I am so tempted to add the faults that are not so active. Especially with all the fracking that keeps going on in Oklahoma along the Namaha Uplift that every week produces several Magnitude 4 quakes per week. Induced seismicity shows up on seismographs and cannot be covered up by aggressive industry grunts. Considering how much geology and seismology are still so not understood as meteorology, making earthquakes happen interferes with our understanding on how and why earthquakes happen. Much of our understanding is still based on theory. To stir up those conditions artificially tampers with how they happen naturally.-- Bushido Hacks ( talk) 15:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

There's quite a few "faults" mentioned here east of the Rockies that aren't seismically active. They should generally be removed if they aren't in this USGS database: Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States [1]. The situation here is that (1) faults are literally everywhere and (2) small earthquakes happen everywhere. So when a trivial earthquake happens somewhere away from a plate boundary, the local TV station and/or Wikipedia editors check out geological maps to find the nearest surficial fault and say, "Hmm. Looks like the Sandwich Fault is seismically active!". No. That's not how it works. A particularly egregious example are the faults around Houston that are non-tectonic and associated with salt domes and groundwater withdrawal being listed here. Again, no. That's not how it works. Although small earthquakes happen there (like they happen everywhere) the faults responsible are buried miles deep in the subsurface (they're all blind) and you will not find any surface expression. In fact, you won't find any fault showing historical coseismic surface displacement in US/CA anywhere east of the Rockies (a thrust fault at Kentucky Bend (New Madrid) is trying, but the closest it has managed is a fault-propagation fold). Further, it concerns me that a lineament has made it into a the template. A lineament! Really... Geogene ( talk) 23:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply