Leverage decades of Bay Area fault‑creep observations to unlock new insights into earthquake behavior and join the community effort to modernize and expand long‑term creep monitoring
Date: March 3-6, 2026
Location: San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Workshop Organizers: Elizabeth Madden (SJSU), Christie Rowe (UNR)
SCEC Award: 26025
Workshop applications closed on February 4, 2026
The San Francisco Bay Area is cut by a network of faults, many of which are creeping. Creep has been measured since the 1970s by survey measurements of 89 alignment arrays and this extraordinary dataset provides evidence for creep transients, some triggered by regional earthquakes, which propagate along strike over days to years. Currently there is no plan for continuing alignment array measurements, a time-consuming task which may be best shared across the research community. In addition, considering these data alongside alternative methods for observing creep is critical to advance understanding of loading conditions and stress transfer patterns in space and time that underlie fault mechanics, seismic cycling and earthquake rupture dynamics. Limited understanding of how creep influences seismic hazard further underscores the need to focus collaborative research in this area and reconsider long term monitoring of creep. With the expansion to Northern California, the Statewide California Earthquake Center is well positioned to facilitate this collaboration. Workshop goals:
We welcome applications from individuals interested in the interaction of transient and long-term fault creep on seismic hazard, the use of creep observations to constrain timescales of locking and slip, stress transfer, and fault interactions, geodetic, geophysical and geologic methods for constraining fault creep and understanding its mechanisms, and those interested in expanding an interdisciplinary consortium for longer term monitoring in northern and central California.
The workshop registration fee is $150, covering meals and transportation during the field trip on March 4. Costs to participants may also include meals on other days (not included in the registration fee) transportation to/from San Jose (SJC), and parking at SJSU.
For supported out-of-town participants, lodging will be arranged at the Signia Hotel walking distance to the meeting room on San Jose State’s campus. Additional SCEC travel support may be available based on financial need, with priority given to students, early-career researchers, and those without institutional funding. Additional support may cover the registration fee only or may include additional travel expenses.
Applicants should complete the travel support section carefully when applying. Accepted participants will be notified by February 10, 2026, with details on registration payment, hotel reservations, and additional travel support if applicable.
All times are Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8).
| Time | Description | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| Session 1: Creep and creep measurements Clarify what we do we know about Bay Area creep. Identify what we should know about Bay Area creep to advance fundamental science and better mitigate seismic hazard. | ||
| 12:30 - 13:00 | Introduction | Christie Rowe / Ahmed Elbanna |
| 13:00 - 13:20 | Decades of Alignment Array Monitoring | F. McFarland |
| 13:20 - 13:40 | Geologists measuring creep in the Bay area - brief history and future possiblities | Stephen DeLong |
| 13:40 - 14:00 | An overview of the USGS Creepmeters along the San Andreas, Calaveras, and Hayward faults | Todd Ericksen |
| 14:00 - 14:20 | Recent innovations in the measurement of fault creep | Roger Bilham |
| 14:20 - 14:40 | What surface data obscure: Measuring fault creep below the water table | Josie Nevitt |
| 14:40 - 15:00 | Implementing Creep Measurements in US National Seismic Hazard Models | Kaj Johnson |
| 15:00 - 16:15 | Breakout 1
| |
| 16:15 - 16:45 | Stephen DeLong / Josie Nevitt / Todd Ericksen / Roger Bilham | |
| 16:45 | Adjourn Day 1 |
| Time | Description | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| Session 2: Measuring Creep in the Field Ensure that all participants understand the current creep monitoring technology and discuss its limitations, advantages and future. Discuss new/potential creep assessment tools. | ||
| 08:30 | Meet for all day field trip | |
| Site 1/2 | Stephen DeLong | |
| Site 3 | Josie Nevitt / Roger Bilham / Todd Ericksen | |
| 18:00 | Workshop Dinner (San José) |
| Time | Description | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| Session 3: Deep dive on comparison of alignment arrays and other monitoring methods Critique current creep dataset and highlight challenges of data collection. Consider alternative/complementary monitoring strategies (microseismicity, remote sensing, creepmeters, structure from motion, lidar, etc). Highlight spatial and temporal resolutions provided by current and alternative methods. | ||
| 09:00 - 09:30 | Introduction & field trip review | Stephen DeLong / Josie Nevitt |
| 09:30 - 09:45 | Implications of decadal changes in fault creep on Hayward fault | Roland Burgmann |
| 09:45 - 10:00 | Quantifying creep rates along the Central San Andreas Fault from repeat high-resolution topography | Chelsea Scott |
| 10:00 - 10:15 | Small-scale propagation of shallow creep events and environmental effects on the San Andreas fault, central California | Heather Crume |
| 10:15 - 10:30 | Monitoring creep with coda wave interferometry | Thomas Luckie |
