Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center Partnerships & Applications Workshop, June 26-27, 2025 - Workshop Report

Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center Partnerships & Applications Workshop June 26-27, 2025 Workshop Report Prepared by: Andy Clifford, Valerie Sahakian, and Jill Elizabeth 1 Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center Partnerships & Applications Workshop June 26-27, 2025 Workshop Report Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Workshop Overview ........................................................................................................ 3 Workshop Purpose, Goals and Design .......................................................................... 3 Participation and Representation ................................................................................. 5 Discussion Summaries ................................................................................................... 7 A. Cascadia Connections Exercise ......................................................................... 7 B. Science To Practice Reflection ........................................................................... 7 C. Addressing Science Communication Challenges ............................................... 10 D. Cascadia Scenario Needs ................................................................................. 12 E. Building a Cascadia Data Dashboard ................................................................. 13 F. Addressing Skills Gaps, Training Needs & Geosciences Education Opportunities . 15 Next Steps .................................................................................................................... 17 2025-26 Priorities ...................................................................................................... 18 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 18 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix I – Workshop Agenda .................................................................................. 19 Appendix 2 – Poster And Digital Media Presentations .................................................. 23 Posters ................................................................................................................. 23 Digital Media ........................................................................................................ 24 Appendix 3 – Reflection Activity Responses ................................................................ 25 Appendix 4 – Evaluation Responses ............................................................................ 27 Appendix 5 – Cascadia Connections Map ................................................................... 31 2 Executive Summary The 2025 Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center (CRESCENT) Partnerships & Applications (P&A) Workshop, held June 26–27 at the University of Oregon’s NE Portland campus, convened participants from research, federal, tribal, state and local government, emergency management, education, and community organizations across the Cascadia region. Building on insights from the 2024 inaugural workshop, the 2025 event deepened focus on four emergent themes: science communication, emergency preparedness and response planning, data access, and resource limitations. Through interactive exercises, case studies, roundtables, and presentations, participants identified critical needs for improved interorganizational coordination, accessible data and tools, scenario-based planning, and expanded education and training pathways to strengthen the earthquake resilience ecosystem. Key outcomes included a vision for developing a Cascadia Connections Map as an interactive resource to visualize and strengthen networks across the resilience community and consensus to prioritize scenario development as next year’s P&A Workshop theme. Participants also called for expanded partnerships to address geoscience skills gaps and workforce development needs. The report concludes with near-term CRESCENT actions and identifies priorities for the upcoming year. The workshop underscored CRESCENT’s function as a hub, connecting scientists and practitioners, translating research into actionable products, and catalyzing collaboration across jurisdictions and disciplines. Suggested Citation Clifford, A.E., Sahakian, V.J., Elizabeth, J., and Partnerships & Applications Workshop Participants (2025). Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center Partnerships & Applications Workshop, June 26-27, 2025 - Workshop Report. CRESCENT Open Documents Library. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17553977 3 Introduction The Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center (CRESCENT) was established as a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded research program in October 2023. 