SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Earthquake Spectra Journal”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

489 records · Page 21Linked to original sources

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↗

USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗

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↗

USGS2025

Probing lower-crustal fault properties with frequency-dependent tidal tremor triggering

The way seismicity responds to periodic stress perturbations offers crucial insights into the processes that can trigger an earthquake. Laboratory and theoretical analyses have shown that the period of imposed forcing and source properties affect the sensitivity to triggering, but frequency-dependent triggering of tectonic faults is poorly understood. The rate of low-frequency earthquakes (LFEs) near Parkfield, California has been found to be strongly correlated with solid earth tides. Tidal forcing acts over multiple frequencies, and the sensitivity to tidal triggering of LFEs therefore provides a unique opportunity to probe the physics of earthquake triggering and underlying fault properties. Here, we find that the response of LFEs to solid earth tides at diurnal and semi-diurnal frequencies is highly variable but spatially coherent along the San Andreas Fault. Using rate-state friction modeling, we find that the variation of the amplitude of tidal modulation is mainly affected by the spatial variation of the background effective normal stress, whereas the spatially varied tidal modulation at diurnal and semi-diurnal frequencies is mainly affected by the fault frictional property. The spatial variations of the LFE response reveal a heterogeneous lower-crustal geologic structure and complex physical faulting processes below the rupture zone of eventual great earthquakes.

California↗

USGS2026

An entropic explanation for Gutenberg-Richter scaling

We develop a simple explanation for Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) size scaling of earthquakes on a single fault. We discretize the fault and consider all possible contiguous ruptures at that level of discretization. In this static model, we assume that slip scales with rupture length, and that the rupture rates at each point along the fault are consistent with an a priori long-term slip rate. These simple assumptions define an (under-determined) non-negative least-squares inverse problem. Each solution to this inverse problem is a set of earthquake rates that matches the slip-rate constraint. We use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to uniformly sample the solution space assuming constant slip rates along the fault. At finer discretizations, deviations from G-R behavior decrease, which is consistent with an entropic pressure towards G-R solutions. When the fault is discretized into 10 or more segments, random solutions found by the MCMC algorithm have G-R size scaling, even though there are trivial solutions that, for example, have earthquakes of only one size. This is because there are simply far more solutions that have G-R scaling; as the problem size increases, the strong degeneracy of GR solutions results in other solutions becoming improbably rare. Also, the entropically favored G-R distribution has a b -value of approximately 1, which agrees with measured b -values in real earthquake catalogs.

JGR Solid Earth↗

USGS2024

Precariously balanced rocks in northern New York and Vermont, U.S.A.: Ground-motion constraints and implications for fault sources

Precariously balanced rocks (PBRs) and other fragile geologic features have the potential to constrain the maximum intensity of earthquake ground shaking over millennia. Such constraints may be particularly useful in the eastern United States (U.S.), where few earthquake‐source faults are reliably identified, and moderate earthquakes can be felt at great distances due to low seismic attenuation. We describe five PBRs in northern New York and Vermont—a region of elevated seismic hazard associated with historical seismicity. These boulders appear to be among the most fragile PBRs in the region, based on reports from hobbyists. The PBRs are glacial erratics, best evidenced by glacial striations on bedrock pedestals. The pedestals themselves are locally high knobs, often situated on regionally high topography; this setting limits soil development and indicates that any outwash deposits were likely ephemeral. As a result, PBR ages can be reliably established by the retreat of the last continental ice sheet, ∼15–13 ka. To quantify the fragility of the PBRs, we surveyed them with ground‐based light detection and ranging and calculated geometric parameters from the point clouds, field observations, and seismic responses. Preliminary validation of the 2023 time‐independent U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) shows that the existence of PBRs is generally consistent with the median site‐specific hazard curves. Only the Blue Ridge Road site suggests a modest reduction in hazard. To visualize the ensemble of data, we mapped the minimum permissible distance to potential source faults around each PBR site as a function of source magnitude by using the ground‐motion models from the 2023 NSHM. Viewed in this manner, our data are consistent with potential M ∼6.5 earthquake‐source faults in many parts of the Lake Champlain Valley and northern Adirondack Mountains. Our work illustrates a potential pathway for better constraining earthquake‐source faults in regions of cryptic faults.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2024

Deep lithospheric controls on surface deformation and seismicity around the East Anatolian Fault Zone and A3 Triple Junction

