Geology topics

Faults & earthquakes

Explore USGS earthquake and fault publications. Search fault names, locations and seismic hazards; follow the original report for maps, methods and publication context.

Follow this topic with RSS

453 records · Page 18Linked to original sources

USGS2025

Bayesian ETAS modeling for the Pacific Northwest: Uncovering effects of tectonic regimes, regional differences, and swarms on aftershock parameters

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) of North America has high seismic hazard due to numerous earthquake sources under populated areas. It hosts several tectonic regimes and subregional seismic zones that are hypothesized to have different patterns of earthquake and aftershock occurrence. It is also predisposed to earthquake swarms, which can complicate the statistical modeling of these patterns. We present the first statistical seismicity model of the PNW catalog using the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) framework. We develop a Bayesian inference procedure that provides a stable estimation of both ETAS parameters and their uncertainties for different sets of PNW earthquakes, even those with very sparse catalogs. The Bayesian approach allows us to investigate how parameter estimates change between the intraslab and crustal tectonic regimes, the northern and southern PNW, and when swarms are included and excluded from the catalog. We also utilize our Bayesian framework to calculate parameter estimates under different prior beliefs about PNW seismicity, as well as to propagate catalog measurement errors into ETAS parameter estimates. We discuss the implications of parameter differences across the region for aftershock forecasting for the PNW.

Pacific Northwest↗

USGS2024

Uncertainty and spatial correlation in station measurements for mb magnitude estimation

The body‐wave magnitude (⁠⁠) is a long‐standing network‐averaged, amplitude‐based magnitude used to estimate the magnitude of seismic sources from teleseismic observations. The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) relies on in its global real‐time earthquake monitoring mission. Although waveform modeling‐based moment magnitudes are the modern standard to characterize earthquake size, is important because (1) in many cases, waveform modeling is not possible (e.g., low signal‐to‐noise events), (2) is applicable over a broad range of magnitudes, ∼M 4–7, and (3) there is a many decades‐long history of estimating magnitudes. We use the NEIC Preliminary Determination of Epicenters earthquake catalog to investigate the uncertainty in NEIC station measurements. We show that measurements are spatially correlated, which can bias event ⁠, and we describe an empirical relation between this spatial correlation and station‐to‐station distance. We further describe an approach to mitigate bias from the spatial correlation. Accounting for the spatial covariance of observations can change the event from −0.15 to 0.07 units (10th to 90th percentile) for smaller events (⁠⁠). These smaller events have the largest standard deviations ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 units (10th to 90th percentile).

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2025

A soil velocity model for improved ground motion simulations in the U. S. Pacific Northwest

Near-surface seismic velocity structure may significantly impact the intensity, duration, and frequency content of ground shaking during an earthquake. In this study, we compile 649 shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles throughout the U.S. Pacific Northwest and southern British Columbia (PNW) and use these measured profiles to develop a representative soil velocity model for four major Holocene soil provinces: Puget Lowlands, Willamette Valley, fill and alluvium, and `other' soils. The resulting soil velocity model shows good agreement to measured data for a wide range of site conditions, with variability between different geologic domains reflecting fundamental differences in depositional environments. We then show that using this regional soil velocity model in simulations of the 2001 M6.8 Nisqually, Washington earthquake improves the fit to observed high-frequency (≥ 0.5 Hz) ground motions in the Puget Sound region compared to simulations that do not incorporate shallow (≤ 200 m) seismic velocity structure. Overall, this work shows that incorporating localized soil velocity profiles into seismic velocity models is important for accurately estimating high-frequency ground motion and regional seismic hazard in earthquake simulations. Future earthquake simulations and hazard studies in the PNW could incorporate these soil velocity profiles to capture the region's distinct site response characteristics.

