USGS Science in Menlo Park—

A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey

Menlo Park Science Center, 

2005-2015

Circular 1290

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
USGS Science in Menlo Park—

A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological 

Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

By Thomas M. Brocher, Michael D. Carr, David L. Halsing, David A. John, 

Victoria E. Langenheim, Margaret T. Mangan, Mark C. Marvin-DiPasquale, 

John Y. Takekawa, and Claire R. Tiedeman

Circular 1290

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

Available from U.S. Geological Survey Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

This report and any updates to it are available online at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2006/1290/

For additional information write to:

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25046, Mail Stop 421, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225–0046

Additional USGS publications can be found at:

http://geology.usgs.gov/products.html

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747)

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement of the U.S. Government.

Cataloging-in-publication data are on file with the Library of Congress (URL http://www.loc.gov/).

Produced in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California

Manuscript approved for publication, December 16, 2005

Text edited by Peter Stauffer

Layout and design by Susan Mayfield and Judy Weathers
iii

Preface

In the spring of 2004, the Menlo Park Center Council (senior managers from each of the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) organizational units in Menlo Park, California) commissioned an 

interdisciplinary working group to develop a collective future science strategy for the USGS 

Menlo Park Science Center (hereafter also referred to as “the Center”). The Council recognized 

that science priorities must be the primary consideration guiding critical decisions the USGS 

faces about the future size and nature of staff, facilities, and science support infrastructure at 

the Center. Each of the science units at the Center has program goals on which they base decisions about science priorities, staffing, and infrastructure needs, but no common vision existed 

to guide the future science of the Center as a whole. The Council believes that centerwide 

planning will help focus future science conducted at the Center and provide a framework for 

maintaining the scientific vibrancy of the Menlo Park Science Center and its leadership role in 

the Earth sciences.

During the remainder of 2004, the working group gathered and synthesized information. It 

sought to answer key questions that were developed to help guide future decisions on science and science infrastructure for the Menlo Park Science Center. These questions include:

What should be the core scientific roles of the Center in the portfolio of USGS science 

centers in central California, the USGS Western Region, and the Nation?

What key analytical and infrastructure capabilities should be maintained or developed in 

Menlo Park to support the roles of the Center to serve the broader USGS mission?

What existing, enhanced, or new partnerships will be key to USGS success in fulfilling 

the core scientific roles of the Center?

What opportunities and challenges are presented by the quality of life and cost of living 

in the San Francisco Bay Area to the Center’s ability to continue to recruit and retain a 

world-class scientific workforce?

The working group reviewed numerous USGS planning documents and recent external reviews of 

USGS programs to ensure that future science directions in Menlo Park remain in the vanguard of 

national USGS science priorities (National Research Council, 2001, 2002; Bohlen and others, 1999; 

McMahon and others, 2005; U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, 1999, 2002). They sought guidance

from the USGS executive leaders in the Western Region and at the national headquarters. 

The working group then interviewed representative panels of junior and senior scientists in Menlo 

Park, Center Chiefs of all the USGS Science and Geographic Information Offices with a presence in 

Menlo Park and other central California locations, and USGS Program Coordinators.

Written responses to the key planning questions given above were solicited from the entire 

Menlo Park workforce and all Science Center Chiefs in the Western Region. Representatives 

of more than 20 universities, other research partners, and client agencies in the San Francisco 

Bay Area also commented in writing or through interviews on a series of questions about their 

relationship with the USGS and specifically with the Menlo Park Science Center. Finally, the 

working group held an all-employees open meeting in Menlo Park to discuss science goals and 

objectives. Earlier drafts of this document were posted on an internal USGS Internet site for 

comment. By the end of the process, most stakeholders in the Menlo Park Science Center had 

•

•

•

•
iv

had an opportunity to participate. The contributions of participants from the USGS, science collaborators, and clients broadly agree––they greatly value the accomplishments of USGS at the 

Menlo Park Science Center and support a continuing USGS commitment to sustain the Center's 

status as an internationally recognized science center and national resource for achieving USGS 

mission goals.

Membership of the science strategy working group for the Menlo Park Science Center consisted 

of seven mid-career research scientists stationed at Menlo Park and representing the diversity 

of science activities at the Center, a USGS research biologist stationed outside Menlo Park, 

and a member of the Menlo Park Council to serve as facilitator and management liaison. The 

members are:

Thomas Brocher, Geology Discipline, Earthquake Hazards Team

Michael Carr, Associate Western Regional Geologist (Chair)

David Halsing, Geography Discipline, Geographic Research and Technology Team

David John, Geology Discipline, Mineral Resources Team

Victoria Langenheim, Geology Discipline, Earth Surface Processes Team

Margaret Mangan, Geology Discipline, Volcano Hazards Team

Mark Marvin-DiPasquale, Water Resources Discipline, Branch of Regional Research

John Takekawa, Biology Discipline, Western Ecological Research Center

Claire Tiedeman, Water Resources Discipline, Branch of Regional Research
v

Contents

Preface ...........................................................................................................................................................iii

Executive summary........................................................................................................................................1

Introduction—context for strategic planning...........................................................................................2

Organizational, economic, and workforce realities........................................................................2

Working with partners—local, regional, national, and international ..........................................5

Scientific opportunities—the Nation’s need for science...............................................................7

Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center...................................................................................9

Science Goal 1: Conduct natural-hazard research and assessments critical to 

effective mitigation planning, short-term forecasting, and event response.................9

1a. Monitor potentially hazardous areas and develop the scientific framework 

necessary to understand and model the signals of change...................................9

1b. Spearhead the development of multiple-hazard assessment methodologies that 

draw on quantitative predictive modeling and decision-support science............11

1c. Provide short-term hazard forecasting and real-time event response......................12

1d. Coordinate landslide-hazard mitigation research in the Western Region.................12

Science Goal 2: Develop a predictive understanding of ecosystem change that 

advances ecosystem restoration and adaptive management ......................................13

2a. Conduct studies of ecosystem change and of the causes and effects of 

such change ..................................................................................................................14

2b. Expand capabilities for real-time and spatially robust data collection......................14

2c. Advance ecosystem modeling and computing capabilities.........................................14

2d. Include the human dimension in ecosystem studies ....................................................16

Science Goal 3: Advance the understanding of natural resources in a geologic, 

hydrologic, economic, environmental, and global context ............................................16

3a. Develop innovative techniques for conducting quantitative assessments of 

water, energy, and mineral resources......................................................................17

3b. Conduct process-oriented field, laboratory, and theoretical studies of mineral, 

energy, and hydrologic cycles ...................................................................................17

3c. Focus interdisciplinary research on developing three- and four-dimensional 

maps to improve understanding of key processes that control the 

distribution and quality of energy, mineral, and water resources .......................18

Science Goal 4: Increase and improve capabilities for quantitative simulation, 

prediction, and assessment of Earth system processes................................................18

4a. Produce improved models that represent important mechanisms and 

relations controlling Earth systems...........................................................................20

4b. Advance methods for cost-effective selection, collection, interpretation, and 

assimilation of the data most critical to characterizing the simulated 

systems and enhance the use of data across projects and disciplines.............20

4c. Advance methods for characterizing and incorporating uncertainty in model 

inputs and processes, quantifying model output uncertainty, and valuing 

and achieving uncertainty reductions...........................................................................20

4d. Develop effective methods of interpreting and presenting models and their 

results for delivery to collaborators, partners, and other end users...................23
vi

Operational objectives................................................................................................................................23

Objective 1: Provide a hub for technology, laboratories, and library services to support 

science in the Western Region...........................................................................................23

Objective 2: Increase advanced computing capabilities and promote sharing of these 

resources at the Menlo Park Science Center..................................................................23

Objective 3: Enhance the intellectual diversity, vibrancy, and capacity of the workforce 

through improved recruitment and retention ...................................................................25

Objective 4: Strengthen collaborative relationships in the community at an institutional 

level..........................................................................................................................................26

Objective 5: Expand monitoring capability by increasing density, sensitivity, and 

efficiency and reducing costs of instruments and networks ........................................28

Objective 6: Encourage a breadth of scientific capabilities in Menlo Park to foster 

interdisciplinary science......................................................................................................28

Objective 7: Communicate USGS science to a diverse audience ..............................................28

Next steps .....................................................................................................................................................31

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................33

References....................................................................................................................................................33

Appendix 1. Science and science support units in Menlo Park ..........................................................36

Appendix 2. Menlo Park Science Center—key research laboratory and portable (field) 

capabilities ......................................................................................................................................38
USGS Science in Menlo Park—

A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey 

Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

By Thomas M. Brocher, Michael D. Carr, David L. Halsing, David A. John, Victoria E. Langenheim, 

Margaret T. Mangan, Mark C. Marvin-DiPasquale, John Y. Takekawa, and Claire R. Tiedeman1

A number of recent trends in society and science are 

important to consider for future science at the Menlo Park 

Science Center. These include rapid urban population growth, 

especially in coastal areas; globalization of resource development; increasing demand for limited water resources; global 

climate change; and increasing capability to construct predictive 

Earth-system models.

The most promising science directions at the Menlo Park 

Science Center have evolved and will continue to evolve from 

traditional capabilities in geologic and hydrologic research, 

complemented by a growing capability in geographic research, 

and hopefully augmented by biological expertise from USGS 

biological resources programs. Future science in Menlo Park will 

build on and link existing strengths to lead research that supports 

USGS program priorities as they evolve to meet America’s science needs throughout the region, the Nation, and the world. 

This science strategy recommends that the USGS Menlo 

Park Science Center continues to address important national 

science needs by focusing on Earth-system science through 

four equally important and interrelated Science Goals, each 

with associated strategic actions. These Science Goals are to:

Natural Hazards: Conduct natural-hazard research and 

assessments critical to effective mitigation planning, 

short-term forecasting, and event response.

Ecosystem Change: Develop a predictive understanding 

of ecosystem change that advances ecosystem restoration 

and adaptive management.

Natural Resources: Advance the understanding of 

natural resources in a geologic, hydrologic, economic, 

environmental, and global context.

Modeling Earth System Processes: Increase and 

improve capabilities for quantitative simulation, prediction, and assessment of Earth system processes.

The strategy presents seven key Operational Objectives 

with specific actions to achieve the scientific goals. These 

Operational Objectives are to:

Provide a hub for technology, laboratories, and library 

services to support science in the Western Region.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1. 1

Authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Executive Summary

In the spring of 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Menlo Park Center Council commissioned an interdisciplinary 

working group to develop a forward-looking science strategy 

for the USGS Menlo Park Science Center in California (hereafter also referred to as “the Center”). The Center has been the 

flagship research center for the USGS in the western United 

States for more than 50 years, and the Council recognizes that 

science priorities must be the primary consideration guiding 

critical decisions made about the future evolution of the Center. 

In developing this strategy, the working group consulted widely 

within the USGS and with external clients and collaborators, so 

that most stakeholders had an opportunity to influence the science goals and operational objectives.

The Menlo Park Science Center is the largest USGS 

science center in the Western Region and has the greatest 

breadth of scientific capabilities. The Center is strategically 

located to take advantage of partnerships in one of the greatest 

geographic concentrations of nationally and internationally 

recognized Earth science institutions in the world. The Center 

also houses the most extensive laboratory, library, and other 

research-support infrastructure of any USGS facility in the 

West. USGS scientists in Menlo Park lead in implementing 

many national USGS science activities, as well as in supporting science activities at other USGS science centers throughout the region and the nation. Other, smaller USGS science 

centers in the Western Region are designed with more limited 

scientific and (or) geographic scopes to their programs.

The economic, workforce, and scientific planning 

environment for the Menlo Park Science Center has changed 

rapidly over the past two decades. Staff size has decreased, 

and there has been a shift in emphasis from basic to applied 

research. Despite the high cost of living, the USGS attracts top 

scientists for research positions in Menlo Park, largely because 

of the Center’s scientific reputation and setting within the 

vibrant research environment in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Also attractive is the healthy employment market for spouses 

of USGS scientists in the Bay Area.
   USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

Increase advanced computing capabilities and promote 

sharing of these resources.