| 10:30 - 10:45 | Reports on the Sargent Fault from alignment array data and trenching the creepy San Andreas | Belle Philibosian |
| 10:45 - 11:00 | Break | |
| 11:00 - 11:15 | Fault zone geodesy at USGS ESC: Challenges and Future Directions | Andrew Barbour |
| 11:15 - 11:30 | Structure, Deformation, and Rheology of the Hayward Fault: Where the Urban Fault Meets the Road | Eric Fielding |
| 11:30 - 11:45 | Multi-decadal GPS data set developed by the USGS Earthquake Science Center for measuring and modeling interseismic creep on faults in central and northern California | Jessica Murray |
| 11:45 - 12:00 | Perspectives on monitoring and modeling creep using InSAR, GNSS and repeating earthquakes | Gareth Funning |
| 12:00 - 12:15 | The Pros and Cons of Air- and Space-based Remote Sensing of Creep in Northern California | Katherine Guns |
| 12:15 - 13:15 | Lunch | |
| 13:15 - 14:23 | Thunder talks -- 4 minutes -- No "Minson" words! Pop up where you are sitting | |
| 13:15 | Evidence of creep on the San Gregorio Fault? | Kim Blisniuk |
| 13:19 | Repeat LiDAR along the San Gregorio Fault to monitor creep | Ashley Walsh |
| 13:23 | Integrating LiDAR to identify 3D fault geometry along the Central Calaveras Fault | Karen Castaneda |
| 13:27 | Geomorphic characterization of fault creep along the Calaveras Fault | Hannah Martin |
| 13:31 | The Concord fault - new trace and Alquist-Priolo mapping | Danielle Madugo |
| 13:35 | Updating creep measurements on the Hayward Fault | Evan Agbayani |
| 13:39 | Aseismic creep monitoring for linear utility assets | Christopher Madugo |
| 13:43 | Updated high-resolution creep rates along the central SAF from repeat lidar differencing | Catherine Hanagan |
| 13:47 | Mapping the creeping section of the Bartlett Springs Fault | Rezagene Milani |
| 13:51 | Observational implications of geometric influences on fault creep variability | Jaeseok Lee |
| 13:55 | Northern California repeating earthquake map | Taka'aki Taira |
| 13:59 | Fault based inversion modeling for the Bay Area: Assessing slip rates and off fault deformation | Cate Sloat |
| 14:03 | Observing coseismic deformation using optical remote sensing | Solène Antoine |
| 14:07 | Laboratory attempts to measure the bulk viscous rheology of porous rocks at shallow depth conditions | Hiroki Sone |
| 14:11 | Spatiotemporal patterns and predictability of shallow slow slip sequences on the Superstition Hills fault | Junle Jiang |
| 14:15 | How is surface creep related to deep structure? A depth-dependent geometric complexity study of the Creeping San Andreas Fault | Travis Alongi |
| 14:19 - 14:40 | Break | |
| 14:40 - 15:10 | Breakout 2
| |
| 15:10 - 15:40 | Reconvene in larger group to share reflections and meet objectives. | |
| Session 4: Planning for the future of creep monitoring Build plans for maintaining current alignment array collection including criteria for measurement site priorities and benchmarks for site abandonment. Considering needed spatial and temporal collection scales, plan replacement or integration with other measurement methods. Plan for post-seismic measurements and operationalizing afterslip forecasting. | ||
| 15:40 - 15:55 | Community Geodetic Model | Mike Floyd & Katia Tymofyeyeva |
| 15:55 - 16:10 | Migrating USGS fault creep measurements and processing workflows to the cloud | Curtis Baden |
| 16:10 - 16:25 | Fault creep information and dynamic rupture simulations | Ruth Harris |
| 16:25 - 16:40 | Break | |
| 16:40 - 17:10 | Breakout 3
| |
| 17:10 - 17:40 | Reconvene in larger group to share reflections and meet objectives. | |
| 17:40 | End |
| Time | Description | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| 08:30 - 12:00 | Session 5: Workplan writing Plan for draft report summarizing state of the art in measurement approaches and hazard applications for fault creep. Define community goals for data continuity in time and space that would allow for continued collection or replacement of alignment array measurements with more efficient or precise methods. | |
| 08:30 - 09:00 | Introduction to community synthesis on critical topics for planning the future of the alignment arrays (AA) | |
| 09:00 - 09:30 | Topic 1: State of the AA network - tabulation of which AA sites are in good shape, which need updates or additions, which are poorly documented | |
| 09:30 - 10:00 | Topic 2: Considering different faults and/or regions, which are in locations that we should continue to monitor or abandon? Under what criteria can we consider the AA obsolete? Are there any regions where we are approaching that threshold? | |
| 10:00 - 10:20 | Break | |
| 10:20 - 11:00 | Topic 3: What is the value of alignment arrays? Where do the data overlap with other methods that should be prioritized over AA monitoring? | |
| 11:00 - 11:40 | Topic 4: Community action - what efforts are necessary vs. aspirational to maintain utility of the AA dataset? How will the community accomplish this through coordination? | |
| 11:40 - 12:00 | Wrap-up and conclude |
The Statewide California Earthquake Center (SCEC) fosters a diverse and inclusive community where everyone feels safe, productive, and welcome. We expect all participants in SCEC-supported events to uphold this commitment by adhering to the SCEC Activities Code of Conduct.
The SCEC Annual Meeting brings together 400-500 participants worldwide to share breakthroughs, assess progress, and chart a collaborative path for earthquake science. All of the Center activities are presented, analyzed, and woven into a set of priorities for SCEC to pursue in the future.