The East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) is a plate-bounding strike-slip fault capable of hosting large earthquakes, as demonstrated by the extremely damaging February 2023 M w 7.8 and M w 7.7 mainshocks of the Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Deformation related to this boundary, part of the Anatolia-Arabia-Africa (A 3 ) Triple Junction, is diffuse, as was shown by part of this earthquake sequence occurring on a northern splay of the EAFZ (the Sürgü-Çardak Fault Zone; SCFZ). Controls on surface deformation are commonly linked to stress in the brittle upper crust, but the complex deformation and seismicity patterns in this region may also reflect deeper processes, such as variations in the location and extent of the strong Arabian Plate lithospheric mantle. Seismic tomography indicates that the Arabian Plate underthrusts Anatolia as far north as the SCFZ and extends as far west as the central Adana Basin, coincident with a zone of relatively deep (>30 km) strike-slip seismogenesis that has produced M w >6 earthquakes. By investigating the relationship between deformation since the inception of the EAFZ (ca. 5 Ma), seismic structure, and seismicity, we infer that the SCFZ will become the future SE boundary of the Anatolian Plate as part of the evolving A 3 Triple Junction.

GSA Today↗

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

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

Repeated coseismic uplift of coastal lagoons above the Patton Bay Splay Fault System, Montague Island, Alaska, USA

Coseismic slip on the Patton Bay splay fault system during the 1964 M w 9.2 Great Alaska Earthquake contributed to local tsunami generation and vertically uplifted shorelines as much as 11 m on Montague Island in Prince William Sound (PWS). Sudden uplift of 3.7–4.3 m caused coastal lagoons along the island's northwestern coast to gradually drain. The resulting change in depositional environment from marine lagoon to freshwater muskeg created a sharp, laterally continuous stratigraphic contact between silt and overlying peat. Here, we characterize the geomorphology, sedimentology, and diatom ecology across the 1964 earthquake contact and three similar prehistoric contacts within the stratigraphy of the Hidden Lagoons locality. We find that the contacts signal instances of abrupt coastal uplift that, within error, overlap the timing of independently constrained megathrust earthquakes in PWS—1964 Common Era, 760–870 yr BP, 2500–2700 yr BP, and 4120–4500 yr BP. Changes in fossil diatom assemblages across the inferred prehistoric earthquake contacts reflect ecological shifts consistent with repeated draining of a lagoon system caused by >3 m of coseismic uplift. Our observations provide evidence for four instances of combined megathrust-splay fault ruptures that have occurred in the past ∼4,200 years in PWS. The possibility that 1964-style combined megathrust-splay fault ruptures may have repeated in the past warrants their consideration in future seismic and tsunami hazards assessments.

Alaska↗

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

Dynamic coupling between faulting, rifting and magmatism during 2021-2025 unrest on Reykjanes Peninsula, Iceland

Interactions among faulting, earthquakes, and eruptions are fundamental to plate tectonics and hazard forecasting yet rarely observed along mid-ocean ridges. On Iceland's Reykjanes Peninsula, seismotectonic–volcanic unrest resumed after nearly 800-year hiatus, providing an opportunity to observe these interactions during 2021–2025 activity. By integrating high-resolution seismicity, focal mechanisms, satellite geodesy, surface deformation, and eruption data, we document ∼4 m of total extension accommodated through 14 rifting episodes. The largest, in 2023, involved graben reactivation and diking, with seismic swarms and earthquake faulting that matched the surface ruptures, where strike-slip faulting preceded normal-faulting earthquakes and extension. The accrued extension was released by extension fractures triggered by magma accumulation. Long-term observations show no correlation between erupted magma volume, seismicity, and crustal extension. This highlights dynamic relation between rifting, faulting, and magmatism in transtensional settings and their implications for hazard assessment.

Reykjanes Peninsula↗

USGS2025

Three-dimensional seismic velocity models for the San Francisco Bay region, California from joint body-wave and surface-wave tomography validated by waveform simulation

A high-resolution seismic velocity model for both P and S waves is essential for the San Francisco Bay (SFB) region to accurately simulate earthquake ground motions and assess seismic hazards in this high-risk region. We present new three-dimensional P-wave and S-wave velocity (Vp and Vs) models of the SFB region developed using joint tomographic inversion with a rich set of earthquake and active-source body-wave data and ambient-noise surface-wave data. We designed a dynamic balance strategy to effectively balance the contributions of body-wave and surface-wave data during each iteration of the inversion. Owing to the complementary resolution of body-wave and surface-wave data, our new models are significantly improved compared to previous tomographic models. Major geologic features in the SFB region, including low-velocity basins, high-velocity Franciscan Complex, granite, and gabbro rocks, and across-fault velocity contrasts, are imaged in our Vp and Vs models. Compared to the geology-based U.S. Geological Survey velocity model, our new model has better defined structures for some important areas that are of great concern for seismic hazard assessment, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the 2014 magnitude 6.0 South Napa earthquake area. We validated our model by simulating waveforms for a set of moderate-magnitude earthquakes. The good performance of our model in waveform simulation indicates its potential for improving ground motion simulation and seismic hazard assessment in the SFB region.

California↗

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↗