Through the SAFRR project, the USGS is working with emergency managers to improve warning systems, enhance emergency response, and speed disaster recovery. In this photo, search and rescue workers look for victims at a collapsed department store in Pacific Garden Mall in Santa Cruz, California, after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. Photo Credit: C.E. Meyer, USGS.

When James Featherstone, General Manager of the City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department, sat down to examine the city’s plan for natural disasters, there was a lot he needed to know.

• If a catastrophic flood were to hit, how would it affect business and residents?
• When the next major earthquake strikes, how should the city respond?
• How will floods, wildfire, or landslides affect infrastructure?
• How will they affect rescue efforts?

That’s where the USGS came in.

Bringing science and communities together

Through the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project for Southern California, scientists and emergency managers like Featherstone worked together to get answers and to share scientific information in order to improve warning systems, enhance emergency response, and speed disaster recovery.

During this 5-year pilot project, the USGS brought together scientists, engineers, resource managers, designers, artists, businesses, policy-makers, and communities to get southern California more ready for inevitable natural events.

The ShakeOut Scenario examined the economic and societal impacts of a plausible large earthquake along the southern San Andreas Fault, then the ARkStorm Scenario took a similar look at flooding across California from an equally plausible, large storm.

The project also took quick action to deploy and assist with scientific expertise following real wildfires and debris flows. Throughout, the USGS used its natural hazard expertise to convey the reality of disasters and how to prevent those disasters from becoming catastrophes.

Now the effort is going national.

“We are incredibly proud of the many ways our scientists have helped emergency responders, business and community leaders, and our agency partners to understand what they might face and how to improve readiness,” said David Applegate, Associate Director for USGS Natural Hazards.

“Our ultimate goal is to help build safer communities with our science. We’ve seen the success in the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project, and we want to share that across the Nation.”

Science Application for Risk Reduction

The USGS has evolved the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project into a project called SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction), which will build on the successful techniques developed during the 5-year pilot to create the way natural hazard science is applied for the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation.

“The expansion to a national effort is an excellent move,” said Featherstone. “Here in southern California, the USGS has helped us plan for events outside our everyday experience. The science has been instrumental in helping the emergency management community know what to expect when a natural disaster occurs. That kind of information, in the hands of emergency managers across the country, will be a great step forward in making communities across America safer.”

SAFRR will work with traditional and non-traditional partners, in research institutions, communities, businesses, and governments, to improve utilization of existing natural hazards information from the USGS, to identify needs and gaps, and to develop new products that increase the use of USGS science.

The scope of SAFRR efforts will vary based on particular needs. Some projects will be very local, some regional, and some national. Scenarios akin to ShakeOut and ARkStorm will remain a cornerstone of activity. These science-based scenarios are recognized internationally as a fundamental shift in the way science can communicate to serve society.

But scenarios are only one way that SAFRR can help to make the Nation safer from natural hazards.

Despite its brief existence, SAFRR is already immersed in efforts that hint at the breadth and possibilities of the project.

Scientists probe California’s coastline to unearth traces of paleotsunami. What they unearth has implications for the next potential hazards scenario. Photo Credit: Adam Piestrzeniewicz, taken in northern California in July 2011.

Initial SAFRR efforts

• Development of a Pacific Basin tsunami scenario that models the economic and social impacts to the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii of a plausible tsunami generated by a magnitude 9.0 Alaskan earthquake: The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as other ports and marinas, are principal users of this scenario.
• Collaboration with a consortium of social scientists headquartered at Columbia University to create a debris flow evacuation experiment: Here, SAFRR provides earth science expertise as well as connections with local government decision makers, who have requested SAFRR’s help to improve evacuation messaging and compliance.
• Connecting with the private sector: So far, SAFRR has established collaborations with Target and Bank of America, giving these corporations and USGS scientists direct access to one another, helping these companies to better use existing USGS science and to work on developing natural hazard products that the companies still need.
• Partnership with public health professionals in the Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience Project: This collaborative effort sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Mental Health is a multi-year project in which SAFRR will help the group to use USGS maps and data and exchange knowledge, networks, and contacts.
• Contribution of natural hazard expertise to Exercise (X24) Mexico: This international exercise will address the virtual flow of information and activities of international organizations during a natural disaster and a terrorist attack. As a resource to the Department of Homeland Security, USGS scientists have reviewed the geological hazard components for realism and plausibility to ensure a meaningful exercise.
• Establishment of an annual risk reduction workshop conference: This conference will bring together professionals with common goals but potentially different experience and strategies. The inaugural conference will focus on risk perception and communication, with invitees hailing from earth science, social science, design, marketing, public health, and organizations in both the private and public sectors.SAFRR is working with USGS hazard experts (including those who specialize in volcanic eruptions and floods) to brainstorm scenarios that will help to reduce risk. Next, SAFRR will help take the ideas to stakeholders, to identify the most urgent needs for hazard scenarios.
• Discussion about future scenarios: SAFRR is working with USGS hazard experts (including those who specialize in volcanic eruptions and floods) to brainstorm scenarios that will help to reduce risk. Next, SAFRR will help take the ideas to stakeholders, to identify the most urgent needs for hazard scenarios.

Josh Latimore stands in front of Burney Falls. Latimore started at the USGS as a summer intern and now serves as a USGS hydrologic technician while pursuing his bachelor of science.

How did you become a member of the USGS?

In May of 2009, I had just finished my freshman year at Scottsdale Community College and began searching for a career path in the environmental field when I found the Hydrologic Studies Program at GateWay Community College in Phoenix, Arizona. I went down to the school and spoke with the program director where I learned about the great career opportunities the program had to offer, including working as a hydrologic technician for the USGS.

I was very interested in this opportunity, so I enrolled that same day for the following semester. The USGS came to the college to interview and recruit students for summer internships, and I was fortunate in being recruited for a summer internship as a SCEP at the Redding Field Office in California.

I completed my summer internship in Redding and was offered the permanent position after completion of the program. I graduated in May of 2011 and was then converted to a permanent position and promoted shortly after.

What’s it like to be a USGS Hydrotech?