1 The center’s primary objective is to answer fundamental science questions about the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), the region of highest seismic risk for the USA and Canada. Through this research, CRESCENT’s broader mission is to increase awareness and understanding of earthquake related hazards and move society toward greater resilience. CRESCENT’s structure includes a Partnerships & Applications (P&A) pillar that focuses on developing and maintaining relationships and facilitating ongoing communication between center scientists and external partners. These relationships are critical to ensure that the center’s science products are relevant and applicable to resilience efforts. The annual Partnerships & Applications Workshop is the center’s major forum for bringing the wider earthquake research and resilience community together in person and this report documents the second iteration of this event, held on 26-27 June 2025 at University of Oregon’s NE Portland campus. Workshop Overview Workshop Purpose, Goals and Design CRESCENT’s inaugural Partnerships and Applications Workshop in June 2024 brought together participants from across the spectrum of communities concerned with Cascadia earthquake hazards resilience and research, including federal, state and local government agencies, policy makers, practitioners, educators, and the public at large. 2 The workshop served two main functions: (i) familiarizing the community with CRESCENT’s structure and currently funded research objectives; and (ii) establishing the common challenges, needs, and areas for collaboration around CSZ hazards. Discussions and survey responses from the 2024 workshop revealed four common challenges and a unified call for interorganizational coordination (Table 1). 3 The planning committee used these findings to set the goals, themes and structure for the 2025 workshop agenda. In response to feedback from 2024, the 2025 workshop was extended to 1.5 days and an additional half day for optional field trips. (See Appendix 1 for the full agenda.) 1 See https://cascadiaquakes.org/ 2 See https://cascadiaquakes.org/2024/04/10/2024-partnerships-applications-workshop/ 3 Sahakian, V. J., Clifford, A. E., & Tate-Jones, M. K. (2025). Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center Partnerships & Applications Workshop, June 27, 2024 - Workshop Report. CRESCENT Open Documents Library. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14796929 4 The 2025 workshop goals were to: 1. Foster bidirectional communication between CRESCENT scientists and the wider earthquake research/resilience community 2. Explore emergent themes of the 2024 workshop: • Science communication • Emergency preparedness and response planning • Data access and availability • Resource limitations 3. Facilitate interorganizational collaboration and coordination Day one focused on building partnerships. An opening “Cascadia Connections” exercise asked participants to reflect on their current and ideal institutional relationships, with a view to better understanding the earthquake research ecosystem and associated communication pathways. A “Science to Practice Case Studies” panel session followed, demonstrating the importance of relationships in impactful resilience work. Daniel Eungard of the Washington Geological Survey discussed working with Elyssa Tappero of the Washington Emergency Management Division and coastal port operators to improve the state’s tsunami response planning. Mike Kortenhof of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Ana Tijerina Esquino of Portland State University highlighted the cyclic “science to practice to science” approach that they have followed in addressing implementation of seismic design standards for critical fuels infrastructure in Oregon. Lisa Busch, former Executive Director of Sitka Sound Science Center and Oregon State University’s Annette Patton presented on their partnership between scientists and rural residents in a community led landslide forecasting project in Alaska. The afternoon session provided science updates from CRESCENT’s Working and Special Interest Groups, 4 and presentations from two of the center’s seed grant recipients: Brett Maurer (University of Washington) sharing his work on liquefaction hazard mapping using machine learning, and Andreas Plesch (Harvard University) demonstrating interoperability of the fault models generated by CRESCENT for the PNW and SCEC for California. 5 The remainder of day one and morning of day two was dedicated to sessions exploring the common challenges identified in the 2024 workshop (Table 1): science communication challenges, the need for scenarios, the concept of a Cascadia data dashboard, and addressing workforce skills gaps/education opportunities. Each session was introduced with short presentations from different institutional perspectives, before participants moved into round table discussions to consider their own organizational needs, potential collaboration opportunities, and next steps. The importance of interorganizational coordination was highlighted throughout the workshop and at a poster/digital media reception on the evening of the first day (Appendix 4 See https://cascadiaquakes.org/science/ 5 See https://cascadiaquakes.org/2024/07/16/2024-seed-grant-awards/ 5 2). Field trips to showcase local seismic hazard awareness and mitigation efforts on the afternoon of day two provided specific opportunities for making personal connections. The meeting closed with an individual reflection activity in which participants shared their top learning from the workshop and expressed aspirations for future collaboration (Appendix 3). Table 1: Common needs and challenges identified by the seismic hazards community during the 2024 CRESCENT Partnerships & Applications Workshop Overarching need: INTERORGANIZATIONAL COORDINATION SCIENCE COMMUNICATION & ENGAGEMENT unified messaging and plain language communication of earthquake science, hazards and uncertainties targeted to different audiences EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE PLANNING wider infrastructure redundancy and unified response planning across borders, jurisdictions and sectors DATA AVAILABILITY & ACCESS centralized, navigable data sets, tailored to applications/end users RESOURCE LIMITATIONS lack of funding, competing budget priorities, personnel and skill shortages Participation and Representation There were 127 registrants for the workshop. Most attended in person, while an online option allowed participation from a group of ~12 who were unable to travel. On day two, some participants from the annual meeting of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) Pacific Northwest Chapter joined the geoscience education and workforce opportunities discussion and participated in the afternoon field trips. 