Washington↗

USGS2024

New developments at the Center for Engineering Strong-Motion Data (CESMD)

The Center for Engineering Strong-Motion Data (CESMD), an internationally utilized joint center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS), provides a single access point for earthquake strong-motion records and station metadata from the CGS California Strong-Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), the USGS National Strong-Motion Project (NSMP), the USGS Advanced National Seismic System, and other affiliates. The CESMD has been continuously improving its webtools to facilitate the access of strong-motion data and metadata for use in post-earthquake response and for scientific and engineering research applications. The Center provides raw and processed strong-motion data via the Engineering Data Center (EDC) and the Virtual Data Center (VDC) web portals. This paper focuses on the strong-motion products provided by the EDC where more than 48,000 records with peak ground accelerations greater than 0.1% g from over 2400 earthquakes are currently hosted. and on the ongoing efforts to develop data access tools and applications. The new developments and ongoing efforts in the EDC include: 1) enhancements to the CESMD webservices to facilitate access to station metadata, earthquake information, and strong motion records 2) new features to the interactive map interface, improving the visualization and access to earthquake, station, and record information, 3) efforts to develop a new web application tool for data format conversion from a number of data formats, 4) efforts to unify varying waveform data formats into a consistent format, 5) ongoing efforts to compile seismic station site geology, measured or inferred Vs30 values, shear-wave profiles, NEHRP site class, and available structural instrument deployment schematics, and 6) a special studies pages for research topic-specific ground motion datasets that offer uniform processing of records from a variety of sources.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

A journey to the center of the USGS National Strong-motion Project processing and beyond

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) has the primary U.S. government responsibility to acquire, process, and disseminate significant strong-motion earthquake ground motion records measured at surficial free-field stations, structures (buildings, dams, and bridges, and geotechnical arrays to the earthquake engineering community. As a result of the deployment of modern seismic instrumentation and growth of tools such as web-services, earthquake data from U.S. and international seismic networks are more accessible than ever. Our mission is to provide raw and processed strong-motion waveforms with PGA values greater than 0.1%g for M3.0 earthquakes and larger in California and M4.0 and larger within the conterminous US, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. Datasets of interest to the engineering and geophysics communities, such as event sequences in areas of induced seismicity and significant global events, are also processed and posted at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) at strongmotioncenter.org when available through collaboration with the international strong-motion data community. Here we outline (1) the NSMP’s current workflow to acquire, process, and distribute data at CESMD; (2) our new endeavours and collaborations focusing on comparison and integration of waveform processing software, development of techniques for metadata quality checks before and after earthquakes, and construction of a dynamic site characterization repository; and (3) our topics for possible collaboration topics across the global strong-motion community.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2025

