2026 Fault Creep Workshop – Statewide California Earthquake Center

Date: March 3-6, 2026
Location: San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Workshop Organizers: Elizabeth Madden (SJSU), Christie Rowe (UNR)
SCEC Award: 26025

Summary

The 2026 SCEC workshop on Fault Creep Rates in the San Francisco Bay Area brought together researchers studying fault creep through field observations, geodetic measurements, remote sensing, laboratory experiments, and numerical modeling to evaluate the future of fault creep monitoring in California and its applications to earthquake science. The workshop was motivated by the unique record of fault creep measurements collected since the 1970s from nearly 90 alignment arrays across the San Francisco Bay Area—a remarkable dataset that has documented creep transients, some triggered by regional earthquakes, but for which no long-term monitoring plan currently exists. Participants examined how these observations, together with complementary techniques such as creepmeters, GNSS, InSAR, lidar, structure-from-motion photogrammetry, and coda wave interferometry, can improve understanding of fault loading, stress transfer, seismic cycling, earthquake rupture dynamics, and seismic hazard.

Through field demonstrations, invited presentations, breakout discussions, and collaborative planning, participants developed a community roadmap for sustaining and modernizing California’s fault creep observing system. The workshop established priorities for integrating long-term alignment array measurements with emerging monitoring technologies, preserving and expanding community access to fault creep datasets through SCEC Community Earth Models, and advancing collaborative research on the role of fault creep in earthquake mechanics and seismic hazard. The meeting also launched a community white paper reviewing current and emerging creep monitoring methods and outlining recommendations that will guide future research, data stewardship, and coordinated community activities.

The Fault Creep Workshop combined scientific presentations with a full-day field excursion and a concluding community workplan and white paper writing session. This intentional format enabled participants to compare fault creep monitoring methods in the field before developing shared priorities for future monitoring, data stewardship, and collaborative research. SEE PHOTOS

Key Outcomes

The workshop produced several important scientific and community outcomes that will guide future research on fault creep and its role in earthquake mechanics and seismic hazard. Highlights are summarized below, with additional detail available in the workshop report.

A community roadmap for sustaining California’s fault creep observing system: One of the workshop’s most significant outcomes was the development of a community roadmap for the future of fault creep monitoring in California. Participants evaluated the long-term alignment array measurements that have documented fault creep in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1970s alongside emerging observational technologies, recognizing the unique scientific value of this decades-long dataset and the need for a coordinated community effort to sustain and expand fault creep monitoring. The workshop highlighted the importance of integrating long-term observations with new measurement approaches to better understand fault loading, stress transfer, seismic cycling, and earthquake rupture dynamics.
Priorities for advancing fault creep observations and earthquake science: Participants compared the capabilities of alignment arrays, creepmeters, GNSS, InSAR, lidar, structure-from-motion photogrammetry, coda wave interferometry, laboratory experiments, and other emerging approaches for monitoring fault creep. Discussions emphasized that these complementary methods provide new opportunities to characterize spatial and temporal variations in creep, improve understanding of fault mechanics, and evaluate the role of fault creep in earthquake rupture and seismic hazard. The workshop also identified important scientific questions requiring future investigation, including the relationship between creep and fault loading through the seismic cycle, the influence of creep on seismic hazard, and the controls on creep at depth.
Priorities for community datasets and cyberinfrastructure: Participants identified opportunities to better organize, preserve, and share fault creep observations through SCEC community resources. Discussions focused on incorporating alignment array measurements and other creep datasets into the SCEC Community Geodetic Model, Community Fault Model, and Fault Slip Rate Database, while preserving the extensive historical records and metadata associated with long-term monitoring sites. These community resources will improve accessibility of fault creep observations and support future research on fault behavior, earthquake mechanics, and seismic hazard.
Launching collaborative community products and future initiatives: The workshop initiated several collaborative efforts that will extend its impact beyond the meeting itself. Participants launched preparation of a community white paper reviewing current and emerging methods for monitoring fault creep and comparing the performance of 31 observational approaches. The workshop also established broad recommendations for future monitoring, data stewardship, and scientific priorities, providing a foundation for future proposals, including development of a SCEC Technical Activity Group (TAG) focused on a coordinated community workplan for fault creep research.
Building an interdisciplinary fault creep research community: The workshop brought together 58 scientists from universities, federal and state agencies, national laboratories, and industry to evaluate the future of fault creep monitoring and its applications to earthquake science. The program combined field demonstrations, invited presentations, lightning talks, and breakout discussions that brought together researchers working across observational, experimental, and modeling disciplines. By fostering collaboration among scientists using diverse approaches to measuring and interpreting fault creep, the workshop established a shared scientific agenda for advancing long-term fault creep observations and their application to earthquake mechanics and seismic hazard.