As a hydrological technician, my primary duties involve managing real-time surface water gaging stations. This consists of making monthly gage inspections, stream flow measurements, processing field data, and performing necessary maintenance to ensure the gage is operating properly. This hydrologic data is collated for record computation and analysis, which is provided for the public, sister agencies, and cooperators.

USGS Hydrologic Technician Josh Latimore collects data on the Trinity River

What’s your most memorable moment with the USGS?

During my time at USGS, one of the most memorable experiences I’ve had working in the field was during the 2011 peak flow release on the Trinity River, a part of the Trinity River Restoration Program peak flow releases for the fisheries.

Why it matters

The Trinity River in northwestern California supports large populations of several different fish species, including salmon and steelhead. Since the late 1950s, 75 to 90 percent of the River’s annual flow has been exported for surrounding populations’ water and power needs, and this habitat alteration has resulted in declines of salmon and steelhead populations.

Since the 1900s, restorations flows have been introduced in an effort to rehabilitate populations, build gravel/cobble bars, and provide adequate habitat conditions for different fish species.

This year I was able to participate in a high flow release of water on the Trinity River from the Lewiston Dam. This event was marked as the second highest flow released from Lewiston Dam since 1960, when regulations began here.

For several days, our crew made a series of intense boat measurements at the five gaging stations below the Lewiston dam. We started taking measurements at the peak flow and continued measurements as the release of water subsided and the current gradually subsided to its base flow. The vast importance and intensity of this project instilled a memory that I will never forget.  

What’s next?

From here, I will continue to enhance my knowledge and skills working as a hydrologic technician through work experience, a variety of training courses offered around the country, and any new opportunities for advancement that arise along the way.

I am also back in school in pursuit of a bachelor of science degree with the intent of becoming a hydrologist. I am taking courses locally at Shasta College in Redding before I transfer to California State University, Chico, where I plan to graduate in spring of 2014.

I really believe the USGS is a great place for youth and students to look for a career because it is a well-respected scientific agency that encompasses a variety of career opportunities with room for advancement in the study of water, earth, biological sciences, and mapping.

We asked USGS caribou (and large mammal) expert Layne Adams, Ph.D., about the lives of caribou for those other 364 days of the year.

Adams has studied caribou in Alaska for 30 years, helping land managers understand the best way to manage this important species.

Here’s what he had to say:

Caribou in late winter, Denali National Park, Alaska (Photo Credit: USGS)

Why are reindeer sometimes called caribou and caribou sometimes called reindeer?

“Reindeer” and “caribou” are two common names for the same species (Rangifer tarandus), which occurs throughout the circumpolar North.

“Reindeer” is the common name for Rangifer in Europe and Asia, whereas “caribou” is the North American name.

The name “caribou” is a French derivative of a Native American word that means snow shoveler, which is a reference to the fact that caribou are often pawing through the snow to find food underneath.

Where do reindeer come from?

There are domestic reindeer in Alaska and Canada, but they actually are descendants of domestic Eurasian reindeer that were brought to Alaska in the late 1800s.

Caribou and reindeer are part of the deer family — related to deer, moose, and elk. But caribou are the only species where males and females both grow antlers. Females and young males have antlers that are similar in size, but older males (more than 2 or 3 years old) have antlers that are much larger.

Caribou and reindeer have been around for over a half-million years, originating in the early Pleistocene. Their ancestors lived at the same time as now-extinct woolly mammoths and saber-toothed cats.

What do you mean by “domestic reindeer”?

Reindeer were domesticated in northern Europe and Asia several thousand years ago and are the basis of herding cultures in those regions.

In Alaska, herding of reindeer started a little more than a century ago when 1300 reindeer were imported from Siberia. At the time, caribou were scarce along the northwest coast of Alaska, and reindeer were brought over in an attempt to establish a herding economy among the Native people of western Alaska.

Reindeer herding expanded widely across the west and north coasts of Alaska, as well as into northern Canada, such that around 600,000 domestic reindeer occurred throughout Alaska by the 1930s.

During the Great Depression, the reindeer industry in Alaska collapsed and retracted to the Seward Peninsula of northwest Alaska where it continues today.

What do they eat?

Caribou forage on a variety of plants throughout the year. During winter, lichens make up the majority of their diet in most areas, with shrubs and grass or sedges making up the rest.

Lichens are a combination of fungus and algae that grow together. On alpine and arctic tundra ranges, caribou primarily feed on terrestrial lichens, sometimes called reindeer moss, that occur within the low-growing grasses and shrubs that make up the tundra vegetation.

In southern or boreal forest ranges, arboreal lichens that grow on trees are the predominant caribou forage.

During summer, caribou shift to eating a wide variety of green plants including grasses or sedges, growing shrubs, and a variety of small forbs or flowering plants. In some regions, mushrooms that are abundant in late summer are an important food for caribou.

Where can you find them in North America?

The  species Rangifer tarandus occurs throughout the circumpolar North.

Caribou are widely distributed across northern North America ranging from the Canadian High Arctic islands to the mountains and boreal forests of the Canadian southern provinces.

A small, endangered population in northern Idaho and adjacent northeastern Washington are the southernmost group in North America.

How do they thrive in such cold temperatures?

Caribou are well adapted to living in cold regions and thrive in areas where winter temperatures can reach 70 or 80 degrees below zero.

Caribou have a very dense haircoat, made up of wooly underfur and hollow guardhair, over their entire body (except the very tip of their nose) that provides superior insulation.

They have relatively large, wide hooves for walking and digging through snow.

How many caribou species are there?

All caribou, as well as Eurasian reindeer, are the same species: Rangifer tarandus. In North America there are currently 4 subspecies of caribou recognized, although recent genetic analyses have blurred the distinction between these groups.

Functionally, there are essentially 3 “ecotypes” of caribou. The most numerous are those in the large migratory populations that occur from Alaska throughout much of northern Canada.

The small Arctic island caribou that occur in the Canadian High Arctic are the second ecotype.

And the third are the woodland caribou that occur in low numbers in scattered populations through mountains and boreal forests of the southern Canadian provinces, dipping in the United States in northern Idaho and Washington.

So caribou migrate — like birds?

Some larger caribou herds migrate long distances, 300 – 400 miles, between winter ranges in the northern fringes of boreal forest to their calving and summer ranges on the Arctic tundra and nearby northern mountain ranges.