6 An indication of representation is apparent from the post event survey in which 55 respondents reported their professional role and organization (Table 2). Approximately a quarter of respondents identified as research scientists, with the other three quarters representing practitioner, governmental and educator roles. Academic institutions and state/local agencies had the most representatives with about a third of respondents identifying in each of these categories. Federal and tribal entities, public utilities, and private industry had lower representation, with 7% or less respondents in each of these categories. 6 See https://nagt.org/nagt/sections/northwest/annualmeeting 6 Table 2. Characteristics of Survey Respondents Note: N = 55 responses What is your primary professional role? (mark only one) 20% Emergency Management 24% Research Scientist 6% Engineering, architecture 14% Educator or Extension Specialist 6% Student 2% Technician, staff member 6% Planning, Zoning, Regulatory 4% Post-doc 20% Other (specify): “Communications” “Community Safety Advocate, Neighborhood Emergency Team” “Consultant” “Network Instrumentation Engineer” “Operations Team Lead for Communication, Education, and Technical Engagement” “Pesticide Specialist” “Private industry – risk management” “Public Health” “Supporting school districts with safety planning” “Tribal” Which terms best describe your organization? (mark all that apply) 27% State, regional or local agency 36% University offering related PhD degrees 6% Federal department, agency, or other federal entity 7% Nonprofit organization 4% Public utility 7% University offering related Masters (but not PhD) degrees 6% Private company or industry organization 6% Primarily undergraduate institution (PUI) 2% Minority-serving institution (MSI) -Historically Black College or University (HBCU) -Community College -High School or Middle School 6% Tribal organization 9% Other (specify): “CERT” “Consulting agency” “Network of professionals and organizations” “Seismic network” “Volunteer: Advocacy” 7 Discussion Summaries Each of the workshop sessions included time for cross-disciplinary discussion, with prompts provided to guide conversation. Summaries from written notes and group shareouts are provided below. A. CASCADIA CONNECTIONS EXERCISE Participants were invited to review an infographic displaying a classification of organizations involved in Cascadia earthquake research and resilience (Appendix 5). After making group edits and additions to the entities represented, individuals considered the partner relationships of their respective organizations, reflecting on both current and aspirational connections. Subsequent discussion focused on the level of representation of different organizational sectors and the areas for improved connection. The exercise highlighted the following main concerns and priorities: • Community organizations, schools (K-12 and higher ed), and media are underrepresented on the infographic. These local-level entities were identified as essential but often overlooked channels for reaching the public. • Insurance industry and private sector risk modeling companies need to be better integrated into resilience planning. Establishing economic impacts can be a driver for policymaking and prioritizing investment in research and preparedness efforts. • Siloing is a recurring problem. There were calls for better communication across jurisdictions (local, state, federal, cross-border U.S./Canada) and between sectors (science, policy, emergency management, community organizations) to increase consistency of messaging, minimize duplication of efforts, and improve collective action. • The scale of response needed for a Cascadia event requires establishing clearer structures and expectations for interorganizational coordination and information flow. Scenarios and regional exercises were suggested as valuable tools for strengthening cross-sector and jurisdictional connections and to bridge the gap between science and practice. • Durable funding and policy support is required for resilience efforts to be sustainable and impactful. Smaller communities are particularly resource-limited and are reliant on funded regional to national level partnerships. B. SCIENCE TO PRACTICE REFLECTION After presentations and a panel discussion of case studies that demonstrated successful science to practice partnerships, participants were asked to discuss the application of this approach to other facets of seismic hazard resilience. Practitioners with relevant subject matter expertise facilitated discussion groups on the following topics: 8 • Multi agency response planning • Site responses to ground shaking • Public awareness and preparedness • Tsunami research, education and outreach needs • Critical infrastructure resilience • Community driven science See Appendix 1 for list of facilitators and full topic descriptions. The summaries below reflect groups’ consideration of each topic, including societal need, research priorities, and recommended next steps. 