Estimated average annualized tsunami losses for the United States

Tsunami hazards are substantial threats to coastal communities across the United States (U.S.) and its territories. U.S. states and territories collaborate through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) to develop their own tsunami-hazard information for outreach and evacuation planning. An effort to curate this tsunami-hazard information to support comprehensive risk analysis at the national level has not yet been completed. In support of this effort, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) collaborated with the NTHMP, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) starting in 2023. This collaboration included the collection and analysis of existing tsunami hazard data and methods in the U.S. Tsunami subject matter experts identified and selected scientifically defensible methods for estimating the risks to buildings and populations in coastal communities. These efforts may support decision making regarding resilience policies, priorities, strategies and funding levels. Tsunamis can be triggered by earthquakes, subaerial or submarine landslides, volcanic eruptions, glacial calving, near-earth objects, weather or other events. These events can cause severe destruction, injuries, and loss of life due to powerful currents and flooding. Tsunamis pose a substantial threat to the western United States and all U.S. territories, as described below. ■ Hawaii is threatened by distant tsunamis due to its central location in the Pacific Ocean basin and has a history of local events. ■ Alaska, particularly the Aleutian Islands, faces local tsunami threats due to proximity to the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction Zone, as well as distant tsunamis from around the Pacific Ocean basin. ■ The western coast of the U.S. is threatened by distant tsunamis from around the Pacific Ocean basin and local source tsunamis from earthquakes generated within the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest. ■ American Samoa faces local tsunami threats from earthquakes generated in the nearby Tonga Trench, as well as distant tsunami threats. ■ Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are threatened by local tsunamis from the nearby Mariana Subduction Zone, as well as distant sources from around the Pacific Ocean Basin. ■ Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are threatened by multiple local and distant tsunami sources, such as the Puerto Rico Trench (PRT), given their location in the complex seismic region of the Caribbean Sea. Several historical events stand out because of their catastrophic impacts. ■ In the Pacific Northwest, the 1700 Cascadia earthquake caused a tsunami that affected coastal Native American communities, though the extent of the damage is not fully documented (Ludwin, et al., 2005). ■ In Puerto Rico, the 1918 earthquake triggered a tsunami that caused $77 million in damage in 2022 dollars and 116 fatalities, primarily along the western coast (Coffman et al., 1982). ■ The 1946 Aleutian Islands earthquake triggered a massive tsunami that devastated Hilo, Hawaii, killing 158 people and resulting in approximately $375 million in damage (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (Fisher et al., 2023). ■ The 1964 Alaska earthquake (M 9.2) generated tsunamis that caused severe destruction in some communities across Alaska, Oregon, and California. This disaster led to a total of 124 fatalities and approximately $2.9 billion in property damage (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (Brocher et al., 2014) (Alaska Science Center, 2024). ■ In American Samoa, a tsunami generated by the 2009 Samoa earthquake (Mw 8.1) caused widespread devastation, resulting in 34 confirmed fatalities (Apatu et al., 2013) and economic losses exceeding $160 million (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (DHS, 2011). More recent events, including the 2010 Chile earthquake, the 2011 Japan earthquake, and the 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption, resulted in millions of dollars in damage to numerous ports and harbors in the U.S. South Pacific territories, Hawaii, and along the west coast of the U.S. (Lynett, et al., 2022) (Wilson, et al., 2013). Since these events, the expansion of the built environment in lowlying areas along the coast has increased the exposure of buildings and people, thereby further escalating community risk from tsunamis. This report provides a comprehensive national assessment of earthquake-generated tsunami risk. It does not include impacts from tsunamis generated by landslides, volcanic eruptions, glacial calving, near-earth objects, weather, or other events. This study is based on the best available hazard data from the U.S. Pacific Coast (California, Oregon and Washington), Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Pacific Territories (American Samoa, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and Caribbean Territories (Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands). Tsunami risks associated with states along the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes are not included in this study because Hazus 6.1 software (FEMA 2024a) does not currently include the ability to analyze tsunami risk in those states. Once modeling capabilities and tsunami hazard data become available for additional states, FEMA may incorporate these data into future editions of this study.

Alaska, California, Hawaii Oregon, Washington↗

USGS1976

Medicine Lodge thrust system, east-central Idaho and southwest Montana

The Medicine Lodge thrust system, exposed in east-central Idaho and southwest Montana, is a major segment of the North America Cordilleran fold and thrust belt on which Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks have been telescoped and transported far east of their depositional area. The fault has overlapped rocks that initially were deposited in differing sedimentary environments on opposite sides of the northwest-trending geanticlinal Lemhi arch. The nature of the arch itself has been obscured by later thrusting, but it can be roughly reconstructed as a major landmass recurrently uplifted from Precambrian Y time at least through the Mesozoic. Although sections of the large landmass have been identified in the past as small islands, it was instead a southern extension of Belt island, and exerted a major influence on sedimentation patterns. The thrust has obscured recognition of correlative sedimentary rock units. It also appears to have controlled the distribution of volcanic rocks in satellite centers of the main field of Challis Volcanics. The thrust system has exerted a major influence on the emplacement of granodiorite-quartz monzonite stocks and related mineral deposits in east-central Idaho. Recognition of the fault as a major influence in intrusive activity and deposition of metallic mineral deposits suggests new possibilities for mineral resource exploration in this region. And consideration of the stratigraphic, paleogeographic, and structural framework of sedimentary rocks beneath the thrust suggests the possibility of petroleum and natural gas resources in the region north of the Snake River Plain.