Enhance the intellectual diversity, vibrancy, and capacity of the work force through improved recruitment and 

retention.

Strengthen client and collaborative relationships in the 

community at an institutional level.

Expand monitoring capability by increasing density, sensitivity, and efficiency and reducing costs of instruments 

and networks.

Encourage a breadth of scientific capabilities in Menlo 

Park to foster interdisciplinary science.

Communicate USGS science to a diverse audience.

These long-term Science Goals and Operational Objectives are intended as a vision to guide the actions of the USGS 

at the Menlo Park Science Center. Designing, prioritizing, and 

implementing actions to advance this strategy are the responsibility of local, regional, and national USGS leadership, as well 

as the entire USGS research and science support community in 

Menlo Park. Most especially, the Menlo Park Center Council 

must, as its most important charge, provide the leadership 

to continually enhance the scientific vitality of the Center in 

response to changes in the planning environment.

Introduction––Context for 

Strategic Planning

Planning Framework for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Mission—The USGS serves the Nation by providing 

reliable scientific information to describe and understand 

the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral 

resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

Vision—The USGS is a world leader in the natural sciences 

through our scientific excellence and responsiveness to 

society's needs.

Strategic Direction—The USGS continually looks for ways 

to combine and enhance its diverse programs, capabilities, and talents and increase customer involvement to 

strengthen our scientific leadership and contribution to the 

resolution of complex issues.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established its science center in Menlo Park, California, in 1954, responding to 

the expanding national need and Federal support for science 

information following World War II. The vision for the Menlo 

Park Science Center (hereafter also referred to as “the Center”) 

was to concentrate scientific expertise from dispersed sites 

around the western United States and develop a center where 

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

experts representing a variety of disciplines could interact to 

tackle complex Earth science problems of scientific and societal importance. An important consideration in choosing the 

Menlo Park site was to interact with nearby institutions having 

strong Earth science programs, notably Stanford University 

and the University of California at Berkeley (see section below 

on Working with Partners).

For more than 50 years, scientists at the Menlo Park 

Science Center have made key contributions to the USGS 

mission, to the Earth sciences, and to society through research, 

scientific monitoring, hazard and resource assessments, and 

the dissemination of relevant scientific and geospatial information (Gohn, 2004, p. 15). Scientists at the Center have led 

many of the scientific and program innovations that have 

helped the USGS meet the changing needs of the Nation. The 

Center supports USGS programs regionally, nationally, and, as 

appropriate, internationally. The Menlo Park Science Center 

is acknowledged worldwide for the excellence, objectivity, 

and impact of its science and scientists. The strategy presented 

herein provides long-term science goals intended to guide 

USGS science at the Center toward a few focused science 

directions in which Center scientists will sustain a leadership 

role as they serve the Nation into the future.

Organizational, Economic, and 

Workforce Realities

The Menlo Park Science Center is the largest USGS Science Center in the Western region and is likely to remain so for 

the foreseeable future. Other USGS science centers in the Western Region have been designed with more specific scientific 

and (or) geographic scopes to their programs. No other USGS 

science center in the West, existing or planned, is expected to 

have the breadth of scientific scope or capability currently at the 

Menlo Park Science Center. The Center is the USGS research 

hub for the Western Region and supports monitoring and science programs throughout the region. Scientists in Menlo Park 

conduct a wide array of both basic and applied science, usually 

in collaboration with scientists from outside the Center. Ongoing collaborations are with other USGS locations, other government agencies, private sector institutions, and academic partners 

from the local, regional, national, and international scientific 

communities. Menlo Park also houses the most diverse suite 

of research laboratories, scientific infrastructure, and library 

facilities within the region (appendixes 1 and 2), as well as the 

backbone of the USGS and Department of the Interior Internet 

technology and infrastructure for the Western United States.

USGS science and information programs span four 

areas of responsibility, organizationally referred to as Disciplines—Biological Resources, Geography, Geology, and 

Water Resources—as well as a Geospatial Information Office. 

The Menlo Park Science Center was originally established as 

a multidisciplinary regional science center (Gohn, 2004), and 

it now houses science units that implement USGS programs in 

the Geography, Geology, and Water Resources Disciplines and 
SAN DIEGO

THREE

RIVERS

FLAGSTAFF (154)

MENLO PARK (566)

SACRAMENTO (214)

ANCHORAGE (178)

10-24

25-49

50-99

100+

Employees

ALASKA

FAIRBANKS

JUNEAU

TEMPE

TUCSON

MOAB

SALT 

LAKE

CITY

 HAWAI'I VOLCANOES

 NATIONAL PARK

HONOLULU

BOISE

IDAHO FALLS

LAS

VEGAS

CARSON CITY

RENO

CORVALLIS

PORTLAND

VANCOUVER

COOK

SEATTLE

TACOMA SPOKANE

PASADENA

REDWOOD CITY

DAVIS

DIXON

KLAMATH FALLS

VALLEJO

SANTA 

CRUZ

HAWAII

Introduction—Context for Strategic Planning 

MAJOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) FACILITIES IN THE WESTERN REGION

USGS SCIENCE CENTERS, TEAMS, AND BRANCHES IN 

THE WESTERN REGION

The Menlo Park Science Center is the largest of a 

regional network of USGS Science Centers working 

together to serve national science needs in the western 

United States.

Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau

Astrogeology Team, Flagstaff

Branch of Regional Research in the Hydrologic Sciences, Menlo Park Science Center

Forest and Rangeland Science Center, Corvallis, Seattle, Boise

Geospatial Information Office, Sacramento, Menlo Park Science Center, Anchorage, Flagstaff

Pacific Island Ecological Research Center, Honolulu

Southwest Biological Science Center, Flagstaff, Tucson, Moab

Southwest Geographic Science Center, Tucson, Flagstaff

USGS Arizona Water Science Center, Tucson, Flagstaff, Tempe

USGS California Water Science Center, Sacramento, San Diego, Santee

USGS Hawaii/Guam Water Science Center, Honolulu

USGS Idaho Water Science Center, Boise, Idaho Falls

USGS Nevada Water Science Center, Carson City, Las Vegas

USGS Oregon Water Science Center, Portland

USGS Utah Water Science Center, Salt Lake City, Moab

USGS Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Spokane

Volcano Hazard Team, Vancouver, Menlo Park Science Center, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

Western Coastal and Marine Geology Team, Santa Cruz, Menlo Park Science Center

Western Earthquake Hazards Team, Menlo Park Science Center, Pasadena, Seattle

Western Earth Surface Processes Team, Menlo Park Science Center, Flagstaff, Tucson

Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, Davis, Dixon, San Diego, Three Rivers, Las Vegas

Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Cook, Reno, Port Angeles

Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park Science Center, Seattle, Vancouver

Western Mineral Resources Team, Reno, Menlo Park Science Center, Tucson, Spokane
 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

the Geospatial Information Office (see appendix 1). Although 

USGS programs in the Biological Resources Discipline currently are not represented in Menlo Park, substantial biological 

research is conducted at the Center by Water Resources and 

Geologic programs, especially in estuary, lake, wetland, and 

stream environments. Such studies emphasize contaminant 

biology, bioavailability, and bioaccumulation of potentially 

hazardous naturally occurring and manmade materials. Menlo 

Park scientists also collaborate widely with biologists at other 

USGS centers and at universities nationwide.

The economic, scientific, and workforce planning environment for science in Menlo Park and the USGS as a whole 

has been changing rapidly over the past several decades. 

Appropriated funding for the USGS has been essentially 

constant since the middle 1970’s (National Research Council, 2001), while costs have increased. As national priorities 

have shifted, there has been a shift in the balance between 

basic and applied research, and reimbursable programs have 

become a larger part of the USGS funding portfolio. Computer 

technology has revolutionized scientific approaches. The 

workforce has become smaller. More specific to the Menlo 

Park Science Center, the economic boom during the 1990’s 

in Silicon Valley gave rise to concerns that the Center would 

become economically untenable for the USGS because of the 

rising costs, particularly real estate costs, in the San Francisco 

Bay Area. The workforce size at the Center reached a peak in 

1979. Since then, hiring in permanent research and science 

support positions has been sparse, owing to budget constraints. 

By 2010, nearly all of the permanent staff hired in the middle 

to late 1970’s will be eligible for voluntary retirement and the 

USGS will be threatened with losing much critical expertise 

over a relatively short time period. At the same time, this rapid 

evolution of the workforce will provide opportunities to move 

in new science directions by adding new skills, capabilities, 

technology, and ideas.

To examine these issues, in 1998 the Secretary of the 

Interior commissioned a panel to review program and facilities 

plans for Menlo Park. The panel drew two major conclusions: 

(1) in the short term, practical considerations alone require the 

retention of the Center at Menlo Park and (2) consideration of 

space and facilities costs should play a larger role in program 

management decisions at Menlo Park. In addition, the panel recommended that “the precious and costly resource of Menlo Park 

space should be allocated only for those particular programs that 

receive definable and demonstrable benefit from it.” It further 

recommended that “consideration should be given to the fuller 

integration of the Biological Resources Discipline regional 

office and program elements with the strongest need and potential for collaboration with other Menlo Park programs” (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpublished administrative report, 1999).

As a result of this review, the USGS developed a LongTerm Science and Facility Plan for the Western Region (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpublished administrative report, 1999); 

dispersed USGS executive leadership from Menlo Park and 

distributed it across the region; committed to the gradual 

relocation of regional administrative support functions to Sacramento, California; and committed to the gradual relocation 

of the Coastal and Marine Geology Program to Santa Cruz, 

California, to partner with the growing ocean-science community in the Monterey Bay Area. In addition, a shift in program 

emphasis of USGS geographic data programs from paper 

cartographic products to the digitally based products of The 

National Map is resulting in fewer staff devoted to production 

of cartographic products in Menlo Park.

In aggregate, these changes have allowed the USGS to 

successfully implement the 1998 panel recommendation to 

the Secretary of the Interior that the USGS should complete 

its planned consolidation of programs and operations on the 

Menlo Park facility into Federally owned space. By 2008, 

completion of planned gradual program migrations, mainly to 

Sacramento and Santa Cruz, will achieve further reductions 

in USGS use of Menlo Park space. The only recommendation 

of the 1998 panel that has not been implemented is “the fuller 

integration of the Biological Resources Discipline ... program 

elements with the strongest need and potential for collaboration with other Menlo Park programs.” Integrating USGS 

Biological Resources programs into the Menlo Park Science 

Center thus remains an issue.

The Menlo Park Science Center is evolving from past 

multiple roles as a research center, cartographic production center, and administrative headquarters for the USGS 

Western Region to a more coherent role as the largest USGS 

research center in the West, serving the entire region, as well 

as national and international USGS programs. Miscommunication about the future plans of the Menlo Park Science Center 

over the past decade have led to misperceptions that persist 

within the local public, parts of the USGS, and the larger scientific community that the USGS is closing Menlo Park. This 

is not the case. Current consolidation is not intended to close 

Menlo Park, but to adjust Menlo Park facilities to a size that 

most successfully supports USGS science and the research 

infrastructure needed across the Western Region as a whole 

and that reflects budget and staffing resources (U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished administrative report, 1999).