At the other extreme, small boreal forest populations are sedentary throughout the year.

Many caribou populations behave in an intermediate manner between these two extremes.

Do reindeer really pull sleighs?

Reindeer were domesticated in Europe and Asia a few thousand years ago, but not caribou in North America.

Domestic reindeer are still common in Scandinavia and northern Russia. Domestic reindeer were brought to Alaska in the late 1800s and a small industry still exists on the Seward Peninsula and a few offshore islands.

While the main goal for domestic reindeer is providing meat and hides to local people, reindeer have been trained to pull sleds as a mode of transportation.

How many herds are in Alaska?

There are 31 caribou herds recognized in Alaska, with 7 large migratory populations numbering 30,000 to 350,000 animals. These herds currently total about 750,000 animals and account for about 97 percent of the caribou in the State.

The remaining 24 herds are much smaller ranging from about 30 to 3000 animals each. Overall, Alaska’s caribou population was relatively low in the mid 1970’s, numbering around 250,000 statewide.

Since then, caribou numbers have increased markedly to around 800,000 today. Such wide fluctuations in caribou numbers over the time scale of decades are not unusual.

Bull caribou in the shadow of Mt. McKinley, Denali National Park, Alaska. A male caribou can weigh up to 600 pounds (Photo Credit: USGS).

How big are adult caribou?

In Denali National Park, where I currently study caribou, mature adult males average about 500 pounds but can range from 400 to nearly 600 pounds.

Adult females are about half as big, averaging about 240 pounds (225- to 320-pound range).

In the large, migratory herds, caribou are generally smaller with adult males and females averaging about 400 pounds for males and 200 pounds for females.

How big are calves?

We’ve weighed quite a few newborn calves in Denali and on average they weigh about 17 pounds.

Calves are born in May and early June throughout Alaska, with most calves being born in any herd within about a 10-day period.

Caribou cows produce one calf each year and generally begin producing calves when they are 2 to 4 years old depending on the nutritional status of a given population.

In small herds, such as the Denali Caribou Herd, calves are subject to intense predation primarily by wolves and grizzly bears — fewer than half survive beyond 2 weeks of age.

In the large, migratory populations, early calf survival is markedly higher because the huge number of calves born over a brief interval can greatly swamp the ability of local predators to kill them.

What do caribou do in the summer?

After the females calve, caribou gather together in large groups to help them better avoid predators and to escape incredibly bothersome mosquitoes and parasitic flies.

The different herds of caribou stay together in the high mountains and along the Alaskan seacoasts where the winds and cooler temperatures help protect them from summer heat and those pesky insects.

After the number of insects decline in late July, the caribou herds scatter into smaller groups. This is an important time for caribou — they use the time before winter arrives to feed as much as possible on remaining green grasses and sedges, willow leaves, and even mushrooms to regain their body weight.

What do they do in the fall and winter?

In the fall, caribou start migrating — when they migrate is dictated by cues in changing day length in combination with the onset of snowfall as the long winter begins. Fall is also the breeding season when mature bulls compete with each other for opportunities to breed with females as the females become receptive.

In winter, Arctic caribou generally migrate south into the northern fringe of the boreal forest or onto tundra winter ranges where terrestrial lichens are abundant.

Smaller mountain populations migrate out of the higher mountains onto the tundra and forest ranges adjacent to their mountainous summer ranges. Once on their winter range, caribou remain there throughout the winter, from about early October to late April.

Can you talk a little more about predators — what eats caribou?

Predation is an important force affecting the number of caribou, particularly in the smaller, more sedentary populations.

The large, migratory herds are able to reduce the effects of predation to some degree just due to their sheer numbers; the tradeoff is that they are more likely to be affected by the nutritional limitations of their ranges compounded by competition with their herd mates.

In general, the primary predators of caribou in Alaska are grizzly bears and wolves. Humans are also important predators of caribou.

Caribou are a mainstay of local subsistence in Bush Alaska, and a sought-after quarry for other Alaskan residents, as well as sport hunters from all over the world. On average, people harvest about 22,000 caribou a year in Alaska.

Grizzly bears are very effective at killing young caribou calves less than a couple weeks old, although they also kill older caribou on occasion.

Wolves are important predators of both young calves and older caribou. Other predators on caribou include black bears, golden eagles, wolverine, and coyotes.

Caribou are more vulnerable in deep snow

A main goal of my research has been to understand the interrelationships of caribou and wolves in Denali National Park.

For caribou, an important factor that affects how many are killed by wolves is the amount of snow.

In years with less snow, caribou have large expanses of wind-blown, snow-free land to seek their food, and they have a much better chance of making it through the winter in good shape. They can also more easily evade wolves because they can run unimpeded. During such times, wolves are able to primarily hunt those caribou that are old, injured, not in good shape, or just plain unlucky. We’ve found, in our studies, that when it is harder for wolves to catch caribou, the wolf packs tend to be smaller.

But the wind shifts in favor of wolves when there is a lot of snow.

Caribou then have a harder time finding enough to eat because they have to dig through deep or crusted snow or must seek food on high mountain ridges where there is little snow, but also little food.

The caribou also have a harder time escaping from wolves in deep snow. In fact, wolves will sometimes chase caribou into areas with deep snow where the caribou are very vulnerable, even if they are in good shape.

In those years, wolf packs tend to be bigger and some packs produce more pups. In contrast, our research shows that after severe winters, not only is a cow less likely to breed, but calves that are born are lighter, grow more slowly, and are more likely to be killed by predators in the weeks after they are born.

Is climate change affecting caribou?

We know, from our studies, that weather may be the most important factor affecting the yearly cycles of large hoofed mammals (such as caribou, moose, and muskox) and their predators.

However, the longer-term effects of climate change are much more complex.

Unlike polar bears, which are highly dependent on sea ice that is declining due to warming temperatures, caribou are likely influenced by a wide variety of factors that will be affected by a warming climate, and some effects will be positive and some negative.

For example, with a warming climate, we expect the growing season to be longer and provide caribou with green, nutritious forage earlier and for a longer period of time for a positive effect.

However, we have done research that indicates that with increasing temperatures we can expect more fires on boreal forest winter ranges for caribou that will likely result in reduced availability of lichen, their primary winter forage, which tends to not grow back for about 70 to 80 years after a fire.