Idaho, Montana↗

USGS2025

Global patterns of coseismic landslide runout mobility differ from aseismic landslide trends

Coseismic landslides significantly contribute to human and economic losses during and immediately following earthquakes, yet very little data on the runout of such landslides exist. While well-established behavior of aseismic (e.g., hydrologically triggered) landslide runout mobility suggests strong correlation between landslide size and mobility, limited studies of coseismic landslide runout find conflicting mobility trends. We present a global dataset of runout lengths produced from a new automated method for estimating landslide runout, developed and validated using 1726 manually mapped landslides from five unique earthquakes. We then apply the automated runout tool to 23 global earthquake-induced landslide inventories, producing a compiled database of 73,665 measured and estimated runout lengths of coseismic landslides to assess mobility trends. We find a significant divergence between well-established aseismic mobility trends and that of coseismic landslides, with far greater scatter and more complex mobility patterns in earthquake-triggered landslides. As a function of landslide size, we observe global coseismic landslide mobility patterns are bilinear, becoming increasingly less mobile with increasing size above some threshold. This discordance between aseismic and coseismic landslide mobility may be a function of landslide type, kinematics, hydrology, and or setting that systematically differ between triggering mechanisms and should be explored in more depth to develop predictive models of these unique runout patterns. These results suggest hazard and risk models for coseismic landslides may significantly under-predict or over-predict impacts, depending on the size of triggered landslides.

Engineering Geology↗

USGS2026

The 2025 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model Update: Ground motion model selection and comparison

We evaluate, select, and describe the ground-motion models (GMMs) used in the 2025 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). We identify the most appropriate models that align with GMM selection criteria for use in the PRVI region to improve the accuracy of seismic hazard assessments. The update incorporates globally applicable GMMs suited for the active crustal and subduction earthquakes in the region. We include region-specific adjustments to these GMMs derived from local site response analyses derived from ground motion records. The unadjusted and regionally-corrected GMMs are combined to create a robust model for predicting median ground motion. The model integrates epistemic uncertainty through a median ground motion logic tree that accounts for variations in magnitude and distance. This study compares the GMMs selected for the 2025 PRVI NSHM, including both as-provided and regionally adjusted NGA-West2 and NGA-Subduction models, with those used in the 2003 PRVI NSHM. We evaluate how changes in model selection, weighting, aleatory variability, and epistemic uncertainty influence seismic hazard estimates. Trends with distance, magnitude, and spectral period are analyzed to evaluate how the scaling behavior of the newer GMMs differs from that of earlier models. Relative to the GMMs used in the 2003 NSHM for this region, the 2025 models generally predict lower ground motions. Comparisons with additional GMMs indicate that the adjustments applied for PRVI are consistent with regional-specific modifications developed elsewhere globally. The increase in aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty in the 2025 update results in a notable increase in hazard levels from these wider uncertainty bounds. These changes can result in as much as a 10%–20% variation in probabilistic ground motion at the 2% in 50 years exceedance level for hazard maps computed across the region for representative site classes and periods.

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands↗

USGS2024

Three-dimensional geologic framework model of the Rio San Jose groundwater basin and adjacent areas, New Mexico

As part of a U.S. Geological Survey study in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico, and the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico, a digital three-dimensional geologic framework model was constructed for the Rio San Jose and its surface-water drainage basin in west-central New Mexico. This three-dimensional model defines the altitude, thickness, and extent of 18 geologic units for use in a regional numerical hydrologic model. The model included an undifferentiated Proterozoic basement layer, 13 consolidated Paleozoic and Mesozoic rock units, and 4 Cenozoic units. Model input data were compiled from published cross sections, well data, structure contour maps, selected geophysical data, and data derived from geologic maps and structural features in the study area. These data were used to construct faulted surfaces that represent the upper and lower subsurface geologic unit boundaries. The digital three-dimensional geologic framework model combines faults, the altitude of the tops of each geologic unit, and boundary lines depicting the subsurface extent of each geologic unit. The digital three-dimensional geologic model described in this report and the corresponding data release represents the generalized geometry of the subsurface geologic units; it reproduces with reasonable accuracy the input geologic data and is consistent with previously published subsurface conceptualizations of the region. The geologic framework model is at a scale and resolution appropriate for use as the foundation for a numerical hydrologic model of the study area.