In addition, several elements of the planning environment 

have changed since the 1998 panel reported to the Secretary 

of the Interior and the USGS completed its Long Term Science and Facility Plan (U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished 

administrative report, 1999). Notably, the economic downturn 

in Silicon Valley since 2000 has entirely altered forecasts of 

future commercial real estate rates in the area. In contrast 

to the twofold to threefold increase in rental rates projected 

during the peak of the economy in the late 1990’s, current 

forecasts of future rent rates in Menlo Park compare favorably with recently negotiated leases for other USGS centers 

elsewhere in the Western Region. The USGS and General 

Services Administration currently are negotiating a new occupancy agreement for the Menlo Park facility that will mitigate 

concerns over rent costs through 2012. However, USGS must 

remain vigilant in planning to ensure that science facilities 

can continue to evolve to meet scientific program needs well 

beyond 2012.
Introduction—Context for Strategic Planning   

The cost-of-living adjustment (“locality pay”) paid to 

Federal employees in the San Francisco Bay Area is among 

the highest in the nation. Therefore, the costs for Federal salaries at many USGS locations in central California, including 

Menlo Park, are higher than in other USGS locations. These 

differential costs almost certainly will remain in the future and 

must be weighed against enhancements to scientific productivity that are generated by the intellectual environment created 

by a large multidisciplinary science center and the opportunities for collaboration afforded by the diverse intellectual 

community of academic, Federal laboratory, and other science 

institutions and clients in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Hiring for permanent positions in Menlo Park has been 

sufficiently rare over the past decade that there are no statistically meaningful data on recruitment and retention of research 

staff. Discussions with recently hired Ph.D.-level research scientists during the development of this science strategy indicate 

that the intellectual environment and scientific vibrancy of the 

Menlo Park Science Center and the San Francisco Bay Area as 

a whole outweighed concerns about cost of living in most of 

their decisions to join the USGS. Affordable housing, commutes, and child day care remain acute concerns. However, 

the USGS has been able to recruit highly qualified scientists 

to the two dozen or so permanent research positions that have 

been offered in Menlo Park during about the past decade. The 

USGS remains an especially attractive employer for Earth scientists who were trained at San Francisco Bay Area universities and who wish to continue living in the local area.

The Menlo Park Science Center is a leader within the 

USGS in contributing to the training of the next generation 

of Earth scientists through student and postgraduate research 

internships. Local economics have not prevented the USGS 

from attracting strong candidates to postdoctoral research 

positions at the Center. During the past five years or so, the 

Center has led the USGS nationally in filling appointments for 

postdoctoral research fellows (including, but not limited to, 

Mendenhall Fellows in Geology and National Research Council Fellows in Water Resources programs). Postdoctoral fellows also are attracted to the Center primarily by the scientific 

vibrancy, especially the opportunity to work with nationally 

renowned scientific leaders. A few of these research fellows 

eventually compete successfully for permanent research positions in Menlo Park. Even more of them go on to permanent 

positions at other USGS facilities across the Nation. Still 

others take positions in academia and in other agencies, while 

retaining strong ties to the USGS, continuing to contribute 

to USGS programs, and strengthening organizational ties 

between the USGS and other science institutions. 

Working with Partners—Local, Regional, 

National, and International

Menlo Park is located at the geographic center of one of 

the greatest concentrations of nationally and internationally 

recognized Earth science institutions in the world. Local academic partners include the University of California (Berkeley, 

Davis, and Santa Cruz), Stanford University, and California 

State University (San Francisco, San Jose, East Bay, Sacramento, and Monterey Bay). Partnerships with other Federal 

laboratories include ones with the Lawrence Livermore and 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, operated by the 

University of California for the Department of Energy, and the 

Ames Research Center of the National Aeronautic and Space 

Administration. State science agencies such as the California 

Geological Survey, as well as state and local resource and 

emergency management agencies are additional key collaborators and clients. The USGS also cooperates with local and 

regional government organizations, local industry partners, 

and nongovernmental organizations.

 These local partners help produce USGS science and 

contribute to focusing USGS science products on addressing 

decisionmaking needs. San Francisco Bay Area universities 

have been a dominant recruiting source for USGS researchers. A 1992 workforce summary showed that more than 20 

percent of doctoral-level researchers in the USGS Geologic 

Division nationwide received their highest-level academic 

training at Stanford University or one of the three University 

of California campuses in the Bay Area (Berkeley, Davis, 

and Santa Cruz). In addition, Bay Area partners have provided USGS access to unique and costly analytical facilities, 

such as the synchrotron radiation laboratories at Stanford and 

Berkeley, the USGS/Stanford Ion Microprobe, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.

Representatives of more than 20 institutions––universities 

other research partners, and client agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area––provided input to this strategy by responding 

to questions about their organization’s interactions and experiences with the USGS in Menlo Park. The majority of these 

collaborators and clients reported that their interactions with 

the USGS are frequent, positive, and important to essential 

contributions toward their organization’s missions. The majority also reported that the greatest scientific strength of the 

USGS Menlo Park Science Center is its diverse, large pool of 

talented scientists.

The USGS in Menlo Park must continue to foster these 

and other important partnerships. Evolving science priorities 

and USGS organizational structures in the Western Region 

are modifying the nature of local and regional USGS partnerships. Collaborations between individual USGS scientists 

in Menlo Park and their counterparts in other institutions 

remain strong. These individual collaborations continue to 

expand well beyond central California, involving universities 

and other science institutions worldwide. The USGS must 

constantly review and renew its institutional partnerships in 

the Bay Area, continually foster opportunities to collaborate, 

share facilities and expertise, and encourage student involvement in USGS studies.

As the research hub of the USGS Western Region, the 

Menlo Park Science Center must also foster and expand partnerships with and between other USGS scientists and facilities. The 
 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

WORKING WITH LOCAL PARTNERS HELPS USGS LEARN HOW TO MEET THE SCIENCE 

INFORMATION NEEDS OF THE NATION

GPS receiving station 

at Lake Pillsbury, 

Northern California.

A Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E) is helping USGS understand industry’s specific 

needs for earthquake hazard information and how 

USGS information is used to protect America’s lifeline 

utilities infrastructure.

Scott Dam, built in 1921, formed Lake Pillsbury on 

the Eel River and is used to regulate annual runoff. In 

creep might be occurring on the fault, few geodetic 

observations were available before this deployment. In 

addition, an alignment array spanning the fault at the 

north end of Lake Pillsbury was established to measure 

near-surface creep. During the next five to ten years, 

both the GPS and alignment arrays will be used to 

constrain the nature of crustal deformation in the area 

and provide a better estimate of seismic hazard in the 

vicinity of Scott Dam.

addition to flood control, this 

multipurpose project provides 

for electricity production 

at PG&E’s Potter Valley 

powerhouse, domestic water 

supply, and recreational needs 

around Lake Pillsbury.

In 2005 the USGS, in 

collaboration with PG&E, 

established a dense array of 31 

campaign Global Positioning 

System (GPS) sites in the 

area to measure fault creep 

along the Bartlett Springs 

Fault. Although some data 

indicated that significant fault 

Scott Dam
Introduction—Context for Strategic Planning 

USGS in the Western Region is becoming more geographically 

dispersed. The balance of science is shifting more to short-term 

applied research, although the need to advance basic scientific understanding as a long-term investment for the Nation 

remains high. Increased application of Earth system science to 

problem solving requires more interdisciplinary collaboration. 

Finally, scientific planning involves greater input from end-user 

clients. Consequently, collaboration and communication among 

USGS centers throughout the Nation will become increasingly 

important to maintaining regionally relevant science in context 

of national program goals. In this way, the USGS national role 

and science impact will remain greater than the sum of the parts. 

As the largest and most diverse research center in the West, 

Menlo Park must exert greater leadership in linking USGS 

sciences centers in the West as a virtual regional center that can 

effectively share science capabilities and science support infrastructure and bring the diverse capabilities of the USGS to bear 

wherever they are needed.

The USGS Menlo Park Science Center is recognized 

internationally as a center of excellence for Earth science 

research. It conducts hazard research in response to earthquakes, volcanic unrest, and tsunamis worldwide. It participates in global mineral and energy resource assessments and 

international environmental research. Scores of scientists from 

around the world have visited Menlo Park to work with USGS 

scientists, and many USGS scientists from Menlo Park have 

participated in overseas scientific exchanges. As environmental, natural-hazards, and natural-resource issues become 

increasingly global, the USGS must appropriately engage 

in international science partnerships and scientist exchange 

programs. Scientists in Menlo Park can and should assume a 

greater leadership role in the international science program of 

the USGS as a whole.

Scientific Opportunities—

The Nation’s Need for Science

Future social trends will continue to shape the scientific 

and program priorities of the USGS (National Research Council, 2001). Among the key trends and technical developments 

that will most influence science at the Menlo Park Science 

Center are:

Continued growth of urban populations relative to the 

world population, especially in coastal areas

Increasing exposure to natural hazards, particularly in 

growing urban areas

Continued globalization, which will require the USGS 

to play a stronger role in international and global 

studies to provide critical science information as the 

Nation’s wellbeing becomes more tied to global markets and developments

Growing recognition that natural and human-induced 

changes in the global environment, particularly climate 

•

•

•

•

variability and change, will have substantial effects on 

Earth systems and resources at all geographic scales

Increasing demand on water resources

Increasing numbers of costly and complex environmental restoration and adaptive management efforts at 

ecosystem scales

Need for water, ecosystem, mineral, and energy 

resource information on a global scale

Greater emphasis in the natural science community on 

Earth system science approaches and willingness to 

explore science questions at the boundaries between 

traditional science disciplines

Growth in understanding and technical capability to 

produce process-based, integrative, quantitative models 

of Earth systems

Growing expectations and demand for information 

from the science community in formats useful to support making decisions at all levels of society

In response to these developments, the science strategy focuses the role of the Menlo Park Science Center as a 

center for Earth system science, addressing national needs in 

the topics of ecosystem change, natural hazards, and natural 

resources. Crossing all areas of investigation is an emphasis 

on quantitative modeling approaches based on understanding 

of Earth system processes, which aims to forecast the future 

behavior of Earth systems in response to natural and humaninduced change. Scientists in Menlo Park already are internationally recognized for scientific contributions that address 

societal issues in these scientific areas.

Several priority demands for cross-disciplinary science 

information form a basis for shaping science goals at the 

Menlo Park Science Center. For example, the growth of urban 

areas is increasing the complexity of resource-management 

decisions and emergency-management planning decisions 

to secure against a variety of natural hazard threats. While 

efforts to improve assessment methodologies addressing 

single resources or hazards should and will continue, assessment methodologies that support decisions about prioritizing 

competing resource demands within a land-management area 

or prioritizing the commitment of hazard-mitigation resources 

in a community also must advance.

In addition, there is a need for science results in formats 

that are readily understandable by decisionmakers at all levels, 

from individual citizens to institutions and governmental 

agencies. Developing quantitative simulation, forecast, and 

assessment methodologies with user-friendly output are part 

of the challenge. This is particularly important for the USGS 

to fulfill its special responsibilities to supply the information 

needed for science-based decisions by the Department of the 

Interior agencies responsible for land and resource management. Plans to expand USGS research in Geography (National 

Research Council, 2002; McMahon and others, 2005) provide 

•

•

•

•

•

•
1939-1999 earthquake sequence

San

Francisco

1906 earthquake

1857 earthquake

Los

Angeles 

Salton Sea

Fault slip rate

20-34 mm/yr

0 200 miles

Istanbul

Erzincan

Izmit

T U R K E Y

C A L I F O R N I A

Fault slip rate

20-28 mm/yr

The North Anatolian and San Andreas faults

share slip rates, ages, length and straightness Illustration by: Serkan Bozkurt

 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

Immediately following the magnitude (Mw) 7.4 

Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of August 17, 1999, 

scientists from the Menlo Park Science Center 

were invited to participate in the postearthquake 

investigations. In addition to assisting Turkish 

colleagues, the USGS scientists had an 

opportunity to learn lessons for reducing the risk 

of earthquakes in the United States. The striking 

similarities between the Northern Anatolian 

Fault in Turkey and the San Andreas Fault in 

California suggest that new understanding of the 

fault mechanics of one system may be applied 

directly to the other (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2000). Photograph shows USGS scientists at 

Dilovasi, Turkey, installing a component of 

a portable seismograph network to monitor 

earthquake aftershocks.

LESSONS FROM AROUND THE WORLD HELP U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) 

SCIENTISTS UNDERSTAND NATURAL HAZARDS AT HOME
Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 

an opportunity to consider the human dimension in all of its 

science goals, exploring the interactions between natural systems and social systems in a geographic context.

The Menlo Park Science Center’s program emphases are 

built around traditional capabilities in geologic and hydrologic 

research, complemented by a growing capability in geography 

research (see appendix 1), and will ideally be augmented by 

appropriate USGS biological expertise. Addition of biological expertise in terrestrial and aquatic ecology and ecological 

modeling would enhance the ability of the USGS in Menlo 

Park to build on existing capabilities in surficial geology, 

hydrology, and landscape characterization to address a broader 

range of ecosystem science questions. The Menlo Park Science Center also must continue to engage in basic research 

necessary as a basis for providing the science leadership to 

advance the state of science and technology employed in 

USGS applied research throughout the Center, the region, and 

the Nation.