The overall effect of a warming climate on Alaska’s caribou will be dependent on how these and many other climate-related effects interact and that is very difficult to predict.

What does some of your research focus on?

I have been lucky to be able to continuously study caribou population dynamics and predator-caribou relationships in Denali National Park since 1986.

Currently, I am focusing on monitoring the population dynamics of the Denali Caribou Herd and investigating growth and survival patterns of bull caribou.

I am also conducting research on muskox in northwestern Alaska and supervising studies evaluating climate change influences on the seasonal patterns of forage quality and abundance for caribou, moose, and muskox on Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain.

For 100 years, scientists at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory have been monitoring volcanoes to help make communities safer. In this photo, an HVO geologist takes a sample of active lava within a lava tube. These samples are routinely analyzed to track changes in lava chemistry.

This year, the USGS is proud to celebrate 100 years of continuous volcano monitoring in the United States.

Monitoring began in 1912, when Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founded the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) in the then U.S. territory of Hawai‘i.

The HVO became a permanent part of the USGS in 1947, and today the USGS Volcano Hazards Program monitors volcanoes across the United States and helps monitor others around the world — watching for signs of unrest that can lead to hazardous conditions, learning more about volcanic processes and risks, and helping to make communities safer.

Living with Volcanoes in Hawai‘i

“Volcanoes are an important part of life on Hawai‘i Island, and all of us who live here must learn to live safely within the dynamics of an ever-changing volcanic environment,” said Jim Kauahikaua, HVO’s Scientist-in-Charge. “Part of this celebration is recognizing the tremendous advances we’ve seen in the methods, tools, and technology used to study Hawaiian volcanoes and how that has helped lead to a remarkable increase in our understanding of how volcanoes work.”

“The HVO helps ensure the safety and welfare of citizens of our island by forecasting potential destructive volcanic activity,” said Quince Mento, former Administrator, Hawai‘i County Civil Defense Agency. “Without the HVO’s dedicated staff our public safety agencies would not be able to mitigate loss of life and property in a timely fashion. We celebrate HVO’s 100th anniversary and its continued role in protecting our island residents and advancing the science of volcanology.”

Built by Lava

Lava first erupted above sea level more than 500,000 years ago to begin forming the Island of Hawai‘i. Since then, countless eruptions from its five volcanoes have built the “Big Island” to a towering height of more than 4,000 m (13,000 ft).

Hawaii’s two most active volcanoes — Mauna Loa and Kīlauea — erupt lava frequently enough to pose a serious hazard to property on many parts of the island. About 40 percent of Mauna Loa, the most massive volcano on Earth, has been covered by lava in the past 1,000 years, and over 90 percent of Kīlauea’s surface is covered by lava less than 1,100 years old.

The current eruption of Kīlauea has been ongoing since 1983, and HVO staff members have been dedicated to helping keep people safe. In 1990, for example, lava flows threatened the town of Kalapana. During this difficult period, HVO scientists provided detailed information 7 days a week on lava movement to the Hawai‘i County Civil Defense, which made decisions regarding evacuation, road closures, and safe vantage points for residents and visitors.

As land development expands toward areas of relatively high volcanic hazard, the threat to life and property on Hawai‘i will increase accordingly.

“Volcanic activity and its associated earthquakes are responsible for Hawai‘i’s fertile soil, rainfall, isolated habitat for unique species, breathtaking natural beauty, but also, unfortunately, its geologic hazards,” said Marcia McNutt, USGS Director.

When lava from the Pu'u 'Ō'ō-Kupaianaha eruption, active since 1983, meets the ocean, large littoral explosions can result. Photo Credit: Michael Poland, USGS

USGS Mitigating Volcano Hazards around the World

The USGS Volcano Hazards Program monitors volcanoes across the United States and helps monitor others around the world for signs of unrest that can lead to hazardous conditions. The USGS and its partners also issue warnings of impending eruptions to help prevent loss of life and property.

The USGS now operates five volcano observatories monitoring volcanic activity throughout the United States and its territories:

• Alaska Volcano Observatory (Alaska and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands);
• Cascades Volcano Observatory (Idaho, Oregon and Washington);
• Long Valley Observatory (California and Nevada);
• Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming); and
• Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (Hawai‘i).

Each observatory provides regular updates of volcanic activity within its area of responsibility with updates becoming more frequent as activity escalates.

In addition, the USGS provides long-term volcano hazard assessments for a growing number of volcanoes, provides public education materials about volcano hazards, and participates in emergency management exercises meant to assure public safety during times of volcanic crises.

A national assessment and plan for U.S. volcano monitoring, called the National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS), was proposed in 2005 to establish a proactive, fully integrated, national-scale monitoring effort that ensures the most threatening volcanoes in the United States are properly monitored in advance of the onset of unrest and at levels commensurate with the threats posed.

See Hawai‘i’s Volcanoes Now

You can watch volcanoes in real time on USGS webcams throughout Hawai‘i.

Join USGS Celebratory Events in Hawai‘i

In celebration of its centennial milestone, the HVO is hosting events throughout the year, with most activities in January during Hawai‘i’s Volcano Awareness Month. These public events will help promote awareness of Hawai‘i’s active volcanoes and the importance of understanding how volcanoes and earthquakes can impact island communities. Public programs and activities on Hawai‘i Island, held in cooperation with the National Park Service and the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, include island-wide talks by HVO scientists and guided hikes in Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park.

A centennial open house will be held at HVO on Saturday, January 21, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

“The activities planned during Volcano Awareness Month are an engaging and stimulating way for residents and visitors alike to learn more about the fascinating processes that have formed and continue to shape these enormous volcanic features and how to live safely in the vicinity of such powerful geologic forces,” said McNutt.

For more information about HVO Volcano Awareness Month programs and centennial events, please visit the HVO website, email askHVO@usgs.gov, or call (808) 967-8844.

Continuous Landsat imagery since 1972 provides standardized data that reliably indicates environmental change, helping decision makers in agriculture, forestry, water resources, and urban planning. Left: center pivot irrigation in Garden City, KS, 1988; center: pine beetle infestation in Rocky Mountain National Park, 2010; right: rapid urban growth of Las Vegas, NV, 2000.

