism’s nodal plane is parallel to the primary northeast trend of geologic discontinuities and mapped faults in the region, including the Ramapo fault. However, many of the relocated aftershocks, for which locations were augmented by temporary seismic deployments, form a cluster that parallels the general northeast trend of the faults. The aftershocks lie near the Tewksbury fault, north of the Ramapo fault.

New Jersey↗