In addition to its role as a national Earth systems research 

center, the Menlo Park Science Center will continue to take 

the lead in scientific monitoring, assessments, and information 

activities appropriate to its location. For example, the Center will continue to partner with collaborators and clients to 

maintain the Northern California Seismic Network, contribute 

to earthquake hazard assessments, monitor change in the San 

Francisco Bay ecosystem, and implement activities for The 

National Map in Bay Area counties.

The science strategy presented herein represents a synthesis of discussions with USGS scientists at the Menlo Park Science Center, USGS national leadership, and USGS collaborators 

and clients in the San Francisco Bay Area. These discussions 

are distilled into a set of science goals and operational objectives that are intended to articulate the common science vision 

of the Menlo Park science community and broadly guide the 

direction of USGS science at the Menlo Park Science Center 

into the next decade. The remainder of this document is devoted 

to articulating these “Science Goals” and “Operational Objectives,” and recommending some “Next Steps” to implement this 

science strategy. No priority is implied by the order in which the 

goals and objectives are presented.

Science Goals of the Menlo Park 

Science Center

Science Goal 1: Conduct natural-hazard 

research and assessments critical to effective 

mitigation planning, short-term forecasting, and 

event response

The Menlo Park Science Center is recognized for its 

leadership role in providing the Nation with reliable, timely 

Earth science information for the purposes of identifying and 

mitigating a wide array of natural hazards. It is especially well 

known for seminal contributions to the science of earthquake 

and volcano hazards, but also contributes substantively to 

understanding hazards related to toxic contamination, tsunamis, landslides, hydrothermal disturbances, flooding, sediment and salt-water incursions, forest fires, and insect-born 

pathogens. Although many natural hazards are unpreventable, 

their impact can be reduced through a combined approach of 

research, monitoring, and assessment that effectively answers 

the crucial questions––where? when? how big? how often? 

The human catastrophe and economic impact to the Nation 

associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as the 

tragic impacts of recent tsunamis in coastal nations around the 

Indian Ocean, underscore the societal value in understanding, 

anticipating, and mitigating natural hazards.

Hazards research at the Center owes its long record of 

success to the diverse scientific workforce, technological 

expertise, and state-of-the-art laboratories located at the Center 

and in nearby institutions. The regional partner and customer 

base for the hazards work conducted by USGS scientists 

at the Center is broad, including important, long-standing 

relationships with the state geological surveys and county 

water districts in California, Nevada, and Oregon; the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; the California Governor’s Office of 

Emergency Services; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Earth 

science departments at Stanford University, University of California Berkeley, University of Nevada; and other Federal agencies such as the Department of Energy, National Aeronautic 

and Space Administration Ames Research Center, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National 

Park Service. New academic and interagency partnerships will 

emerge in the coming decade through the Center’s prominent 

role in EarthScope (www.earthscope.org), an initiative led 

by the National Science Foundation and designed to advance 

basic research in the solid Earth sciences through the deployment of hundreds of new seismic, geodetic, and other monitoring stations across North America.

Future hazard research and assessment activities at the 

Menlo Park Science Center will be guided by the following 

four strategic actions:

1a. Monitor potentially hazardous areas and 

develop the scientific framework necessary to 

understand and model the signals of change

Effective long- and short-term monitoring of dynamic 

and potentially hazardous Earth systems relies on collecting 

and integrating diverse geophysical, geological, geochemical, 

hydrologic, and biologic data. Collectively, hazard research 

at the Menlo Park Science Center has an impressive record of 

innovative Earth monitoring and network design. For example, 

Menlo Park is headquarters for the Northern California Seismic 

Network, which records more than 15,000 earthquakes occurring in central and northern California each year, as well as 

for the National Strong Motion Program, which maintains 900 
10 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

280

580

880

680

17

1

1

80

101

101

101

21%

4%

10%

11%

3%

27%

3%

CALAVERAS FAULT

RODGERS CREEK

FAULT

CONCORD–G

REEN VALLEY

FAULT

HAYWARD

FAULT

GREENVILLE

 FAULT

THRUST FAULT

MT. DIABLO

CALAVERAS FAULT

 FAULT

CONCORD–GREEN VALLEY

FAULT

SAN

ANDREAS

FAULT

P a c i f i

c

O

c

e

a

n

SAN

GREGORIO FAULT RODGERS CREEK FAULT

HAYWARD

FAULT

Monterey

Bay

San

Francisco

Bay

Probability of magnitude 

 6.7 or greater quakes

 before 2032 on the

 indicated fault 

Expanding urban areas

Increasing probability

 along fault segments

%

0

0 20 KILOMETERS

20 MILES

N

San Francisco

Half Moon

Bay

Pacifica

Oakland

Sacramento

Stockton

Danville

Antioch

Palo

Alto

San

Mateo

Walnut

Creek

Livermore

Pleasanton Hayward

Tracy

Santa Cruz

Watsonville

Gilroy

Monterey

Salinas

San

Jose

Santa

Rosa

Petaluma

Novato

San

Rafael

Napa Sonoma

Vallejo

EXTENT OF RUPTURE

IN LOMA PRIETA QUAKE

probability for one or more

magnitude 6.7 or greater

earthquakes from 2003 to 2032.

This result incorporates 14% odds

of quakes not on shown faults.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION

EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITY

62%

CAREFUL RESEARCH IS THE BASIS FOR PROVIDING SOUND SCIENCE RESULTS 

FOR DECISIONMAKERS

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides reliable and 

useful scientific information on natural hazards, environment, 

and natural resources to policymakers, managers, and other 

stakeholders. This scientific information is based on research 

results that generally are 

described in peer-reviewed 

journal articles and USGS 

books and maps targeting 

the scientific community and 

represent new knowledge 

obtained using controlled 

studies or detailed analyses. 

The peer-review process 

provides a mechanism to 

achieve a consensus in the 

scientific community on 

the accuracy of the results. 

The broad knowledge that 

is used in providing sound, 

impartial scientific advice to 

the Nation’s decisionmakers 

typically is distilled from 

many research studies 

conducted over decades. 

For example, the report 

Earthquake Probabilities for 

the San Francisco Bay Area 

(Working Group On California 

Earthquake Probabilities, 

2003) has about 220 citations 

covering more than 20 years 

of work, much of which was 

conducted at the USGS Menlo 

Park Science Center. Careful 

research is the source of 

new knowledge that enables 

the USGS to continue to play 

a leading role in providing 

sound, impartial, and useful 

information for the Nation.

Is a powerful earthquake likely to strike in the next 30 years? Using newly collected data 

and evolving theories of earthquake occurrence, scientists from USGS Menlo Park and 

other institutions in the region have concluded that there is a 62% probability of at least 

one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking 

somewhere in the San Francisco Bay region before 2032. (From Michael and others, 2003.)
Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 11

accelerographs in 32 states and the Caribbean. Menlo Park’s 

Yellowstone and Long Valley Volcano Observatories coordinate geologic and hydrologic monitoring of potentially active 

volcanic centers in Yellowstone National Park, the California 

Cascades, and the Eastern Sierra Nevada. The landslide group 

in Menlo Park maintains the capability to deploy a real-time 

network of geotechnical instruments to Northern California sites 

subject to ground failure. A future challenge is to maximize 

monitoring capabilities through coordination with EarthScope 

instrument deployments and judicious use of new technology 

in electronic miniaturization, synoptic remote sensing, satellite 

communications, and extreme-environment instrumentation.

The scientific framework for interpreting dynamic 

signals in the context of fundamental Earth processes and 

potential hazards will be advanced through studies providing 

(1) realistic, surficial and three-dimensional Earth models; 

(2) information on the timing, duration, and cyclicity of past 

hazardous events; (3) characterization of the chemical, physical, and dynamic properties of Earth materials; (4) knowledge of the physiochemical processes acting at the interfaces 

between geosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere; and (5) 

quantitative understanding of large-scale earth processes that 

trigger cascading hazardous events (for example, an earthquake triggering a landslide that in turn triggers a tsunami). 

Laboratory infrastructure, field studies, and computational 

facilities are all critical to advances on these fronts. Linking 

hydrologic and geologic processes is a particular strength of 

the hazards research conducted at the Menlo Park Science 

Center. For example, ongoing studies of the role of fluids in 

subduction zones are teaching us how rapidly subduction zone 

thrust faults are dewatered and as a result become increasingly 

seismogenic (Saffer and Bekins, 2002).

1b. Spearhead the development of 

multiple-hazard assessment methodologies 

that draw on quantitative predictive modeling 

and decision-support science

The burgeoning growth of population centers and infrastructure in the Western United States calls for the creation 

of a new generation of probabilistic assessment products that 

address multiple and interrelated hazards. Public and private 

institutions that make hazard policy decisions are faced with a 

variety of environmental, geological, and hydrological concerns. 

In order to balance economic constraints with a plethora of 

potential natural hazards, decisionmakers must have a coherent framework for prioritizing mitigation, preparedness, and 

SAFOD

Pilot hole

Surface

 trace of 

 San Andreas 

 Fault

0 2 KILOMETERS

SAN ANDREAS FAULT OBSERVATORY DEPTH (SAFOD): DIRECT OBSERVATION OF 

PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES THAT CONTROL EARTHQUAKES

The goal of the 3.2-km-deep The SAFOD borehole, 3.2 

km deep, is a partnership between the U.S. Geological 

Survey and the National Science Foundation under 

the EarthScope program (see www.earthscope.org). 

country rock, in-place stress measurements, inplace seismic monitoring, and many other borehole 

studies performed in the fault zone will provide direct 

tests of current earthquake models. SAFOD will 

Its goal is to penetrate and 

sample the San Andreas Fault 

Zone in a region that produces 

repeated and characteristic 

magnitude 6 earthquakes. 

Drilling of the SAFOD hole 

started west of the San 

Andreas Fault. The hole then 

angles through the entire 

fault zone using advanced 

directional-drilling technology. 

Fault-zone rocks and fluids are 

being retrieved for laboratory 

measurements. Other 

measurements will be made 

directly within the active fault 

zone. Direct sampling of the 

fluids and geological units in 

the fault zone and surrounding 

yield information on the 

composition and mechanical 

properties of rocks in the 

fault zone, the nature of 

stresses responsible for 

earthquakes, the role 

of fluids in controlling 

faulting and earthquake 

recurrence, and the physics 

of earthquake initiation and 

rupture. This project will 

also, for the first time, allow 

scientists to monitor and 

record earthquakes up close, 

marking a major advance 

in the pursuit of a rigorous 

scientific basis for assessing 

earthquake hazards and 

predicting earthquakes.
12 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

response efforts. Probabilistic, regionally based assessments of 

all known hazards used in tandem with traditional deterministic 

assessments provide this framework. New products will take 

advantage of the Menlo Park Science Center's growing expertise in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GIS-based 

scenario simulation and decision-support science. For example, 

researchers at the Center have developed the Land Use Portfolio 

Model to integrate natural-hazard and socioeconomic information and to help communities evaluate alternative natural-hazard 

mitigation policies (Bernknopf and others, 2001, in press). The 

Land Use Portfolio Model is a statistical, modeling, mapping, 

and risk communication methodology that can assist government agencies and communities in understanding and reducing 

their vulnerability to natural hazards (also see Science Goal 4). 

Understanding the human impact and improving the resiliency 

of communities to hazards are a key focus for future hazards 

assessment research and for USGS partnerships with the emergency planning community. The Menlo Park Science Center 

is already a leader in many types of natural hazard assessment, 

such as earthquakes and volcanoes. Making progress in developing multi-hazard assessment methods will require other parts 

of the USGS to supply expertise on other natural hazards, such 

as floods and wildfire.