Expanding demand from a growing world population — now numbered at more than 7 billion — exerts unprecedented pressure on global resources, especially forests, water, and agriculture.

To support a world population expected to reach 8 billion as soon as 2025, decision makers need tools and information to monitor and protect these crucial resources.

Remote-sensing satellites help scientists to observe our world beyond the power of human sight, to monitor changes, and to detect critical trends in the conditions of natural resources.

A Vital Source of Data

Across nearly 4 decades, Landsat satellites have continuously acquired space-based images of Earth’s land surface. The series of images collected by these satellites has provided a vital worldwide reference for researchers and resource managers.

For example, comparing Landsat images taken on earlier dates with those on later dates can help to monitor

• forests under threat from illegal logging, deforestation, and biofuel production;
• water resources crucial for cities and agriculture and key to public health and national economies; and
• agricultural production in connection with changing conditions of land and climate.

By combining the nearly 40-year global Landsat record with other Earth-observation systems and the latest scientific techniques in Earth imaging, researchers around the globe can not only see and describe present conditions, they can also track how those conditions have changed over time and outline the future of many natural resources with increasing accuracy.

Impartial information freely available

Systematic observation of the land from space provides objective data that we can trust — fundamental information on a national and global scale that is direct and impartial. And as the demands for limited resources grow, having impartial data on how precious resources are changing over time will become ever more important.

The Department of the Interior’s policy of releasing the full Landsat archive at no cost allows everyone to have access to this important resource, allowing researchers in the private sector and at smaller universities to generate even more data applications — applications that serve commercial endeavors in agriculture and forestry, that enable land managers in and out of government to work more efficiently, and that define and tackle critical environmental issues.

The 18^th Pecora Remote Sensing Symposium  

The 18^th William T. Pecora Memorial Remote Sensing Symposium, taking place November 14-17, 2011, in Herndon, Virginia, is exploring these topics and more.

The symposium honors William T. Pecora, whose early vision and support helped establish the Landsat satellite program. Pecora was Director of the U.S. Geological Survey from 1965 – 1971.

Visit NASA Goddard for print-quality images and other materials.

Shaking from Oklahoma's M5.6 main shock, the largest quake in the State's history, was clearly felt from St. Louis, Missouri, to Lubbock, Texas.

Over the past few days, Oklahoma has been hit by a sequence of significant earthquakes, including a magnitude 5.6, the largest quake to hit Oklahoma in modern times:

• A magnitude-4.7 foreshock struck 20 miles northeast of Shawnee and 46 miles east of Oklahoma City on Saturday, November 5, at 2:12 a.m. local time at the epicenter.

• The magnitude-5.6 main shock struck 21 miles north northeast of Shawnee and 44 miles east northeast of Oklahoma City on Saturday, November 5, at 10:53 p.m.

• A magnitude-4.7 aftershock struck 17 miles north northeast of Shawnee and 43 miles east of Oklahoma City on Monday, November 07, at 08:46 p.m.

The previous record for the largest Oklahoma quake is a magnitude-5.5 earthquake that occurred near El Reno on April 9, 1952.

During Saturday night’s magnitude-5.6 quake, about 8,000 people were exposed to very strong or severe shaking with the possibility of moderate to heavy damage to some structures, according to the USGS PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response) system.

Shaking from this quake was clearly felt from St. Louis, Missouri, to Lubbock, Texas — indicating that ground shaking reached distances of 300 miles from the earthquake’s epicenter.

Visit Did You Feel It? to see a map of reported shaking or to report your own experience.

Aftershocks will likely continue, but decrease in frequency

There have also been dozens of smaller aftershocks. These aftershocks will continue for weeks and potentially months, but they will likely decrease in frequency.

This amount of aftershock activity is not unusual for an earthquake sequence with a main shock magnitude of 5.6.

Earthquakes have been increasing in this area

Earthquakes are not unusual in Oklahoma; they are often simply too small to be felt. However, earthquake activity in this area has increased over the past 4 years.

From 1972 through 2007, the USGS recorded about two to six earthquakes a year in Oklahoma. But in 2008, earthquake activity began to increase, with more than a dozen earthquakes recorded that year. In 2009, the rate continued to climb, with nearly 50 quakes recorded — many big enough to be felt. In 2010, the trend continued.

There has also been a change in the distribution of the earthquakes.

From 1973 to 2007, the earthquakes were scattered broadly across the east-central part of the State. The events since 2008, however, have been more clustered in the vicinity northeast and east of Oklahoma City and generally southwest of Tulsa. This sequence of earthquakes was in this area.

From 1973 to 2007, earthquakes in Oklahoma were scattered broadly across the east-central part of the State. Since 2008, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes, and the events have been more clustered in the vicinity northeast and east of Oklahoma City and generally southwest of Tulsa. (Illustration by Richard Dart, USGS, click on image to see full size.)

Is an even larger quake on its way?

There is always a small possibility of an earthquake of larger magnitude following any earthquake, but the occurrence of the magnitude-5.6 earthquake and the increase in activity in recent years do not necessarily indicate that a larger more damaging earthquake will occur.

To monitor and locate aftershock activity in more detail, the Oklahoma Geological Survey deployed portable seismograph stations after the magnitude-4.7 on November 5, and they are in the process of deploying more stations. The USGS deployed additional seismographs in the region in 2010 to help monitor the ongoing earthquake activity and will be deploying about 12 more stations over the next few days.

Faults in Oklahoma

In general, it is very difficult to correlate earthquakes to specific faults in the region. However, the earthquake sequence that started Saturday occurred close to where a magnitude-4.1 earthquake occurred on February 27, 2010. From the location of the earthquake and the focal mechanism, it is possible that these earthquakes are occurring on the Wilzetta fault.

The Wilzetta fault is one of a series of small faults formed in the Pennsylvanian Epoch (approximately 300 million years ago) during the intraplate deformation known as the Ancestral Rocky Mountains mountain-building episode (orogeny).

The relationship between the recent earthquakes and this older structure is still unknown and requires further investigation.