1. Multi-agency response planning: Enable rapid, coordinated disaster recovery that protects lives, property, and natural resources through effective multi-agency collaboration. Table 3: Summary of research priorities and recommendations for multi-agency response planning Research and Practice Priorities Recommendations • Develop interoperable, standardized data systems shared across agencies and disciplines. • Strengthen frameworks for multi-agency coordination, leadership clarity, and intergovernmental communication. • Map system and agency interdependencies to understand cascading effects. • Integrate technical, economic, and policy perspectives to move from assessment to mitigation. • Maintain up-to-date contact networks and run regular regional tabletop exercises. • Build stronger linkages between scientists, engineers, and emergency managers—translate data into timelines and recovery metrics. • Create consistent regional messaging (e.g., “Two Weeks Ready”) and a unified, public-facing alert/data platform modeled after wildfire systems (e.g. WatchDuty app). • Reduce silos through joint scenario planning that incorporates housing, health, and other crosssector needs. 2. Site response and ground shaking: Turn seismic research into actionable, site-specific guidance for engineers, planners, and communities to enhance earthquake resilience. Table 4: Summary of research priorities and recommendations for site response and ground shaking Research and Practice Priorities Recommendations • Characterize Cascadia-specific ground motion, including long-duration shaking, basin effects, and soil–structure interaction. • Expand site-specific and basin-level instrumentation and data sharing. • Study how social media and communication networks influence understanding and response. • Improve data consistency and transparency across agencies and map products. • Translate technical information into plain language for non-specialist users. • Incentivize open data exchange and collaborative research culture. • Ensure equity by providing smaller and tribal communities with access to localized ground motion data. • Strengthen two-way communication channels between researchers, engineers, and end-users. 15 F. ADDRESSING SKILLS GAPS, TRAINING NEEDS AND GEOSCIENCES EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES The 2024 workshop highlighted “resource limitations” as a shared challenge across the research and resilience community. The organizing committee chose to focus this discussion session on skills limitations rather than other resources (i.e. funding, equipment and personnel) given that CRESCENT has most potential to affect change in this area. Participants were asked to consider skills gaps, education opportunities, and recommendations for collaborations. 1. Skills gaps and education opportunities Participants identified widespread skills gaps across the geoscience, engineering, and emergency management disciplines. Many gaps reflect the interdisciplinary nature of hazard analysis and the disconnect between academic preparation and applied practice. To bridge these gaps, participants noted the importance of combining formal instruction with applied experiences and integrated technical, field-based, and communication training. Including online and hybrid teaching models to reach diverse learners and working professionals was also recommended. Table 15: Summary of earthquake hazard research & resilience workforce skills needs and opportunities Skills Gaps and Challenges Opportunities • Interdisciplinary and professional skills: - Engineers often lack geoscience background, and geoscientists lack engineering and project management exposure. - Gaps persist in plain-language communication, media literacy, ethics, and systems thinking. - There’s growing need for AI literacy and critical thinking to balance technological tools with judgment. • Balancing need for field vs. technical skills: - Traditional field skills are declining while coding and data processing skills are increasingly essential. • Local workforce capacity: - Local and tribal governments often lack inhouse geotechnical or hazard mapping expertise, relying on costly external specialists. - Adjunct teaching positions and low pay also limit local training capacity. • "Perception problem”: - Geology is poorly represented in K–12 education - need more effective public • Curriculum integration: - Combine fieldwork, coding, ethics, and project management within degree programs. - Offer cross-listed or team-taught courses bridging engineering, business, and geoscience. • AI and communication training: - Incorporate communication, media literacy, and AI literacy into curricula to build adaptable, effective communicators. • Experiential and project-based learning: - Expand opportunities for communityengaged and scenario-based learning, internships, and collaborative projects with agencies. • Early exposure: - Promote earth science and teamwork skills in high school to strengthen pipelines into geoscience fields. • Professional development: - Support continuing education and certification (e.g., Association of State 16 outreach to promote geoscience as a rewarding, socially relevant career. • Barriers to participation: - Students face challenges with cost, access to field camps, math requirements, and confidence (impostor syndrome). These contribute to low enrollment and retention, particularly among underrepresented groups. Boards of Geology review sessions, online technical courses). - Offer funding or tuition support for emergency management staff pursuing geoscience coursework. 