1c. Provide short-term hazard forecasting and 

real-time event response

An imperative aspect of this science goal is to provide 

realistic deterministic forecasts of specific hazardous events in 

a relevant timeframe. Indeed, effective short-term forecasting is 

probably the most tangible measure of success. A future challenge for the Menlo Park Science Center is to hone the science 

of dynamic forecasting, which involves real-time analysis of 

events as they unfold. Dynamic forecasting requires expeditious throughput of real-time data to quantitative simulation 

models and high-speed computation of realistic simulations. 

For example, Menlo Park scientists have devised techniques 

for simulating volcanic eruptions using molten rock created in 

specially fabricated high-temperature furnaces and pressure 

vessels. The simulations provide input to numerical models that 

can be used to predict eruption intensity for a given set of conditions (Mangan and others, 2004). Likewise, seismic waveform 

modeling using broadband data collected during field experiments at active volcanoes show how long-period seismic signals 

can be used to track magma ascent, map out volcanic conduits, 

and identify eruption triggers at restless volcanoes (Chouet and 

others, 2003; Chouet and others, 2005). The development of 

site-specific predictive simulations (Science Goal 4) is pivotal 

to the success of dynamic forecasting and will allow vulnerable areas and failure points to be identified during an event, 

providing authorities the real-time information needed to target 

and prioritize mitigation and rescue efforts. For example, Center 

scientists are working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a database of faults that could 

potentially generate tsunamis in the Pacific, Caribbean, and 

Atlantic Oceans. This fault database will be used to configure 

the optimal deployment of tsunami buoys (DART stations) and 

for real-time, dynamic warnings at regional tsunami warning 

centers any time an earthquake with tsunami-generating potential is detected by the Global Seismic Network.

1d. Coordinate landslide-hazard mitigation 

research in the Western Region

Although landslides are a national hazard, the San Francisco Bay Area, southern California, and the Puget Sound lowland are some of the main urban regions in the United States 

with significant landslide hazards, a problem that is becoming 

acute as land for building becomes sparser and development 

encroaches on steeper hillsides. The Menlo Park Science 

Center has a diverse cadre of landslide experts, positioning the 

Center to be a key contributor in implementing the recommendations of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation 

Strategy—A Framework for Loss Reduction (Spiker and Gori, 

2003) in the Bay Area and elsewhere in the Western Region. 

As for other types of hazards, predictive landslide hazard mitigation can be addressed in a three-pronged approach: (1) field 

studies that test the predictions of current and future models 

for landslide processes and triggering mechanisms, (2) studies 

of the physical properties of materials involved in slides, and 

(3) computer modeling and predictions of the various types 

of landslides. Rapid response to actual landslides is necessary 

to obtain the observations needed to test prevailing models. 

Required expertise in the Western Region includes GIS hazard 

mapping of landslides, hill-slope hydrology, instrumentation/

real-time monitoring of active landslides, quantitative geomorUSGS Natural Hazards Initiative

The Menlo Park Science Center is particularly 

well positioned to respond to the USGS Natural Hazards Initiative, which is focused on rapid-onset natural 

disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, 

landslides, debris flows, floods, and fires. The Center has 

a long history of pioneering highly visible, high-impact 

products that have helped to mitigate losses from these 

types of rapid-onset natural disasters, of conducting the 

basic research necessary to develop these products, and 

of educating the public about the risks posed by such 

natural hazards. Tools already in wide use at the Center 

can be used for assessing a number of these hazards. For 

example, high-resolution topographic (LIDAR) mapping and InSAR imagery are useful for a wide variety of 

natural hazard assessment, including fires, flooding, landslides, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Finally, scientists in 

Menlo Park are among the leaders in advancing decision 

support science in the USGS and can provide leadership 

in interfacing new scientific understanding developed in 

Menlo Park with public policy and decisionmaking tools.
Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 13

Simulation of landslide triggering mechanisms improves

ASSESSMENT OF landslide hazardS

Scientists from the Menlo Park Science Center simulate 

coupled three-dimensional (3-D) ground-water flow, 

heat flow, effective stresses, and slope instability to 

understand where and when different types of landslides 

are likely to occur. This 3-D approach has been used 

successfully to assess potential massive edifice collapse 

at several volcanoes, including Mount St. Helens and 

Mount Rainier in Washington and Casita Volcano in 

Nicaragua, and to assess coastal bluff stability in Seattle, 

Washington, and along the Big Sur Coast of California. 

A, 3-D perspective of Mount Rainier showing distribution 

of weak, hydrothermally altered rocks from detailed 

geologic mapping and high-resolution geophysics. B, 

Predicted relative slope stability on Mount Rainier using 

3-D modeling of 29 million potential failure surfaces within 

a digital elevation model. Parts of the volcano’s west flank 

have the lowest stability, consistent with the Holocene 

debris-flow history. (From Reid and others, 2001.)

phology of hillside development, and the geochronology of 

landslides and landslide deposits to establish recurrence rates 

needed for probabilistic hazard mapping. Currently, landslide 

research at the Center is conducted in numerous programs, 

organizational units, and field studies. This strategic action 

challenges landslide researchers at the Menlo Park Science 

Center to achieve their collective potential in landslide hazard 

science by assuming a leadership role and partnering with others regionally and nationally to implement a better coordinated 

and integrated landslide science agenda.

Science Goal 2: Develop a predictive 

understanding of ecosystem change that 

advances ecosystem restoration and adaptive 

management

For more than 30 years, USGS scientists in Menlo Park 

have led research and monitoring to understand the San 

Francisco Bay ecosystem and have partnered with others in 

marine, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystem studies ranging 

from the sea-floor habitats of Glacier Bay National Park and 

the continental shelf off California to the arid landscapes of 

the Mojave Desert. This Science Goal builds on the diverse 

expertise at the Menlo Park Science Center, particularly in the 

physical aspects of ecosystem science. One of the strengths 

of the Center is the ability to conduct long-term investigations 

across a diverse range of physical and biological sciences. 

In addition, the Center contains a breadth of technological 

resources, infrastructure, and specialized laboratory support 

for ecosystems research.

Many of the pressing environmental issues facing the 

Nation are manifest at ecosystem scales. These include 

deteriorating ecosystem health and habitat loss resulting from 

urbanization, agriculture, and pollution; engineered modifications of the hydrologic system; invasive species; and the 

effects of climate change. A firm understanding of the physical 

and biological interactions within and among ecosystems—

encompassing ecosystem function, processes, current status 

and trends, and past changes—is required to make informed 
14  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

land-use decisions and anticipate ecosystem changes. In addition, there is a need to develop process-based models that can 

forecast short- and long-term ecosystem change as an aid to 

resource managers in developing proactive restoration and 

adaptive management1 programs.

This Science Goal challenges scientists in Menlo Park 

to build on past experience and take an even stronger leadership role in developing a comprehensive set of future USGS 

research priorities that address ecosystem processes and 

predictive change. These research priorities should focus on 

emerging science questions relevant to ecosystem restoration and strategic adaptive management issues important to 

Department of the Interior agencies and other resource managers throughout the region and Nation. Integral to expanding 

success in this arena is partnering with others in the USGS, 

academic, and resource-management communities, particularly in many of the biological aspects of ecosystem science. 

Forging stronger links with scientists supported by USGS 

biological resources programs is especially important. These 

USGS biologists also have extensive experience in ecosystem studies, especially vertebrate ecology that complements 

the invertebrate ecology expertise at the Menlo Park Science 

Center. Important as well is capitalizing on the proximity of 

the Center to interdisciplinary academic programs such as the 

Stanford Institute for the Environment.

The scientific community has yet to develop systematically a guiding scientific framework necessary to undertake 

ecosystem restoration activities. This Science Goal challenges the Menlo Park Science Center, and the USGS in 

general, to assert greater leadership in developing such a 

systematic framework of basic scientific principals for ecosystem restoration and adaptive management. Future ecosystems research and assessment activities will be guided by the 

following four strategic actions:

2a. Conduct Studies of Ecosystem Change and 

of the Causes and Effects of such Change

In developing a scientific framework for guiding ecosystem restoration and adaptive management activities, it is 

critical that there be a fundamental understanding of how and 

why ecosystem changes occur, whether by natural or human 

induced forces. Establishing the relation between ecosystem 

processes and the forcing functions that result in functional 

ecosystem responses requires a dedication to ongoing studies 

of the cause-and-effect dynamics of ecosystem change.

2b. Expand Capabilities for Real-Time and 

Spatially Robust Data Collection

Ecosystem change happens over multiple temporal 

(minutes to decades) and spatial (centimeters to kilometers) 

scales, and our ability to predict change is dependent upon 

our ability to evaluate ecosystems at these multiple scales. 

Study of ecosystem dynamics is by nature resource intensive, 

and current techniques for on-site environmental data collection by USGS staff are not practical in many instances where 

and when intensive ongoing data collection is needed. Consequently, the use and development of technology for collecting real-time data at appropriate spatial/temporal intervals 

will provide an invaluable and necessary tool to achieve the 

goal of developing our capacity to predict ecosystem change.

A key to realizing this Science Goal will be enhancing 

the agency’s ability to collect and process temporal data in 

real time and ecosystem data over very large spatial scales and 

diverse habitats. This will require an increased investment in 

the use of technology, such as in-place monitoring, neural networks, telemetry, auto-sampling devices and satellite imaging. 

Such an emphasis is consistent with the emerging remotesensing goals of the new USGS geography research strategy 

(McMahon and others, 2005) and can be accomplished with 

established remote-sensing partners, such as the USGS EROS 

Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Developing other monitoring technology will require 

new partnerships with academic and industry groups such as 

the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest 

of Society (CITRIS), a cooperative venture of several local 

University of California campuses and industry partners.

2c. Advance Ecosystem Modeling and 

Computing Capabilities

Ultimate success in the ability to forecast ecosystem 

change is linked to the degree of understanding, and the 

ability to model, the underlying physical, biological and 

(geo)chemical processes at the appropriate temporal and 

ecosystem scales. The development of various types of models 

(such as conceptual, deterministic, probabilistic) is increasingly important in achieving this Science Goal. For example, 

studies underway at the Menlo Park Science Center are teaching us about the role of surface materials in making moisture 

available for plants in desert ecosystems (Bedford and others, 

2004). Properties that can be extrapolated through the desert 

by geologic mapping are studied by evaluating the response 

of typical deposits and soils to infiltration tests and measuring natural infiltration events. The map distribution of surface 

materials describes a large part of the variability of the plant 

communities in the desert. These maps become valuable as 

predictive models to understand present vegetation conditions 

and identify locations where plant communities depart from 

expected conditions in order to determine if past disturbances 

have caused these departures.

1

 “Adaptive management” (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986) is an approach to 

resource management that treats resource management policies as experiments. It is a formal, systematic, and rigorous approach to learning from the 

outcomes of management actions, accommodating change, and improving 

management. It involves synthesizing existing knowledge, exploring alternative actions, and making explicit forecasts about their outcomes. Management 

actions and monitoring programs are carefully designed to generate reliable 

feedback and clarify the reasons underlying outcomes. Actions and objectives 

are then adjusted on the basis of this feedback and improved understanding.
Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 15

The San Francisco Bay ecosystem is the largest 

estuary on the west coast of the United States. It covers 

approximately 1,600 square miles (4,150 km2) and drains an 

area of 60,000 square miles (155,000 km2), or more than 40 

percent of California’s landscape. The associated rivers, 

delta, and estuary provide a rich and diverse habitat for 

countless plant and animal species, many unique to this 

ecosystem. The land surrounding San Francisco Bay and 

its upper watershed is also home to millions of people, who 

over the past 150 years have severely impacted the natural 

system. Human-caused changes to the ecosystem include 

the loss of more than 90 percent of original wetland habitat; 

reduced freshwater flows due to water diversion projects 

to supply the Central Valley agricultural region and southern 

California; introduction of pollutants including toxic metals, 

nutrients, pesticides, industrial waste, and sediment; and 

the introduction of many non-native plants and animal 

species. In recent decades there has been a concerted 

effort on the part of regulating and management agencies, 

academics, scientists, and the public at large, to reduce 

degradation and improve the health of the ecosystem.