The Meers fault is also located in Oklahoma, in the south-central area about 60 miles southwest of Oklahoma City. It is the only fault identified in the State with evidence of surface-rupturing earthquakes in the last 3000 years (prior to historical settlement of the region). Paleoseismology studies have identified a temporal clustering of a least three earthquakes on this fault, two of which are dated (1200 – 2900 Before Present) and the third is believed to be older in age.

Earthquakes in the eastern United States

These earthquakes are typical of the larger areas of North America east of the Rocky Mountains that have infrequent earthquakes large enough to cause minor to major damage.

Some smaller areas of eastern North America are more active, including

• the New Madrid seismic zone centered in the region where Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas come together;
• the Charlevoix-Kamouraska seismic zone of eastern Quebec;
• the Wabash Valley seismic zone along the border region of southeast Illinois and southwestern Indiana;
• the Central Virginia seismic zone (which had the magnitude-5.8 earthquake on August 23, 2011);
• the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone;
• a broad zone in New England, and
• a zone in the New York-Philadelphia-Wilmington urban corridor.

For example, December 16, 2011, is the bicentennial anniversary of a sequence of large earthquakes in the New Madrid region. There were three main earthquakes with magnitudes of about 7 – 8 and hundreds of aftershocks from December 16, 1811, to February 7, 1812.

However, much of the region from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Seaboard can go years without an earthquake, and several States have never reported a damaging earthquake.

Earthquakes of magnitude-5.6, like the one that occurred Saturday, are believed to be capable of striking anywhere in eastern North America at irregular intervals.

Shaking spreads farther in the East

Earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains, although less frequent than in the West, are typically felt over a much broader region.

East of the Rockies, an earthquake can be felt over an area as much as 10 times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the West Coast.

For example, the magnitude-5.8 earthquake that hit Virginia on August 23, 2011, caused damage as far away as Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, and southern New Jersey and was felt throughout the eastern United States (from central Georgia to central Maine and west to Detroit, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois) as well as in many parts of southeastern Canada (from Montreal to Windsor).

Be prepared

We cannot predict exactly when and where earthquakes will occur; therefore, it is important to know the risks for your area and to be prepared.

Find out more about the risks in your State (or Country) and learn what you can do to be ready:

• What to do before an earthquake (FEMA)
• What do to during an earthquake (FEMA)
• What to do after an earthquake (FEMA)
• Seven Steps to Earthquake Safety (Southern California Earthquake Center)
• Preparedness FAQs

Together, the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Watershed, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta form an interconnected and valuable resource system. A new study reveals this system will feel impacts of climate change with shifts in biological communities, rising sea level, and modified water supplies. (Photo Credit: Francis Parchaso, USGS)

Over the coming decades, California’s Bay-Delta system will feel impacts of global climate change with shifts in biological communities, rising sea level, and modified water supplies, according to a new study by the USGS and academic partners.

Together, the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Watershed, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta form an interconnected and valuable resource system.

This Bay-Delta system provides

• essential habitat for aquatic species, including Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, and delta smelt;
• irrigation water to millions of acres of farmland that produce crops valued at $36 billion per year; and
• water to 25 million people.

Deciding how best to meet the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) interests of those who value the resources of the Bay-Delta system already poses challenges to area resource managers. As the climate changes, the intensity of the challenges they face is likely to increase.

Therefore, as resource managers develop strategies to protect the Bay-Delta system — and the critical services it provides — they need to understand how global climate change will affect the system.

Managing local and regional resources in the face of global climate change

The impacts of climate change have been documented around the world. But when the consequences of Earth’s warming vary from one location to the next, how do our Nation’s regional and local resource managers — including those in the Bay-Delta area — prepare for the impacts that they, specifically, will face over the coming decades?

How will the effects of warming at the global level cascade down to impacts on the local resources we depend on?

A new study takes a first step in answering these questions, providing crucial information for difficult decisions regarding conservation, economic interests, and food and water security.

The study applies both fast and moderate climate-warming scenarios at a regional level to investigate how the Bay-Delta system would change from 2010 to 2099. Researchers examine how the Bay-Delta system will be impacted as global climate change alters the water supply, sea level, and habitats of the Bay-Delta system.

Some highlights from the study include the following impacts: 

• The effects of increasing water temperature could reduce habitat quality for native species, such as the endangered delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon, and intensify the challenge of sustaining their populations.
• Water-resource planners will need to develop adaptation strategies to address potentially longer dry seasons, diminishing snow packs, and earlier snowmelt that leaves less water for runoff in the summer.
• As sea-level rise accelerates and as both earlier snowmelt and a shift in precipitation from snow to rain result in extreme water levels, the risk of flooding will increase.

Five conclusions

Based on the results of their study, the researchers came to five conclusions that those developing resource-management plans should know:

1. There is uncertainty about how the Bay-Delta system will evolve in the future (flexibility and adaptability will be necessary for effective adaptation strategies).

The researchers used two contrasting climate scenarios, one fast and one moderate, to both demonstrate and explore a range of climate possibilities. In some areas, the two scenarios show similar results; and in others, they demonstrate considerable variation stemming from different emission rates and climate sensitivity.

Comparing the results of the two scenarios suggests that resource managers can readily anticipate progressively increasing air and water temperature, salinity intrusion into the Bay-Delta system, more runoff in winter, and less runoff in spring and summer — but that the rate of change and the magnitude of extremes are uncertain, so the best strategies will be flexible, adaptable, and include contingency plans for multiple outcomes.

2. Today’s extremes could become tomorrow’s norms.

Both of the scenarios show big changes in the frequency of extreme events. The results indicate shifts into regimes of environmental conditions that residents and ecosystems have not experienced during the development of the Bay Area.

The results imply growing risks of coastal flooding, extinction of native fishes, and decreasing feasibility of some ecosystem restoration actions. However, by anticipating and preparing for these increased risks, communities can focus on the most effective conservation efforts and mitigate the potential damages from hazardous events.

3. It’s not just climate change (it’s also land-use change).

Over the past 150 years, massive landscape modifications, water development, pollutants, and non-native species have transformed the Bay-Delta system.

Many drivers will continue to transform coastal ecosystems, including population growth and urbanization, nutrient enrichment, potentially catastrophic levee failures from storms or earthquakes, modified reservoir operations and water conveyances, and ecosystem restoration efforts.