2. Recommended collaborative actions Collaboration across disciplines, institutions, and communities was viewed as essential to overcoming limited staffing, funding, and instructional capacity. Suggestions included: Table 16: Summary of earthquake hazard research & resilience workforce skills needs and opportunities Suggested collaboration Recommended action Cross-institutional teaching • encourage shared teaching models where practicing engineers or professionals lead applied courses, and geoscientists contribute to engineering programs. Resource sharing • increase visibility of free or open training materials (e.g., GIS resources via OpenTopography, EarthScope, CRESCENT webinars). • develop a central repository for educational and technical materials. Agency–academia partnerships • strengthen partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies to support internships, applied research, and training. • integrate students into real-world scenario exercises. Community and tribal engagement • collaborate with tribal nations to co-develop locally relevant geoscience training programs and respect tribal governance and educational priorities. Interdisciplinary convenings • continue convening educators, practitioners, and researchers (e.g., CRESCENT/CLiP webinars) to share best practices and address resource gaps collectively. Communication partnerships • collaborate with communication and psychology experts to improve science communication training and produce accessible, audience-focused materials. 17 Next Steps It is clear from participant engagement, the workshop discussion summaries, and evaluation responses (Appendix 4) that collective progress is being made in the earthquake research and resilience space. Motivation is high, though much work remains to be done. The challenge for CRESCENT is in identifying where the center can be most impactful in the short-term with its current structure and resources, while being cognizant of opportunities for longer-term funding and an increased scope for research products and services. Table 17 (below) reflects action items for CRESCENT P&A in response to the priorities gleaned from the workshop discussions and conversations with partner organizations: Table 17. Summary of next steps for each of the main workshop themes Theme/Session CRESCENT actions/next steps INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION Cascadia Connections Exercise • Conduct networking and outreach to increase representation of local, tribal, and private-sector partners on the partnership map of Cascadia resilience organizations • Create and maintain an online, updateable version of the map • Continue to invite cross-jurisdictional, cross sector representation at CRESCENT events, activities, and committees • Consider future activities and uses of the map within the academic community to increase awareness of contextualizing research within the hazards and resilience space SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT Addressing Science Communication Challenges • Continue to build engagement and facilitate coordination with hazard and resilience communicators. • Reinforce clear, simple messages through repeated, multi-channel outreach from trusted authorities. • Use community-approved communication and joint exercises (e.g., Great ShakeOut) to build familiarity and consistency. • Continue to pursue collaborations between practitioners (partners in science communication), and social scientists. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE PLANNING Cascadia Scenario Needs • Use all available forums to engage with researchers, practitioners, planners and policymakers to get continued input on the needs and potential contributions of organizations toward development of boundary and jurisdiction crossing scenarios. • Make scenario development and curation a central theme of the 2026 P&A Workshop and convene a planning committee with multi-sector representation from across Cascadia. • Pursue funding and pilot studies for scenario development. DATA AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS Cascadia Data Dashboard • Develop an online version of the Cascadia Connections map as a directory style dashboard with links to key datasets, products, and resources for each organization represented. • Convene a data dashboard advisory group to oversee development and give interim feedback. RESOURCE LIMITATIONS Addressing Skills Gaps, Training Needs, and Geoscience Education • Consider developing a repository for educational/technical materials. • Inform 2026 seed grant criteria with partner resource limitation considerations, and disseminate application resources and information to partners. 