For more than fifty years, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

scientists at the Menlo Park Science Center have used the 

San Francisco Bay ecosystem as a natural laboratory in 

which to conduct nationally relevant ecosystem-science 

investigations. Scientists at the Center have also supplied 

critical information regarding the Bay to the public and to 

local, state, and Federal agencies responsible for managing 

the Bay and the lands around it. Many of the restoration 

actions being pursued today would not be possible were 

it not for the wealth of scientific information collected and 

provided by USGS scientists to the larger community of 

stakeholders. This information includes basic hydrologic 

data, sediment and contaminant loading, biological 

resource assessments and food web characterization, 

aquatic and benthic geochemistry, and process studies 

involving contaminants. Of particular importance are the 

long-term data sets collected by the USGS, which assist 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Ag in Clam Tissue (μg g-1)

0

3

6

9

12

Year

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

125

100

75

50

25

0

Mudflats

sewage

discharge

Coyote Creek

Alviso Slough

Guadalupe Slough

Palo Alto

A

B

scientists and managers in 

assessing long-term trends in 

system response to changing 

conditions, such as contaminant 

loading. An example of this longterm monitoring is shown below.

Annual trends of silver (Ag) in the bivalve Macoma balthica

from a consistently sampled site (red star) in South 

San Francisco Bay demonstrate the value of long-term 

continuous environmental monitoring. A, Annual average 

San Francisco Bay Ecosystem Science

trend of declining Ag tissue concentrations between 1977 and 2003. The decline in silver is unambiguous 

until 1990. B, After 1990, silver concentration in clam tissue fluctuates seasonally, with some additional 

decline in recent years. (From Hornberger and others, 2000; inset graphic by Jeanne DiLeo.)
16  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

In addition to developing these traditional model 

types, it is important to advance user-friendly decision tools 

designed specifically for adaptive management. Currently, 

“adaptive management” is a concept frequently discussed, 

but rarely used in practice by resource managers, who are 

often unclear on how much and what scientific information 

is appropriate in the decisionmaking process. Developing 

better user-friendly decisionmaking tools will help to inform 

the adaptive management process. As models become larger 

and more complex, it will be important to ensure that both 

the human and computational resources are available to 

achieve this strategic action.

2d. Include the Human Dimension in 

Ecosystem Studies

An important focus area of this Science Goal is 

improving our understanding of the impact and connections 

between human social and cultural practices, economics, 

and natural systems. This strategic action recognizes that 

humans are part of the ecosystem, and that human activities must be considered in ecosystem studies. For example, 

when studying the resource, land-use, and non-economic 

values of ecosystems (both healthy and deteriorated), it is 

important to include the impact of ecosystem changes on 

human society. Conversely, when conducting studies to 

examine patterns of land and resource use, it is important 

also to assess the impact of these patterns on ecosystem 

processes. These types of studies should involve economists and social scientists and can be linked to efforts 

being developed as part of an expanded USGS geography 

research program (McMahon and others, 2005) and the current bureau emphasis on understanding the societal impact 

of science. Scientists in Menlo Park were among the first 

to develop this sort of geographic research focus within the 

USGS, collaborating with partners at Stanford and other 

universities.

Science Goal 3: Advance the understanding 

of natural resources in a geologic, hydrologic, 

economic, environmental, and global context

Natural resources are a foundation of the economic 

security of the United States. Water resources for domestic, 

agricultural, and industrial use, as well as for production 

of hydroelectric power, are critical to life and economic 

growth. The Nation is among the world’s leading producers 

and consumers of energy and mineral resources. The supply and use of these resources, competing uses for Federal 

lands, and the environmental consequences of resource 

development are issues that the United States constantly 

faces, especially in the mineral-rich, water-poor Western 

States. On a larger scale, the future national and global 

availability of these natural resources will continue to be an 

issue that affects the economic growth and security of the 

Nation. The Department of the Interior provides water for 

31 million people and for one-fifth of the irrigation needs 

of western farmers, manages one-fifth of the Nation’s lands, 

and manages lands and offshore areas that supply about 30 

percent of domestic energy production. Consequently, the 

Department has a unique interest in science for resource 

management. Making informed decisions about naturalresource issues requires current and accurate information 

about the origin, distribution, and quality of water, energy, 

and mineral resources. Information about economic factors 

that influence resource development and the resulting environmental consequences also is needed.

The Menlo Park Science Center is well suited to 

address these scientific challenges. USGS scientists in 

Menlo Park have a long tradition of developing innovative 

techniques for quantitative assessments of energy and mineral resources, and they are among the leaders in applying 

these assessments to decision-support analysis. For example, Menlo Park scientists led in the development of the 

quantitative assessment methods that are used by the USGS 

and established many of the fundamental guidelines now 

followed internationally by governments, industry, and academia to assess mineral resources (Cox and Singer, 1986; 

Singer, 1993, 1995). USGS scientists in Menlo Park also 

are leaders in developing theoretical, laboratory, field, and 

modeling methods for assessing the quantity and quality of 

water resources. For example, Menlo Park scientists were 

among the leaders in establishing the conceptual design of 

the National Water Quality Assessment Program (Rubin 

and others, unpublished memorandum report, 1985) and are 

leaders in developing models and methods to study contaminant and groundwater transport (Essaid and Bekins, 1997, 

Stonestrom and Constantz, 2003). Scientists throughout the 

USGS use these developments in assessing local, regional, 

and national water supplies. USGS scientists in Menlo Park 

are leading the USGS in the development of three-dimensional geologic maps and the use of these maps to model 

ground water flow, geochemical anomalies, and other earth 

processes and characteristics (see Strategic Action 3c).

Many of the extensive and diverse analytical capabilities at the Menlo Park Science Center (appendix 2) provide 

critical information for developing and applying these 

resource-assessment methods. Through partnerships with 

local universities, the Center has access to additional unique 

analytical tools to examine natural resource systems in new 

ways. Precise and accurate characterization of elements and 

compounds (for example, mercury speciation in geologic 

materials) can now address questions about how these systems interact, from the molecular scale to global-scale interactions within the geosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere.

Future natural-resource research, assessment, and management activities at the Menlo Park Science Center will be 

guided by the following three strategic actions:
Monitoring Wells

Aquifer

Fractured Basalt Perched

Water

Sediments

Unsaturated Zone

Spreading Area

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 50 100 150 200 250

Concentration (ppb)

Aquifer

(200m)

CD Interbed

(73m)

Days post tracer application

Detection of Tracer in Wells

Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 17

3a. Develop innovative techniques for 

conducting quantitative assessments of water, 

energy, and mineral resources

A fundamental mission of the USGS is to provide information on water, energy, and mineral resources in a format useful to 

policy makers. For all types of resources, information is needed 

about their quantity and quality, and for mineral resources about 

their composition. For mineral and energy resources, two types 

of information are needed: (1) estimates of resources, reserves, 

or composition of known deposits and (2) estimates of resources 

in undiscovered deposits. When multiple resources are involved, 

there is a need to provide information at a landscape scale that 

will allow land managers to make better decisions regarding 

the impacts of resource development relative to other competing land uses. Consequently, there is a clear need to develop 

new methodologies, tools, and models for obtaining these types 

of information and for conducting quantitative assessments. 

Quantitative methods and models are required to make resource 

assessments explicit and reproducible, to allow uncertainty to 

be presented, to specify risks inherent in the assessments, and to 

allow comparison of alternative methods. Objective quantitative 

assessments need to be presented in a format usable in decision 

support systems so that the consequences of alternative courses 

of action with respect to resources can be examined.

To address these needs, USGS scientists in Menlo Park 

will build on past research in developing assessment methods 

to improve tools for quantitatively assessing water, energy, and 

mineral resources. Fundamental to this strategy are developing 

quantitative models (Science Goal 4), devising new techniques 

for use in quantitative assessments, such as artificial intelligence 

using neural networks, developing methodology required to 

assess multiple resources at the landscape scale, and devising methods for estimating uncertainty and risk inherent in all 

resource assessments. For example, Menlo Park scientists are 

using petroleum systems models to recreate quantitatively the 

geologic history of sedimentary basins and describe the extent 

and timing of petroleum generation, as well as its migration and 

accumulation, in three dimensions over the fourth dimension of 

geologic time (Peters and others, in press). This tool is also used 

routinely by the oil and gas industry, but mainly to explore localscale portions of petroleum basins making up their individual 

lease blocks. The USGS is beginning to apply this tool to energy 

assessments on a basinwide scale, because it can improve understanding of how, when, and where petroleum accumulates.

3b. Conduct process-oriented field, laboratory, 

and theoretical studies of mineral, energy, and 

hydrologic cycles

Understanding the mineral, energy, and hydrologic cycles 

is critical to identifying economic, environmental, and human 

health issues related to the use of mineral, energy, and water 

resources. For example, the life cycle of minerals includes 

UNSATURATED-ZONE STUDIES HELP TO UNDERSTAND GROUND-WATER 

RECHARGE AND TRANSPORT

The unsaturated zone lies between the land surface and the 

top of the saturated ground-water flow system. Unsaturated-zone 

processes, such as infiltration of precipitation and surface water and its 

subsequent drainage and redistribution, play key roles in determining 

the quality and quantity of ground-water resources. These processes 

can be especially important in the western United States, where 

unsaturated zones reach thicknesses of hundreds of meters. The 

unsaturated zone of the Snake River Plain in Idaho, illustrated above, is 

deep and geologically complex (from Nimmo and others, 2002). Water 

within it was expected to travel very slowly through the relatively dry 

rock fractures and dense beds consisting of fine-textured sediments; 

however, an investigation by U. S. Geological Survey Menlo Park 

scientists demonstrated surprisingly rapid and long-ranging flow. A 

benign artificial tracer applied in an ephemeral surface-water spreading 

area was detected within nine days in the aquifer at a point 200 m deep 

and 200 m laterally from the application point. In a sedimentary bed 

73 m deep and 1.3 km away, the tracer already was detectible when 

sampling began at that location 90 days after application. The finding of 

such rapid and far-reaching flow has prompted important modifications 

to predictive models being used to evaluate contamination hazards and 

plan remediation strategies at this site

Monitoring Wells

Aquifer

Fractured Basalt Perched

Water

Sediments

Unsaturated Zone

Spreading Area

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 

Concentration (ppb)

De
18  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

initial formation of a mineral deposit, deformation and degradation resulting from metamorphism and surface weathering, 

mineral extraction through mining, modification of mine waste 

by biogeochemical and hydrogeochemical processes, and mine 

site restoration following mineral extraction. This cycle results 

in the economic concentration of rare elements but can also 

produce widespread dispersion of potentially harmful elements 

into the environment.

Studies of energy and hydrologic cycles are important for 

similar reasons. Understanding and recognizing the environments and processes that lead to petroleum generation, migration, and entrapment are necessary for predicting where these 

resources lie. Understanding the properties of gas hydrates and 

the processes that form them are first steps in their potential 

exploitation as new sources of energy. Understanding the 

interaction between the components of the hydrologic cycle is 

important to predicting the effects of changes in the quantity 

and quality of a particular component. These effects might be 

manifested as changes to other parts of the hydrologic cycle, 

as well as to the broader environment, including the biologic 

and geologic realms. For example, reduced ground-water 

recharge from precipitation can cause decreased ground-water 

discharge to streams, which in turn can affect the aquatic ecology of the stream.

USGS scientists at the Menlo Park Science Center will 

advance techniques for assessing the hydrologic, mineral, 

and, energy cycles by combining field-based studies of these 

systems with laboratory and theoretical studies to better 

understand the processes that affect formation, distribution, 

and quality of water, mineral, and energy resources. These 

studies will increase understanding of the origin of these 

resources; improve process-based, quantitative models of 

their occurrence and distribution; improve resource assessments; and quantify the effects of changes in their quantity 

and quality on the environment, where changes may impact 

biota and human health.