By considering all drivers of change, resource managers will be able to develop more comprehensive and more effective strategies for managing the resources of the Bay-Delta system.

4. Biological community changes are inevitable.

As the environmental conditions in the Bay-Delta system change — as the delta’s waters warm, clear, and increase in salinity; as summer river temperatures more frequently reach levels fatal to some species; and as drought periods are extended — the native species that are adapted to past and current conditions will be impacted.

The study indicates an increasing risk of extinction of native species and increasing dominance of nonnative species. For example, delta smelt are adapted to cool, turbid, low salinity habitats, but as delta waters warm, clear, and increase in salinity, the area may no longer be suitable for sustaining smelt populations.

Even a small change can trigger a big shift — one that completely reorganizes the biological communities — in an ecosystem. With this understanding, resource managers can anticipate surprises, develop contingency plans, and watch for unexpected shifts in habitats and biological communities. 

5. The challenge of meeting California’s water demands will intensify

The study shows the potential for longer dry seasons, extended droughts, and extreme floods. Diminishing snow packs will cause earlier water flow into reservoirs, meaning that reservoir management could be more about controlling floods and less about storing water.

In addition, salinity intrusion into the estuary could affect the quality of drinking water to communities that use the delta for municipal water supply. One mitigation strategy could be additional release of freshwater.

Such decisions in allocating water for human consumption and biological needs will be increasingly difficult, but the first step in making those decisions is understanding how the resource is changing and which measures could prove useful and which futile.

Facing the challenges

The San Francisco Bay is the largest estuary on the U.S. West Coast. In addition to serving as a major source of water for irrigating crops and public water supply, the Bay-Delta system provides habitat for endemic species and supports fisheries, such as English sole and Dungeness crab. Fourteen species of migratory or resident fishes are imperiled. And as sea level rises, 270,000 people and $62 billion of development are at risk of flooding along the shores of the estuary.

With so much at stake, the consequences of not preparing for changes to the system could be dire. However, the USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and the State of California are working together to address these issues.

There are also collaborative initiatives, such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan, working to address problems in the Bay-Delta system.

In any budget, government and other agencies need to make smart decisions that make the most of the financial resources available to address problems and provide needed services. In tight budget times, good use of resources becomes essential. Studies like this provide crucial information to support informed decisions.

The benefits of this study extend beyond the Bay Area. In addition to providing a view of what the Bay-Delta system could look like in the future, this research provides general lessons for those developing strategies for coping with climate change in other coastal landscapes.

Anticipation, flexibility, and adaptability will be the keys to the success of those strategies.

To read more about the methodology, results, and lessons learned from this study, read the article, “Projected Evolution of California’s San Francisco Bay-Delta-River System in a Century of Climate Change,” in the journal, PLoS ONE.

Little brown bats in a hibernation cave in New York show fungal growth on their muzzles. Bats have been dissappearing at alarming rates due to white-nose syndrome, which scientists now know is caused by a specific fungus. (Photo Credit: Nancy Heaslip, New York Department of Environmental Conservation)

Bat populations, which provide valuable insect control for the agricultural industry, are declining at an alarming rate due to a disease known as white-nose syndrome. In the Northeast, hibernating bat counts have declined by approximately 80 percent.

What is causing this disease? And how is it spread?

It’s as ominous as its name implies. The fungus Geomyces destructans has been definitively identified as the cause of the deadly white-nose syndrome in bats, according to newly published research by USGS scientists and partners.

During the study, 100 percent of healthy little brown bats exposed to G. destructans while hibernating in captivity developed white-nose syndrome, which is characterized by a powdery white growth on the muzzles of infected bats.

The study demonstrated for the first time that the G. destructans fungus is the cause of white-nose syndrome and that it is spread by bat-to-bat contact during hibernation.

From previous studies, it is known that the fungus lives on the walls and floors of caves occupied by hibernating bats with white-nose syndrome, demonstrating that the environment plays a role in the disease cycle.

White-nose syndrome has been rapidly spreading in all directions since its 2006 discovery in New York State. Knowing the cause and how it is spread will help decision makers manage the disease to preserve the ecologically and economically valuable bat populations of North America.

Why Do Bats Matter?

Much more than their gothic characterization implies, insect-eating bats provide economically valuable ecological services that are estimated to save the agricultural industry billions of dollars.

The value of the pest-control services to agriculture provided by bats in the United States alone ranges from a low of $3.7 billion to a high of $53 billion a year, according to a previous study by scientists from the University of Pretoria (South Africa), USGS, University of Tennessee, and Boston University.

Extent of the Problem

U.S. bat populations have been declining at an alarming rate since the 2006 discovery of white-nose syndrome in New York State. The disease has been found in 16 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The Northeast, where declines have exceeded 80 percent, is the most severely affected region in the United States.

There is no known cure for white-nose syndrome, and diseases among free-ranging wildlife are difficult to stop in their tracks once they’ve become established in populations of wild animals.

Taking Precautions

“While our study confirmed that G. destructans is spread bat-to-bat, it is also important to note that virtually all pathogens, especially spore-producing fungi, are spread by multiple routes,” said David Blehert, USGS microbiologist and an author of the study.

“This is the reason that in an effort to further control the spread of white-nose syndrome, resource management agencies have implemented universal precautions, including limiting human access to sensitive environments occupied by bats, decontaminating equipment and clothing moved between these environments, and restricting the movement of equipment between sites.”

Positive Progress

Despite these staggering statistics, the results of the new study significantly contribute to current knowledge about G. destructans, white-nose syndrome, and the ability of the fungus to infect and be transmitted between bats. Such information is critical for mitigating the devastating effects of white-nose syndrome in North America.

“By identifying what causes white-nose syndrome, this study will greatly enhance the ability of decision makers to develop management strategies to preserve vulnerable bat populations and the ecosystem services that they provide in the U.S. and Canada,” said Anne Kinsinger, USGS Associate Director of Ecosystems.

This study, published in the journal Nature, was conducted at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center by scientists from the USGS, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Bucknell University.

A USGS ShakeMap shows the intensity of shaking caused by the earthquake in eastern Turkey on October 23, 2011

A magnitude-7.2 earthquake struck 12 miles northeast of the city of Van in eastern Turkey on Sunday, October 23, 2011, at 1:41 p.m. local time at the epicenter (time in other time zones).