18 2025-26 Priorities The Cascadia Connections Map and scenario development actions look to be worthy immediate objectives for CRESCENT P&A. Workshop participants see the Cascadia Connections Map as a valuable, scalable visualization for building relationships, training staff, informing strategy, and promoting community engagement. Recommendations to make the map interactive, accessible, and a living, regularly updated tool for collaboration and coordination across the Cascadia resilience community are a solid basis for developing a prototype this year. The need for scenarios and interorganizational exercises for preparedness and response spanned many of the discussion sessions. A deeper consideration of this topic is clearly necessary and it seems prudent to make this a central theme for the 2026 P&A workshop. Planning should include formulation of a strategy for how the community may be able to fund and contribute to the development and compilation of a suite of scenarios, as well as identifying and discussing the wide spectrum of needs that have been shared. Acknowledgements This workshop was funded as a Major Activity of CRESCENT under NSF cooperative agreement #2225286. NSF bears no responsibility for design or implementation of the workshop. The Partnerships & Applications 2025 Workshop Planning Committee includes: Andy Clifford CRESCENT P&A Program Manager, Valerie Sahakian CRESCENT P&A Program Lead, Amanda Erickson CRESCENT Office Coordinator, Tiegan Hobbs Natural Resources Canada, Carrie Garrison-Laney Washington Sea Grant, Ian Stone United States Geological Survey, Ali Burgos Cascadia Coastline and Peoples Hub, and Ellen Peters University of Oregon Thanks also for the participation and guidance of the CRESCENT Partnerships & Applications Committee (PAC): Lori Dengler Cal Poly Humboldt, Michael Olsen Oregon State University, Rob Witter USGS, PieterEwald Share Oregon State University, and alex grant USGS. The planning committee and PAC are grateful to all presenters and facilitators (listed in Appendix 1) and for support and contributions from the following: • The UO NE Portland Event Team • UO Print Services and Travel • Oregon Hazards Lab (OHAZ) • Kam and Kam Catering • The Raddison PDX Airport Hotel • Pacific Gas & Electric Company • United States Geological Survey, Earthscope, SCEC, Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples (CoPes) Hub • CRESCENT Senior personnel and CRESCENT staff • Micheal Coe, Cedar Lake Research Group LLC • Kellum Tate-Jones Refugium Consulting LLC • Daina Hardisty, Mt Hood Community College/NAGT • Yumei Wang, Portland State University Generative AI was used in the compilation of notes for the discussion summaries. 19 Appendices Appendix I – Workshop Agenda Thursday, June 26 8:00 am: Workshop check-in and coffee break 8:30 am: Opening remarks presented by Valerie Sahakian, CRESCENT, Partnerships and Applications Lead and Andy Clifford, CRESCENT, Partnerships & Applications Manager 8:45 am: Cascadia connections exercise – mapping interorganizational connectivity and communications pathways introduced by Valerie Sahakian, CRESCENT, Partnerships and Applications Lead 9:45 am: Coffee break 10:05 am: Science to practice case studies – panel presentations and Q&A • “From Models to Mitigation: How Tsunami Maritime Resilience Projects Provide a Safe Harbor for Partnership Discussions” presented by Daniel Eungard, Washington Geological Survey and Elyssa Tappero, Washington Emergency Management Division • “Fuel Resilience in Cascadia: Bridging Science, Policy, and Practice in Oregon” presented by Mike Kortenhof, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Ana Tijerina Esquino, Portland State University • "Community Partnerships for Understanding Landslides in Southeast Alaska" presented by Lisa Busch, Southeast Alaska Landslide Information and Preparedness Partnership and Annette Patton, Oregon State University 11:00 am: Science to practice - roundtable discussion session Multi agency response planning Large earthquakes and tsunamis are infrequent and societally impactful events requiring the coordination of government agencies, emergency responders, infrastructure operators, trusted community leaders, and the geoscience and engineering communities to plan for and respond to such events. This Science-toPractice session invites workshop attendees across all disciplines to participate in a discussion about earthquake and tsunami response planning with a focus on ensuring that these groups are better coordinated and therefore more effective in their respective areas of responsibility following a major event. Led by Tim Dawson, Seismic Hazards Program Manager, California Geological Survey Site responses to ground shaking/behavior During a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, we can expect extended ground shaking for one to three minutes, with the highest intensities along the coast and strong shaking well inland. Areas with soft soils may experience site responses like amplified shaking and ground failures from liquefaction. This discussion will address questions around impacts of these responses on vulnerable structures. Led by Jay Wilson, Resilience Coordinator, Clackamas County Disaster Management 20 Public awareness and preparedness What are potential approaches to collaboration between researchers and practitioners that will yield tangible products and programs that have an immediate impact on informing and promoting public safety? This roundtable discussion dives into how CRESCENT can potentially operationalize its third overarching goal in its mission statement. Co-led by Robert deGroot, Coordinator for Communication, Education, Outreach, and Technical Engagement, ShakeAlert® Earthquake Early Warning System and Dare Baldwin, Professor, University of Oregon Ongoing tsunami research, education and outreach needs At this roundtable, we will discuss potential areas of tsunami research