References

Madden, E. H., & Rowe, C. D. (2026). 2026 Fault creep rates in the San Francisco Bay Area Workshop Report: Statewide California Earthquake Center. SCEC Contribution 15186

Presentation materials may be viewed by clicking the links below. PLEASE NOTE: Files are the author’s property. They may contain unpublished or preliminary information and should only be used for reviewing the talk. Only the presentations for which SCEC has received permission to post publicly are included below.

All times are Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8).

March 3, 2026

Time	Description	Presenter
	Session 1: Creep and creep measurements Clarify what we know about fault creep in the San Francisco Bay Area. Identify what we still need to understand to advance fundamental science and improve seismic hazard assessment.
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 possibilities (PDF)	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 (PDF)	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 What have we learned from existing fault creep observations? What are the highest-priority research opportunities enabled by continued fault creep monitoring? What additional observations or datasets are needed to better understand and mitigate seismic hazard? Which aspects of the current datasets and monitoring methods are most valuable and should be maintained? What important observations or capabilities are missing from the current datasets and monitoring methods? Which datasets, measurements, or monitoring approaches are no longer effective or should be modernized?
16:15 - 16:45	Field trip preview	Stephen DeLong / Josie Nevitt / Todd Ericksen / Roger Bilham
16:45	Adjourn Day 1

March 4, 2026

Time	Description	Presenter
	Session 2: Measuring Creep in the Field Ensure that all participants understand current fault creep monitoring technologies and discuss their advantages, limitations, and future applications. Explore emerging and potential new approaches for measuring fault creep.
08:30	Meet for all day field trip
Sites 1 and 2	Visit one or two alignment array sites and take measurements	Stephen DeLong
Site 3	Visit Gallegos Winery in Fremont, location of creepmeter CFW and a subsurface in-place inclinometer system across the Hayward fault.	Josie Nevitt / Roger Bilham / Todd Ericksen
18:00	Workshop Dinner (San José)

March 5, 2026

Time	Description	Presenter
	Session 3: Deep dive on comparison of alignment arrays and other monitoring methods Evaluate the strengths and limitations of current fault creep datasets and monitoring methods, with particular emphasis on alignment arrays. Compare alternative and complementary approaches—including microseismicity, remote sensing, creepmeters, structure-from-motion photogrammetry, and lidar—and assess their relative spatial and temporal resolution, data quality, and long-term monitoring potential.
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 (PDF)	Roland Burgmann
09:45 - 10:00	Quantifying creep rates along the Central San Andreas Fault from repeat high-resolution topography (PDF)	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 (PDF)	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 (PDF)	Jessica Murray
11:45 - 12:00	Perspectives on monitoring and modeling creep using InSAR, GNSS and repeating earthquakes (PDF)	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 minute presentations. No "Minson" words! Pop up where you are sitting and share your work.
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 (PDF)	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 (PDF)	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 (PDF)	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 What can we learn from fault creep data? Does the existing dataset reveal fault loading cycles, absolute stress, patterns of strain partitioning, or other key processes? How can these observations best inform seismic hazard assessment? Does the current monitoring network adequately address the research opportunities identified in Breakout 1? If not, what additions, modifications, or restoration of alignment arrays are needed? What would an ideal fault creep monitoring dataset look like, and how might it be achieved? How can alignment array measurements be integrated with complementary datasets? What improvements in data processing, organization, or accessibility would facilitate integration with other fault creep observations and support future research?
15:10 - 15:40	Reconvene in larger group to share reflections and meet objectives.
	Session 4: Planning for the future of creep monitoring Develop a community strategy for maintaining the alignment array network, including criteria for prioritizing measurement sites and identifying sites for retirement or replacement. Consider the spatial and temporal sampling needed to address future research priorities, and evaluate opportunities to integrate or transition to complementary monitoring methods. Develop recommendations for post-earthquake creep monitoring and operational approaches for observing and forecasting afterslip.
15:40 - 15:55	Community Geodetic Model (PDF)	Mike Floyd & Katia Tymofyeyeva
15:55 - 16:10	Migrating USGS fault creep measurements and processing workflows to the cloud (PDF)	Curtis Baden
16:10 - 16:25	Fault creep information and dynamic rupture simulations (PDF)	Ruth Harris
16:25 - 16:40	Break
16:40 - 17:10	Breakout 3 What additional observations or monitoring technologies contribute to understanding fault creep through time and across fault systems? What opportunities exist to complement or, where appropriate, replace alignment arrays with other observational datasets or monitoring methods? What efficiencies can be achieved in maintaining and operating the long-term monitoring network? What are the optimal spatial scales for future fault creep observations? Where should monitoring be enhanced (e.g., by increasing station density near creeping fault strands or targeting key fault connections such as the Hayward–Calaveras system)? What observations and capabilities are needed to support effective post-earthquake creep investigations? What data, monitoring, and operational capabilities are needed to improve observation and forecasting of afterslip?
17:10 - 17:40	Reconvene in larger group to share reflections and meet objectives.
17:40	End