New Mexico↗

USGS2026

A deep dive into subduction zones and the Japan Trench

Deep beneath the ocean, giant slabs of rock slide beneath one another in areas called subduction zones. These powerful movements shape the planet by building mountains, creating fiery volcanoes, and even causing huge earthquakes. Scientists study subduction zones to understand why these natural events happen and where and how they might occur so we can be better prepared. One important subduction zone is the Japan Trench, where a big earthquake happened in 2011. To learn more about subduction zones, scientists go on ocean drilling expeditions. They sail on research ships, drill into the seafloor, and collect rock samples. These samples help scientists understand what happened in the past and how subduction zones work. In turn, this information helps communities better understand and prepare for future earthquakes.

Frontiers for Young Minds↗

USGS2024

Aftershock forecasting

Aftershocks can compound the impacts of a major earthquake, disrupting recovery efforts and potentially further damaging weakened buildings and infrastructure. Forecasts of the probability of aftershocks can therefore aid decision-making during earthquake response and recovery. Several countries issue authoritative aftershock forecasts. Most aftershock forecasts are based on simple statistical models that were first developed in the 1980s and remain the best available models. We review these statistical models, and the wide-ranging research to advance aftershock forecasting through better statistical, physical, and machine learning methods. Physics-based forecasts based on mainshock stress changes can sometimes match the statistical models in testing, but don’t yet outperform them. Physical models are also hampered by unsolved problems such as the mechanics of dynamic triggering and the influence of background conditions. Initial work on machine learning forecasts shows promise, and new machine learning earthquake catalogs provide an opportunity to advance all types of aftershock forecasts.

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences↗

USGS2025

Persistent deep long-period seismicity near the Lassen Volcanic Center

Deep long-period (DLP) earthquakes have been observed at many volcanic settings around the world and linked to the magmatic processes that drive volcanic unrest. At the Lassen Volcanic Center (LVC) of the Cascade arc, limited detection of DLP activity hinders classification of anomalous seismic behavior and its relationship to the LVC magmatic system. This study uses a template matching approach with seismic data from temporary nodal and permanent stations to detect and locate DLP earthquakes near the LVC between 2017 and 2024. Within the DLP catalog of 611 events, a transition occurs from scattered (2017–2020) to oscillatory (2021–2024) occurrence rates. During the oscillatory period, regional earthquakes with large amplitude velocity waveforms observed near the LVC are associated with abrupt changes in DLP occurrence rates. Continued monitoring of DLP activity has the potential to better define the processes that drive volcanic unrest at the LVC in the future.

California↗

USGS2026

Ground-motion characterization for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

We develop the ground-motion characterization (GMC) for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NSHM-PRVI) for earthquakes in active crustal, subduction interface, and subduction intraslab regimes. Using ground-motion models (GMMs) from the Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 and NGA-Subduction projects, the GMC is parameterized by scaled-backbone models for median ground motions and by independent logic trees of aleatory variability. We introduce several novel GMC features into the U.S. NSHM: (1) use of regional ground-motion data for modeling median ground motions; (2) development of scaled-backbone models for median ground motions; and (3) development of independent logic trees of aleatory variability from variance components of GMMs and computed from multiple ground-motion datasets, and incorporating regional ground-motion data effects on variability. We compute probabilistic seismic hazard curves and maps to evaluate the contributions from the GMC components and for comparison with the 2003 GMC. Contributions of the GMC to epistemic uncertainty in seismic hazard are evaluated through spatial variations in epistemic uncertainty in hazard maps, comparisons between mean hazard curves and fractiles, as well as investigations of the contributions of logic-tree branches to hazard maps and curves. Comparisons between seismic hazard from the 2025 and 2003 GMCs allow examination of the changes in hazard curves and mapped values with 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. The 2025 GMC exhibits modest changes in median predictions, relative to the 2003 GMC; overall, values of aleatory variability are higher, except at long periods ( ), resulting in changes to probabilistic ground motions at low probabilities of exceedance (<10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Changes in hazard at 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years are also relatively modest (within 20%) at most sites, with the impacts from the 2025 GMC exhibiting minor reductions and increases at 0.2 and 1.0 s periods, respectively, relative to the 2003 GMC.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

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

Colored shaded-relief bathymetry and acoustic backscatter of Lake Sammamish, Washington