needed to support tsunami hazard education and outreach. This may include identifying research that will improve tsunami hazard planning, public safety, or future education and outreach efforts. Led by Carrie Garrison-Laney, Coastal Hazards Specialist & NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Liaison, Washington Sea Grant Critical infrastructure resilience Services from lifeline systems (water, wastewater. electric power, natural gas, petroleum fuel, communications and transportation, including roads, rail, airports and ports) are needed for everyday purposes and for disaster response and recovery. Urgent priorities—spanning from sectors and specific facilities to research and policy gaps—will be covered. Led by Yumei Wang, Senior Advisor on Infrastructure Resilience and Risk, Portland State University Community driven science Community driven science includes many of the same elements it takes to build a strong friendship, a business partnership or any good relationship. This theme table will discuss some of ways to build meaningful community partnerships involving scientific discovery. Led by Lisa Busch, Director, Southeast Alaska Landslide Information and Preparedness Partnership Multi agency planning (ZOOM Room) Led by Tiegan Hobbs, Research Scientist / Adjunct Professor, Geological Survey of Canada / The University of British Columbia / University of Victoria 12:00 pm: Lunch (1st Floor of Campus Center) 1:15 pm: CRESCENT presentations Working Group presentations • Community Fault Model (CFM) presented by Becky Fildes, Postdoctoral Researcher, Western Washington University • Community Velocity Model (CVM) presented by Pieter Share, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University 21 • Coupling, Seismicity, Slow Slip (C3S) presented by Brendan Crowell, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University • Dynamic rupture, Earthquake cycles, Tsunami models (DET) presented by Brittany Erickson, Associate Professor, University of Oregon • Cascadia Paleoseismology (CPAL) presented by David Bruce, Postdoctoral Researcher, Virginia Tech Special Interest Group presentations • Offshore Observations presented by Jianhua Gong, Assistant Professor, Indiana University • Cascading Hazards presented by Ben Leshchinsky, Professor, Oregon State, University • Ground Motion Modeling presented by Valerie Sahakian, Associate Professor, University of Oregon • Cascadia Subduction Fluids presented by Pieter Share, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University Seed Grant presentations • “Cascadia Liquefaction Hazard Maps for Scenario Planning and Rapid Response: Partnering Around Community Data and Mechanics-Informed AI” presented by Brett Maurer, University of Washington • “Enhancing interoperability between the SCEC and CRESCENT Community Fault Models” presented by Andreas Plesch, Harvard University 2:30 pm: Coffee break with opportunity to see CVM/CFM viewers on TVs in the room 3:00 pm: Addressing science communication challenges – workshop session led by Ellen Peters, Professor, University of Oregon and Maxwell Ely, Program Manager, University of Oregon Roundtable discussion session themes and facilitators: • Tailoring messaging: knowing your audience and timing Wendy Bohon, California Geological Survey Tiegan Hobbs, Geological Survey of Canada • Building trust: cultivating communication pathways Lisa Busch, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Bill Steele, Pacific Northwest Seismic Network • Overcoming fear/helplessness: empowering preparedness action Laura Hall, Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization • Making earthquakes relevant: storytelling and engaging your audience Bob de Groot, United States Geological Survey Liz Safran, Lewis & Clark College • Conveying complexity and uncertainty: educating your audience Kelly Missett, OHAZ, University of Oregon Daniel Eungard, Washington Geological Survey • Training communicators: who, what, how? 22 Dare Baldwin, University of Oregon Gabriel Lotto, Pacific Northwest Seismic Network • Agency coordination and unified messaging (ZOOM Room) David Snider, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Lori Dengler, Cal Poly Humboldt 4:30 pm: Poster/digital media presentations and light appetizer reception with cash bar (1st Floor of Campus Center) 6:00 pm: Workshop Adjourns Friday, June 27 8:00 am: Registration and coffee 8:30 am: Welcome and introduction to day 2 8:40 am: Addressing Cascadia earthquake scenario needs – workshop session with introductory presentations: • “Broad needs for earthquake scenarios and the Canadian perspective” presented by Tiegan Hobbs, Geological Survey of Canada • “Why produce earthquake scenarios?” presented by Katherine Scharer, United States Geological Survey • “Use of earthquake scenarios for risk evaluation” presented by Albert Kottke, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 9:35 am: Building a Cascadia data dashboard – workshop session with introductory presentations: • “Towards a Cascadia Subduction Zone Datahub: Framework and considerations” presented by Lydia Staisch, United States Geological Survey • “The Washington Geological Survey Data Portal: What is it, Why do we have it, and How could it relate to CRESCENT initiatives?” presented by Megan Anderson, Washington Geological Survey • “Cascadia Lifelines Program (CLiP): Data to the Rescue” presented by Michael Olsen, Oregon State University 10:30 am: Break 10:45 am: Addressing skills gaps, training needs