The earthquake occurred at a depth of 12.4 miles and caused strong shaking throughout a broad area, causing significant damage to Van and neighboring towns.

The current version of the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) estimate is that economic losses are most likely to be in the $1–10 billion range, and fatalities are equally likely to be in the 100–1,000 or the 1,000–10,000 range.

Did You Feel It? Individuals report on the intensity of shaking

The earthquake struck in the eastern part of Turkey near the borders with Iran and Iraq. As of this writing, 325 people in 138 cities throughout Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, and the surrounding region had responded on the USGS Did You Feel It? website.

History of strong earthquakes

Turkey is a tectonically active country that experiences frequent destructive earthquakes. This earthquake is a reminder of the many deadly seismic events that Turkey has suffered in the recent past.

• In 1999, a devastating magnitude-7.6  earthquake near Izmit broke a section of the North Anatolian Fault (approximately 620 miles to the west of the October 23, 2011, earthquake), killing 17,000 people, injuring 50,000, and leaving 500,000 homeless.
• In 1976, a magnitude-7.3 earthquake struck near the border of Turkey and Iran (approximately 40 miles from the October 23, 2011, earthquake), destroying several villages and killing 3,000 to 5,000 people.
• In 1939, a magnitude-7.8 earthquake struck near Erzincan, killing an estimated 33,000 people.

Tectonics of this earthquake

On a broad scale, earthquakes in this region are controlled by the collision of the Arabian Plate and Eurasian tectonic plates. At the latitude of this event, the Arabian plate converges with Eurasia in a northerly direction at a rate of approximately 24 millimeters per year.

In the area of Lake Van and further east, tectonic activity is dominated by the Bitlis Suture Zone (in eastern Turkey) and Zagros fold and thrust belt (which extends toward Iran). This earthquake occurred beyond the eastern extent of Anatolian strike-slip faulting, which is similar to the San Andreas Fault in California. The focal mechanism of this earthquake is consistent with oblique-thrust faulting similar to mapped faults in the region.

For the most recent information on this earthquake, maps, and scientific and technical information, visit Magnitude 7.2 – Eastern Turkey.

Flash animation of a strike-slip fault

Flash animation of a thrust fault

USGS scientists Elizabeth Cochran, Sasha Reed, and David Shelly were honored with the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers

USGS geophysicist Elizabeth Cochran, research ecologist Sasha Reed, and research seismologist David Shelly were honored by President Obama on October 14, 2011, with the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, the highest honor bestowed by the United States government on science and engineering professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

“It is inspiring to see the innovative work being done by these scientists and engineers as they ramp up their careers — careers that I know will be not only personally rewarding but also invaluable to the Nation,” President Obama said.

“That so many of them are also devoting time to mentoring and other forms of community service speaks volumes about their potential for leadership, not only as scientists but as model citizens.”

The Presidential early career awards embody the high priority the Obama Administration places on producing outstanding scientists and engineers to advance the Nation’s goals, tackle grand challenges, and contribute to the American economy.

Elizabeth Cochran, a USGS geophysist, invented the Quake-Catcher Network.

Elizabeth Cochran has helped to develop a new generation of earthquake sensors

Cochran has made important contributions to the understanding of earthquake physics and earthquake triggering, the physical properties and geometry of earthquake fault zones and their evolution after earthquakes, and to the development of a new generation of low-cost earthquake sensors, called the Quake-Catcher Network. This network allows scientists to monitor earthquakes and quantify ground shaking with unprecedented spatial resolution through data gathered from citizen volunteers.

“Dr. Cochran’s work on next generation sensor networks is exactly what the United States needs to help
enable earthquake early warning,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “As was clearly demonstrated by the recent Japanese experience, even a few seconds of warning before an earthquake can reduce the loss of life and property. Dr. Cochran’s innovative research will help make the Nation safer from this natural hazard.”

Read more about Elizabeth Cochran.

Sasha Reed has transformed the way scientists model ecosystems

Sasha Reed, a USGS research ecologist who has developed new ways to address environmental challenges, holds a sloth during a field trip to Brazil.

Reed investigates how ecosystems respond to global change and has added new directions to the fields of biogeochemistry and ecosystem ecology. Highlights of Reed’s research include biofuels development in the southwestern United States, climate change and its effects on terrestrial ecosystems, nitrogen deposition, and beetle infestation and its consequences. Reed’s research has transformed the way scientists conceptualize and model ecosystems and has helped provide critical information to decision makers for land management issues.

“We are so proud that the President has honored Dr. Reed, whose research is the epitome of our integrated solutions-oriented approach to problem-solving,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Her innovative work is relevant to the science of renewable energy, ecosystems restoration, climate change, and water supplies, and directly addresses the challenges of today while anticipating those of tomorrow.”

Read more about Sash Reed.

David Shelly has pioneered ways to detect tectonic tremor

Shelly pioneered ways to detect tectonic tremor, or a bunch of tiny earthquakes strung together, occurring deep within Earth’s crust, below the depth of where damaging earthquakes have occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the future. By precisely locating these clusters of earthquakes, Shelly was the first to determine that they originated on the down-dip extensions of the faults, and are caused by slip on faults rather than the migration of fluids. The previous reigning hypothesis had been that these portions of the faults had moved entirely by the migration of fluids. This information is important in identifying and determining the risk due to hazards like earthquakes and volcanoes and finding ways to build more resilient communities.

David Shelly, a USGS research seismologist, has developed new techniques for monitoring deep earthquakes.

“Dr. Shelly’s work lies on the critical frontier of understanding that transition zone between where Earth releases accumulated stress through infrequent, catastrophic large earthquakes versus continuous, slow creep,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “His work will lead to insights on reducing hazards from one of the deadliest form of natural hazards. Furthermore, Dr. Shelly also provides leadership in the field of tectonic tremor by developing and fostering international collaboration, particularly between researchers in the United States and Japan.”

Read more about David Shelly.

Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers

The Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers was established by President Clinton in 1996 and are coordinated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President. Awardees are selected for their pursuit of innovative research at the frontiers of science and technology and their commitment to community service as demonstrated through scientific leadership, public education, or community outreach.