Evidence of strong earthquakes (such as underwater landslides and associated deposits) may be recorded within the lacustrine sediments of Pacific Northwest lakes. The floor of Lake Sammamish, Wash., an approximately 11 kilometer (6.8 mile) long, 2 kilometer (1.2 mile) wide, and 35 meter (114.8 feet) deep lake located in a populated region just east of Seattle, was mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey in November of 2021 to search for evidence of past earthquakes. Mapping was conducted using a SWATHplus-M 234-kHz interferometric side-scan sonar system was pole-mounted on the U.S. Geological Survey research vessel Parke Snavely, and the system collected full-coverage bathymetric and acoustic backscatter data, which were processed to 2-meter spatial resolution. Two maps were created, a colored shaded-relief bathymetric map showing lake floor morphology (sheet 1), and an acoustic-backscatter map showing backscatter intensities (sheet 2). The results may then be utilized together to investigate past earthquake activity.

Washington↗

USGS2026

Syn-magmatic subsidence during the early stages of continental rifting in the Mesoproterozoic—A reanalysis of legacy data for the Midcontinent Rift, western Lake Superior

The Midcontinent Rift system (ca. 1.1 Ga) is a 2000-km-long series of elongated volcanic and sedimentary troughs and associated intrusive centers exposed chiefly in the Lake Superior region of North America. The rift system represents a long history of intense magmatism and subsequent sedimentation that was arrested by far-field tectonic events before sea-floor spreading was established. The premature cessation preserved a record of processes related to the beginning of continental rifting. The rift system under Lake Superior has been long studied using seismic-reflection data collected as part of the Great Lakes International Multidisciplinary Program on Crustal Evolution (GLIMPCE). We reexamine GLIMPCE Line C by developing a detailed velocity model for time to depth conversion constrained by other legacy data. We corroborate the model and develop a geologic interpretation using gravity and magnetic modeling and ties to geology mapped onshore. We recognize superposed subsiding sedimentary and volcanic basins for the southern half of the Line C depth section. This interpretation differs from previous paradigms that show major crustal faults that bound half-grabens or full grabens. We conclude that high-velocity (6.9 km/s) intrusive zones rather than major crustal faults border the sides of the basins. We speculate that the volcanic basin represents the initiation of seaward dipping reflectors. The syn-magmatic subsidence can be explained by dike injection and volcanic loading. Discrete lava basins throughout the region likely subsided at different times in a disorganized manner along the rift trend, raising questions about the long-term role of lithospheric thinning and melt generation.

Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario, Wisconsin↗

USGS2026

Site response models based on geometric parameters for southern California sedimentary basins

Site response in sedimentary basins is influenced by complex three-dimensional (3D) features, including trapping of seismic waves, focusing of seismic energy and basin resonance. Current ground motion models (GMMs) incorporate basin effects using one-dimensional parameters like V S30 and shear wave velocity isosurface depths, which are limited in capturing lateral and 3D effects. To address these limitations, we develop seismic site response models based on novel parameters that represent multi-dimensional properties of the Los Angeles Basin (LAB) geometry and shear wave velocity. We define a basin shape for the LAB using depth to subsurface geologic interfaces associated with the oldest sedimentary deposits (depth to a particular shear wave velocity horizon, i.e., 1.5 km/s - z 1.5 ) and the depth to the crystalline basement ( z cb ) which are determined using geologic cross sections and community seismic velocity model profiles. We explore a suite of geometric descriptors computed for the LAB and southern California, from which three parameters with the greatest predictive potential are selected and evaluated using empirical ground motion residual analyses in combination with the Boore et al. GMM. The results demonstrate that the zonal heterogeneity index ( ), standard deviation of the absolute difference between z 1.5 and z cb ( ) and standard deviation of z cb ( ) each provide a reduction in site-to-site variability ( ϕ S2S ) of empirical GMMs. The reduction in ϕ S2S is period-dependent, with average decreases of 3%, 26% and 6% for , , and , respectively. Although these reductions are modest from an engineering application perspective, they are statistically significant, underscoring the inherent difficulty in fully characterising complex basin effects. Collectively, these findings indicate that the inclusion of basin-specific geometric parameters yields measurable, albeit incremental, improvements in site response prediction and establishes a framework for the progressive refinement of seismic hazard characterisation within sedimentary basins.

California↗