3c. Focus interdisciplinary research on 

developing three- and four-dimensional maps 

to improve understanding of key processes that 

control the distribution and quality of energy, 

mineral, and water resources

Understanding the three-dimensional and four-dimensional 

distribution of water, energy, and mineral resources can be 

improved by interweaving geologic, hydrologic, and biologic 

data. Integrated geophysical, geochemical, and geological studies can produce a three-dimensional geologic map that identifies 

and characterizes subsurface features, such as faults, folds, basin 

geometry, hydrothermal systems, and igneous intrusions. These 

three-dimensional geologic maps are extremely valuable for 

providing important physical constraints on models of subsurface processes, such as ground-water flow and chemical transport, geothermal reservoir behavior, and petroleum migration 

and entrapment. They provide a framework upon which boundary conditions for these types of models can be superposed. 

Thus, constructing these maps can help produce more accurate 

model predictions of the behavior of ground-water, geothermal, 

and petroleum resources. Theoretical reconstruction of these 

three-dimensional geologic maps back through time also can 

provide four-dimensional models for the genesis of mineral and 

energy resources.

Scientists at the Menlo Park Science Center will 

advance techniques for creating and displaying three- and 

four-dimensional geologic, geophysical, and geochemical 

maps. These maps will be used in assessments to model 

ground-water flow and resources, petroleum systems, 

mineral and geothermal resources, and in geoenvironmental 

assessments. Such maps also can provide a framework for 

understanding natural hazards (Science Goal 1) and for forecast modeling (Science Goal 4).

Science Goal 4: Increase and improve 

capabilities for quantitative simulation, 

prediction, and assessment of Earth 

system processes 

Probabilistic and process-oriented models that quantitatively simulate, predict, and assess Earth system processes are 

essential for addressing complex scientific issues of regional 

to global extent. Advances in a wide range of Earth science 

fields can be gained from both the development and application of these types of models. For example, incorporating 

relevant geologic, hydrologic, biologic, and chemical mechanisms in process models can facilitate understanding and 

hypothesis testing of the particular mechanisms that control 

Earth system processes. Similarly, incorporating a wide range 

of constraints and observations in probabilistic models can 

facilitate understanding the most important factors affecting 

environmental, hazard, and resource assessments. Multidisciplinary, integrated system science calls for a new generation 

of models that can operate on a variety of spatial scales, from 

molecular to global, and timescales, from milliseconds to 

millions of years. The new generation of models must provide 

seamless computational boundaries between diverse system 

components. Application of models to field systems provides 

insight into processes occurring in the system and integrates 

the diverse data that characterize systems, enabling identification of knowledge gaps and resolution of contradictory or 

conflicting information. These models also are powerful tools 

for focusing and prioritizing future research.

Earth systems models can be used in conjunction 

with decision-support tools to address nationally important 

societal issues related to natural hazards (see Science Goal 

1), ecosystems (see Science Goal 2), and natural resources 

(see Science Goal 3). For example, process models can be 

developed to predict strong ground motion resulting from 

an earthquake, and probabilistic models can be developed 
San Francisco 

Bay

A

A

A'

A'

B-B'

B B'

10 km

km

0

San Jose

Area of

map CALIFORNIA

Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 19

Three-Dimensional Geologic Map of Silicon Valley, California, provides the

geologic framework for ground-water studies

A-A' is a slice through the model, which extends to a depth of 

14 km (see Jachens and others, 2005). B-B' is a slice of the depth 

range of hydrologic interest, illustrating the scale independence of 

the model. Finer resolution geology in the upper 200-400 m is based 

on sequence stratigraphy calibrated by cores and geophysical logs 

(see Wentworth and Tinsley, 2005). Three-dimensional geologic 

maps are providing new insights in a variety of natural resource 

and natural hazards applications.
20 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

to assess the likelihood of earthquake damage to structures. 

Quantitative simulations, predictions, and assessments can 

also facilitate the delivery of scientific results and analyses 

to a wide audience. Model inputs and outputs can be displayed as maps, images, or other visual representations that 

are readily understood by the public and by decisionmakers 

working in applied science, natural resource management, 

emergency response, and other related fields.

At the Menlo Park Science Center, there is a wide range 

of modeling expertise, particularly related to earthquake, 

volcano, landslide, tsunami, and erosion hazards and to water, 

mineral, and energy resources (see sidebar). This Science 

Goal calls for building on and linking these existing strengths 

to (1) increase and improve the modeling capabilities, (2) 

increase the relevance of the modeling to societal issues, and 

(3) enhance the interaction and collaboration among scientists 

from different disciplines within and outside of the USGS. By 

expanding its modeling expertise and shifting toward a more 

multilayered system approach, the Menlo Park Science Center 

will enhance the Nation’s ability to address important societal 

problems on a national and global scale.

This Science Goal also underlies and unifies Science 

Goals 1 to 3. Although some aspects of this goal are included 

in the strategic actions for Science Goals 1 to 3, Science Goal 

4 is presented as a separate goal because actions for increasing these capabilities are common to the modeling endeavors 

conducted for ecosystems, hazards, and resources, and because 

Earth system modeling in general is a challenging research 

topic unto itself, independent of the application. Furthermore, there is great potential for improved exchange of ideas, 

approaches, and methods among Menlo Park scientists conducting modeling related to the first three goals. Science Goal 

4 calls for this increased communication to benefit advances 

in modeling and to enhance the role of modeling in unifying 

research related to ecosystems, hazards, and resources at the 

Menlo Park Science Center.

Future Earth system modeling activities at the Menlo 

Park Science Center will be guided by the following four 

strategic actions:

4a. Produce improved models that represent 

important mechanisms and relations controlling 

Earth systems

Development of sound and relevant process and probabilistic Earth systems models requires understanding the important 

geologic, hydrologic, biologic, and chemical mechanisms and 

relations that occur in simulated systems and including them in 

model software and its applications. In even the best understood 

Earth science fields, there are areas in which further theoretical, laboratory, and field studies are required for improved 

understanding of these mechanisms and relations. Furthermore, 

Earth system models may benefit from new paradigms for 

representing model complexity, such as cellular automata, selforganized criticality, genetic algorithms, and neural networks. 

This action calls upon Menlo Park scientists to conduct research 

for advancing the understanding of fundamental mechanisms 

that occur in simulated Earth systems, will improve modeling 

software by incorporating these processes and relations, and will 

address the significant modeling challenges that can arise from 

these improvements, such as coupled equations, nonlinearities, 

and increased computational requirements. In developing and 

applying process and probabilistic models that are increasingly 

multidisciplinary, it is important to collaborate with colleagues 

who have complementary expertise, within the USGS at Menlo 

Park, at other USGS locations, and at other institutions. This 

collaboration will facilitate increased model accuracy, completeness, and usefulness.

4b. Advance methods for cost-effective 

selection, collection, interpretation, and 

assimilation of the data most critical to 

characterizing the simulated systems and 

enhance the use of data across projects 

and disciplines

To address scientific and societal problems, models that 

simulate, predict, and assess Earth system processes must 

realistically represent the characteristics of the system. This 

characterization can require substantial geologic, geophysical, hydrologic, chemical, biologic, and (or) socioeconomic 

data. The cost of collection and analysis of these types of 

data, particularly for subsurface investigations, can be very 

high. This action emphasizes the need to develop innovative 

strategies for obtaining the most important information for 

characterizing the systems being simulated and for interpreting and interpolating the data to maximize their value. It also 

is important to develop and advance strategies to effectively 

assimilate large and multiple data sets so they can be incorporated into models, made available for other research activities, and augmented as new data are obtained. For example, 

data sharing can be facilitated by populating databases that 

can be accessed by other scientists and modelers through a 

Web site (for example, the USGS San Francisco Bay Web 

site, http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/).

4c. Advance methods for characterizing and 

incorporating uncertainty in model inputs 

and processes, quantifying model output 

uncertainty, and valuing and achieving 

uncertainty reductions

Predictive models are more realistic and useful when 

they account for uncertainty in the data used for their development and calibration and also in the processes controlling 

the simulated system. It is critical that process and probabilistic modeling activities in Menlo Park progress toward 

incorporating and quantifying as many forms of uncer-
SIMULATION, PREDICTIVE, AND PROBABILISTIC MODELING 

AT THE MENLO PARK SCIENCE CENTER

USGS Menlo Park scientists use models to address a broad range of issues 

related to hazards, ecosystems, and resources. Selected examples of these modeling 

endeavors are listed here.

Modeling for Hazards Assessment

GIS modeling of shallow landslide initiation

Sediment transport during landscape processes

Volcano eruptive probabilities

Volcano processes

Tsunami size and timing

Strong ground motion in 3-D geologic/velocity models

Earthquake rupture 

Physical and statistical models of earthquake recurrence

Crustal stress evolution and tectonic deformation

Seismic-wave propagation

Coupled fluid flow, heat flow, and subsurface deformation

Fluid pressures in subduction zones

Coupled ground-water flow and slope stability

Modeling of Ecosystem Processes

Nutrient transport in streams

Surface-water hydrodynamics and biological processes

Modeling to Assess Resource Quality and Quantity

Saturated and unsaturated ground-water flow

Subsurface transport and reaction of chemicals

Contaminant transport in small stream systems

Statistical modeling for mineral resource assessment

Process-based petroleum system modeling

Probabilistic assessment of oil and gas resources

Inversion of seismic data in geothermal areas 

Modeling to Address Multiple Issues

Simulation of wave action, hydrodynamics, sediment transport, and 

morphology for hazards assessment and ecosystem management

Simulation of gravity and magnetic data to characterize geologic hazards 

and resources

Probabilistic risk analyses for decisionmaking about environmental and 

hazards issues

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Science Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center 21
22 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

The Land Use Portfolio Model for Natural Hazards Risk Assessment

U.S. Geological Survey researchers in Menlo 

Park have developed the Land Use Portfolio Model 

to integrate natural-hazard and socioeconomic 

information and to help communities evaluate 

alternative natural-hazard mitigation policies. The 

Land Use Portfolio Model is an innovative statistical, 

modeling, mapping, and risk-communication 

methodology that can assist Federal, state, and 

local agencies and communities in understanding 

and reducing their vulnerability to natural hazards. 

The model builds upon financial-portfolio theory, 

a method for evaluating alternative investment 

decisions on the basis of the estimated distribution of 

risk and return on different investment possibilities. It 

is implemented in decision-support software based on 

geographic information system (GIS) technology and 

designed to facilitate user interaction with the data 

and analysis of the cost-effectiveness of potential 

predisaster mitigation strategies. Using the Land 

Use Portfolio Model, stakeholders can select a set 

of locations in which to invest a hazard-mitigation 

budget and evaluate metrics such as expected 

community wealth retained. 

Stakeholders can also 

use the model to compare 

outcomes of different 

potential policy decisions.

For the development 

and initial application of 

the model, geographers 

and earthquake-hazard 

researchers from the 

Menlo Park Science 

Center collaborated 

on an investigation 

of hazards from 

earthquake-triggered 

lateral-spread ground 

failure in Watsonville, 

California, to develop 

risk maps. Frequent 

interaction with 

Watsonville city 

managers was also 

important in gathering 

data and understanding 

the community 

resources. Current 

efforts are focused on 

expanding the Land 

Use Portfolio Model to 

have the capability of 

evaluating simultaneous 

decisions about multiple 

natural hazards.

Application of the GISbased Land Use Portfolio 

Model Decision Support 

System, showing a 

map of Brevard County, 

Florida, and a data 

input window. Parcels 

selected for mitigation 

have blue borders; green 

polygons represent areas 

susceptible to flooding.
Operational Objectives 23

tainty as possible, such as those related to the conceptual 

model and to simulation model input. Equally important are 

advancements in methods for translating this uncertainty to 

the model responses and predictions and for identifying the 

model aspects that contribute most to prediction uncertainty. 

These efforts can lead to strategies for determining data 

collection and other scientific activities most beneficial for 

reducing model uncertainty. It also is important to quantify 

the benefits and costs of uncertainty reductions, which can 

help prioritize activities to reduce uncertainty. For improving 

decisionmaking under uncertainty, advances can be made in 

incorporating model and prediction uncertainty in decision 

support tools, such as by linking predictive models with 

optimization procedures, land-use plans, and socioeconomic 

valuations. Including uncertainty in these manners enables 

more realistic model results to be used for decisionmaking.