March 6, 2026

Time	Description
08:30 - 12:00	Session 5: Workplan writing Develop a draft report summarizing the current state of the art in fault creep monitoring methods and their applications to earthquake science and seismic hazard. Define community goals for maintaining long-term data continuity in space and time, including recommendations for sustaining alignment array measurements and integrating or transitioning to more efficient or higher-precision monitoring technologies.
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

Participants

The workshop brought together 58 scientists from universities, federal and state agencies, national laboratories, and industry representing a broad range of expertise in fault creep observations, geodesy, remote sensing, laboratory rock mechanics, earthquake physics, seismic hazard, and numerical modeling. Participants included researchers working with long-term alignment arrays, creepmeters, GNSS, InSAR, lidar, photogrammetry, coda wave interferometry, and other emerging techniques for monitoring active fault deformation. The workshop also welcomed graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, early-career scientists, and established investigators, fostering collaboration across career stages and scientific disciplines.

* Remote Participant

Last Name	First Name	Organization
Agbayani	Evan	University of California Berkeley
Alongi	Travis	USGS Earthquake Science Center
Antoine	Solene	Caltech
Baden	Curtis	USGS
* Barbour	Andrew	USGS Earthquake Science Center
Bilham	Roger	University of Colorado
Blisniuk	Kimberly	SJSU
Botell	Brittany	University of Memphis
Brodsky	Emily	UCSC
Burgmann	Roland	UC Berkeley
Cardiff	Dylan
Castaneda	Karen	San Jose State University
Contreras	Norma	University of California, Riverside
Crume	Heather	Moody's
DeLong	Stephen	USGS
Elbanna	Ahmed	USC/SCEC
* Elliott	Austin	U.S. Geological Survey
Ericksen	Todd	USGS
Fielding	Eric	Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech
Floyd	Michael	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Funning	Gareth	University of California, Riverside
Givler	Robert	Lettis Consultants International, Inc.
Guns	Katherine	USGS
Hanagan	Catherine (Cassie)	USGS Earthquake Science Center
Harris	Ruth	USGS
* Hough	Susan	U.S. Geological Survey
Hearn	Liz	USGS
* Johnson	Kaj	Indiana University
Jiang	Junle	The University of Oklahoma
* Lindsay	Danielle	GNS Science
* Lozos	Julian	California State University, Northridge
Jones	Angelika	San José State University
Lee	Jaeseok	Brown University
Luckie	Thomas	Sandia National Labs
Madden	Betsy	San José State University
Madugo	Christopher	PG&E
Madugo	Danielle	California Geological Survey (CGS)
Martin	Hannah	Nevada Seismological Laboratory, UNR
* Materna	Kathyrn	UC Boulder
Mendoza	Matt	U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Milani	Rezagene	USGS & San Jose State University
* Milliner	Chris	Caltech
* Minson	Sarah	USGS
Murray	Jessica	USGS Earthquake Science Center
Nevitt	Josie	USGS
Philibosian	Belle	USGS Earthquake Science Center
Pollitz	Fred	USGS
Prush	Veronica	New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Rosa	Carla	California Geological Survey (CGS)
Rowe	Christie	Nevada Seismological Laboratory
Savage	Heather	UCSC
Scott	Chelsea	Arizona State University
Sloat	Cate	San Jose State University
Sone	Hiroki	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Taira	Taka'aki	University of California, Berkeley
Vermeer	Jessie	USGS
Walsh	Ashley	San Jose State University
* Yoon	Clara	USGS

Registration and Travel Support

Workshop participation was limited to approximately 50 participants to foster active discussion and collaboration among researchers representing academia, government, and industry with expertise in fault creep observations, monitoring technologies, geodesy, earthquake physics, and seismic hazard.

The workshop registration fee was $150, which covered meals during the workshop and transportation and meals for the included March 4 field trip. Participants were responsible for transportation to and from San José, parking, and meals not included in the workshop program.

Travel support was available to help offset registration, lodging, and travel expenses associated with attending the workshop. Lodging was arranged for supported out-of-town participants at the Signia Hotel adjacent to San José State University. Students, early-career researchers, and participants without institutional funding were especially encouraged to request support as part of the application process. SCEC provided travel support to 28 workshop participants.

SCEC Activities Code of Conduct

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.

SCEC Meetings and Workshops

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.

2026 SCEC Fault Creep Workshop