and geosciences education opportunities – workshop session (in collaboration with NAGT) with introductory presentations: • “CRESCENT and the Workforce of the Future” presented by Andrew Meigs, Oregon State University • “A Brief Introduction to the National Association of Geoscience Teachers” presented by Daina Hardisty, Mount Hood Community College/ NAGT • “Enhancing Earthquake Risk Reduction through Professional Development” presented by Amanda McHale, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 11:45 pm: Closing remarks 12:00 pm: Lunch and briefing for optional field trips 23 1:00 pm: Optional field trips (in collaboration with NAGT) Option 1: Seismic risk and resilience at the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub and Port of Portland Marine Terminal This field trip will visit sites along the Willamette River in North Portland for views of the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub and Port of Portland Marine Terminal. Learn from subject matter experts and engage in discussion around seismic risk and resilience efforts at these locations. Option 2: Seismic risk and resilience for critical infrastructure in NE Portland This field trip will visit sites along the Columbia River in Northeast Portland for a close view of the Levees and Port of Portland Airport. Learn from subject matter experts and engage in discussion around seismic risk and resilience efforts at these locations. Option 3: Models and tools for advancing community preparedness at Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) How can you engage your community in conversations about earthquake awareness and preparedness? Learn about event models like ShakeOut with potential to reach large number of community members, explore how tools like Raspberry Shake can support education and outreach, and get hands-on with demos that foster two-way conversations with people of diverse ages and backgrounds. Appendix 2 – Poster and Digital Media Presentations POSTERS Table A1: Posters presented on 1st Floor of Campus Center # Authors Title 1 Katrina Arras, et al. “ShakeAlert Ready Schools Provides Resources to Integrate Earthquake Early Warning into School Communities” 2 Mary Grace Bato, et al. “The OPERA Displacement Product: Overview and Application” 3 Marge Belcastro, Ashley Streig, Jazzy M GrahamDavis “Refining Cascadia subduction zone earthquake timing in Netarts Bay, Oregon, with new age dating from a ghost forest tree and marsh stratigraphy” 4 Marcie Benne et al. “Advancing Community Resilience with the EPIcenter Partnership” 5 Lori Dengler “The December 5, 2024 M7.0 Earthquake and the Problem of Tweener Tsunami Warnings” 6 Daniel Eungard “Washington Geological Survey: Tsunami hazard modeling & realworld applications” 7 Laura Gabel, Jonathan Allan, Fletcher O’Brien “Beat the Wave! Exploring tsunami evacuation difficulty and mitigation options through GIS modeling” 8 Shubharoop Ghosh “TsunamiCat: Tsunami Loss Estimation Platform for Scenariobased and Probabilistic Risk Assessment” 24 9 Cait Goodwin and Felicia Olmeta Schult “Tsunami Quests: Self-guided outdoor hunts designed to increase situational awareness” 10 Laura Hall “Collaboration & Resilience Building in the Portland Metro Region” 11 Grant Kelly “How Big is Too Big? The Tipping Point of Systemic Failure” 12 Kelly Missett “The Oregon Hazards Lab: Building a Statewide Platform for MultiHazards Monitoring and Alerting” 13 Elizabeth Safran, et al. “Playing with Disaster: Interactive Digital Media as Research and Outreach Tools” 14 Cole M. Speed, et al. “A global archive of accessible, analysis-ready coseismic displacement products for earthquake science applications derived from SAR and optical datasets” 15 Ana Tijerina Esquino “Fuel Tank Seismic Stability in Oregon, an overview of findings from Seismic Vulnerability Assessments” 16 Elizabeth Van Boskirk, et al. “Network of the Americas (NOTA) GNSS, Borehole Strainmeter, and Seismic Data Links and Tools” Table A2: Posters presented in Room 212, 2nd Floor of Campus Center # Authors Title 1 Brendan Crowell, et al. “C3S: Mapping Cascadia’s Fault Slip Processes” 2 Tina Dura, et al. “The Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center (CRESCENT) Cascadia Paleoseismology Working Group (CPAL)” 3 Brittany A. Erickson, Eric M. Dunham and Alice Gabriel “CRESCENT Dynamic Rupture, Earthquake and Tsunami (DET) Modeling” 4 Rebecca Fildes, et al. "CRESCENT CFM: Building a Community Fault Model for the Cascadia Subduction Zone System" 5 Jianhua Gong “High-Resolution Earthquake Catalog Reveals Complex Fault Network in Southern Cascadia from Amphibious Seismic Array” 6 Bin He, et al. “CRESCENT Generation 0 Community Velocity Model: Bayesian joint inversion of phase velocity and receiver functions” 7 Craig Nichol “The National Association of Geoscience Teachers: Earth Education for All” DIGITAL MEDIA Presented on 1st Floor of Campus Center: “How to use OPERA DISP-S1 products” presented by M Grace Bato, Jet Propulsion Laboratory “Stop the Spill” presented by Nancy Hiser, Linnton Neighborhood Association-Tank the Tanks “Decision support for post-disaster recovery operations” presented by Joseph Louis, Oregon State University “The Distant, Immersive, Virtual Education for Ocean Literacy (DIVE4OL) Virtual Reality app” and “Preparing for the Cascadia Subduction Zone Event - online course”, Glenda Hyde et al, OSU Extension, presented by Felicia Olmeta Schult, Oregon Sea Grant/OSU Extension 31 Appendix 5 – Cascadia Connections Map