4d. Develop effective methods of interpreting 

and presenting models and their results for 

delivery to collaborators, partners, and other 

end users

Whereas the first three strategic actions under this Science Goal seek to improve the quality and expand the use of 

process and probabilistic models, this action calls for ensuring the effective delivery of these models to users, including 

communities, resource managers, and Federal, state, and local 

agencies. To achieve maximum impact and influence, it is 

important to ensure that these models address society’s needs, 

are accessible and available to all potential users, and can 

be adapted for use in different locations and situations. This 

action is distinctly different from outreach or education, in 

that it recognizes that interpreting and delivering models and 

their results is an important scientific activity in itself. This 

action relies on closer connection with and greater awareness 

of the needs of collaborators, partners, and end users. Effective 

delivery of models and their results will help demonstrate the 

importance and relevance of USGS science, will enhance its 

visibility and utility, and will broaden its influence.

Operational Objectives

Meeting challenges to achieve important science goals 

requires an operational commitment to an outstanding workforce, strong partnerships, state-of-the-art scientific infrastructure, and effective mechanisms to communicate science 

information to those who ultimately use it to make decisions. 

Presented below are seven key operational objectives, each 

with a set of specific actions, necessary to achieve the Science 

Goals of the Menlo Park Science Center. Whereas a few of 

these objectives are relevant only to the Center, most address 

issues that are relevant to the successful attainment of scientific goals across the USGS.

Objective 1: Provide a hub for technology, 

laboratories, and library services to support 

science in the Western Region

The state-of-the-art research laboratories, informationtechnology facilities, and library services located on the Menlo 

Park USGS campus are vital to conducting and coordinating 

high-impact, interdisciplinary science. To ensure that these 

unique facilities are available to all Western Region projects, 

the Menlo Park Science Center should act to:

Coordinate the sharing of research laboratories across 

disciplines and facilitate access for USGS and nonUSGS scientists located offcampus (see appendix 2).

Develop strategies to enhance library services necessary to support science in the region, such as expansion 

of on-line products and services (including access to 

references relevant to biological sciences).

Pool technical expertise and inventory to meet routine 

Geographic Information System (GIS), systems support, and equipment fabrication needs.

Develop and operate an innovative Information Technology (IT) center that fosters effective communication 

and data sharing across disciplines and regions.

Objective 2: Increase advanced computing 

capabilities and promote sharing of these 

resources at the Menlo Park Science Center

Computers and computer networks are an integral 

component of Earth science research, from data collection, 

processing, and analysis to complex Earth systems modeling. 

To facilitate cutting edge Earth science research, Menlo Park 

scientists must have access to advanced computing capabilities, including computers with multiple fast processors and 

very large storage and memory capacities, as well as fast networks to enable rapid transfer of digital information. In addition, while the bulk of computing capabilities will continue to 

reside with individual scientists and groups, increased emphasis should be placed on sharing advanced computing resources 

as needed throughout the Menlo Park Science Center. Doing 

so will help effectively and efficiently make these capabilities 

available to a wide range of scientists. To achieve these objectives, the Menlo Park Science Center should:

Promote acquisition of advanced computational capabilities (for example, Beowulf clusters).

Encourage scientists to publicize their intentions for 

purchasing advanced computers and related hardware 

and software, so that other scientists can potentially 

participate in and add value to the purchase and subsequently share use of the facilities.

•

•

•

•

•

•
24  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

THE USGS LIBRARY SYSTEM—A NATIONAL RESOURCE FOR THE NATURAL SCIENCES

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

library system has been and will remain 

an integral resource for USGS science. 

However, both the dispersal of USGS 

facilities and new innovations in technology 

are altering the ways the library provides 

services and manages collections. 

Changing use patterns and changing 

technology are challenging the library 

system to balance between providing walkin service to users at regional centers and 

providing virtual online library services to 

dispersed USGS scientists and other users. 

The library also is being challenged to 

assess what hard-copy materials must be 

preserved as unique reference collections 

and what materials are more efficiently and 

effectively managed and served online as 

digital references. The USGS library will 

continue to evolve to serve the changing 

needs of the natural sciences community.
Operational Objectives 25

Develop and maintain a list of advanced computer 

facilities available as a shared resource for computationally intensive modeling and other tasks.

Increase the use of Center-wide licenses for expensive 

Earth science specialty software; develop and maintain 

a list of active licenses.

Promote shared computer storage facilities for 

archiving of storage-intensive datasets, models, and 

other digital information.

Objective 3: Enhance the intellectual diversity, 

vibrancy, and capacity of the workforce through 

improved recruitment and retention

The USGS Menlo Park Science Center must assess the 

skills of its workforce, develop plans to retain key capabilities, and set priorities to acquire the new capabilities needed 

to achieve its Science Goals. This should be done in a timely 

manner to stop the loss of institutional knowledge as senior 

scientists complete their careers. Newly hired scientists should 

possess the types of capabilities and expertise necessary to 

pursue scientific excellence in topics that contribute toward the 

Science Goals. These goals will require intellectually diverse 

scientists who are highly flexible, computationally proficient, 

•

•

•

and skilled in interdisciplinary collaboration. To meet the 

objective of a highly skilled workforce capable of meeting the 

Science Goals, the Menlo Park Center should:

Recruit actively for the next generation of USGS scientists with the Center’s Science Goals in mind.

Create a balance of research and science-support staff 

that is appropriate to the Science Goals.

Investigate structural changes to the workforce that 

would maximize scientific leadership and workforce 

flexibility (for example, greater use of faculty appointments in senior science advisory roles and term 

appointments at the postdoctoral level).

Pursue the hiring of technical specialists needed to 

meet the Science Goals, including computer programmers, technicians, and information technology support.

Address employee quality-of-life issues by promoting 

childcare, housing, commuter incentives, recruitment 

incentives, and other applicable programs.

Promote sabbatical and exchange programs in Menlo 

Park for scientists from universities, Federal and state 

agencies, and other USGS research centers and for 

Menlo Park scientists to collaborate at other institutions and USGS centers.

•

•

•

•

•

•

ANNUAL POSTDOCTORAL INTERN SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM

The U.S. Geological Survey investment in 

postdoctoral interns helps train the next generation 

of Earth scientists. The Menlo Park Science Center 

annually sponsors a science symposium to introduce 

postdoctoral interns to the Center community and 

celebrate their evolving scientific contributions.
26  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

Revitalize student internship and fellowship programs 

and increase the opportunities for students to gain valuable scientific experience with the USGS.

Increase opportunities for participation in scientific and 

technical training in Menlo Park

Objective 4: Strengthen collaborative 

relationships in the community at an 

institutional level

The Menlo Park Science Center is a leader in collaborative Earth science research. Most collaborative research is 

conducted at the individual scientist level and through both 

formal and informal relationships between individual organizational units at the Center and other governmental agencies, academic institutions, and private organizations in the 

San Francisco Bay Area. Formal relationships at the Center 

level could enhance collaborative research by facilitating the 

exchange of resources between the USGS and other institutions and the sharing of facilities and specialized equipment. 

Improved communication at the institutional level can help 

widely disseminate USGS research and promote potential opportunities for collaboration. This objective seeks 

to strengthen ongoing collaborative research and facilitate 

•

•

opportunities for additional collaboration between the USGS 

and its partners (see appendix 1). To meet this objective, the 

Center should:

Formalize memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements with local institutions to help streamline exchange of ideas, people, and resources.

Promote the exchange of ideas through seminars with 

the regional science community, including other USGS 

facilities, and by encouraging teaching by Center scientists at local universities.

Encourage Menlo Park scientists to develop more joint 

projects and science initiatives with the local science 

community and to consider development of formal 

joint centers of excellence between the Menlo Park 

Science Center and local institutions.

Improve the involvement of students and other local 

scientists in USGS projects by encouraging student 

appointments and considering joint appointments with 

local institutions.

Develop and distribute a database of USGS facilities, 

expertise, and contacts in Menlo Park and encourage 

the sharing of facilities and equipment with the local 

science community.

•

•

•

•

•

The Menlo Survey Daycare Center (Geokids)

The Menlo Survey Daycare Center (GeoKids) is an 

accredited, nationally recognized, nonprofit parent cooperative providing high-quality child care for children aged 

3 months through prekindergarten. Located on the Menlo 

Park campus of the U.S. Geological Survey, this early 

childhood development center has been an attractive feature to many Survey employees with young children.
Operational Objectives 27

SCIENCE INTERNS OF TODAY WILL BE THE SCIENTIFIC LEADERS OF TOMORROW

The Menlo Park Science Center has been an 

incubator of scientific leaders in part because of its 

close proximity to and association with numerous 

San Francisco Bay Area universities with vibrant 

Earth science programs. Many postdoctoral fellows, 

students and postgraduate interns who have their 

early professional experiences at the Center go on to 

successful Earth science careers in the U.S. Geological 

Survey, academia, and industry. The varied roles 

of interns in Center-based research projects, as 

illustrated in the photographs below, reflect the 

diversity of Earth science research at the Center.
Encourage hiring in new scientific specialties (for 

example, social and decision science, predictive modeling, advanced computing) that are important additions 

to interdisciplinary studies.

Strengthen biological science in Menlo Park and 

throughout in the Western Region by further collaboration between USGS science centers, science 

exchanges, temporary details, and establishing a few 

key biological research positions in Menlo Park to 

help integrate the goals of USGS Biological Resources 

Programs in ecosystem science and modeling.

Expand studies to understand the interaction between 

natural systems and human development in the growing urban populations center of the West.

Objective 7: Communicate USGS Science to a 

diverse audience

In addition to conducting world-class Earth science 

research, it is equally important that USGS scientists communicate their research results in a clear, timely, and effective 

manner to a large and varied group of stakeholders. The multiple recipients of USGS information include research partners, other USGS units and governmental agencies, decisionmakers, and the general public. Just as our audience is diverse, 

so are their information needs and the scope and depth of their 

scientific literacy. It is thus important that USGS information 

be communicated and disseminated in manners responsive to 

the needs of these multiple audiences. This objective can be 

achieved in a number of ways:

Communicate and disseminate USGS information at an 

appropriate level of scientific detail for particular target 

audiences (for example, other scientists, decisionmakers, news media, general public).

Foster the recognized role of the Menlo Park Science 

Center as a regional communications focal point for 

USGS media relations.

Improve Web-based information and advance methods 

for real-time communication and dissemination of data 

using the Internet.

Develop user-friendly computer models and decision 

tools as USGS products for use by government agencies and 

other decisionmakers, including model output and data products compatible as input to decision tools developed by clients.

Raise public awareness of natural-science issues through 

participation in K-12 and university education programs, 

USGS open-house events, and public lectures (including 

national access to Menlo Park Science Center public lectures 

using internet technology).

Staff the Menlo Park Science Center with one or more 

specialists having news media and congressional com-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

28  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

Objective 5: Expand monitoring capability by 

increasing density, sensitivity, and efficiency 

and reducing costs of instruments and networks

A wide variety of fundamental scientific questions and 

long-term monitoring efforts conducted by the USGS in Menlo 

Park and elsewhere will be better addressed by improving 

the spatial density, sensitivity, and temporal sampling rates 

of USGS monitoring networks. Such networks include those 

monitoring the hydrology, geochemistry, and biosphere of the 

San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystems; earthquakes and ground 

deformation in northern California; and volcanic unrest at Long 

Valley, Yellowstone, and northern California volcanoes. To 

achieve this objective, the Menlo Park Science Center should:

Take advantage of Menlo Park’s proximity to hightechnology research centers in Silicon Valley for 

possible Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements with industry and universities, particularly 

in developing less expensive alternatives to current 

monitoring methods.

Improve capacity for real-time and near-real-time data 

dissemination.

Coordinate satellite-based monitoring with groundbased monitoring networks.

Capitalize on increasing bandwidth and other technological advances in communication systems.

Continue development of field instruments that can be 

deployed in extreme conditions.

Objective 6: Encourage a breadth of 

scientific capabilities in Menlo Park to foster 

interdisciplinary science

In the past 50 years, scientific research has greatly 

increased in complexity, largely driven by rapid advances in 

digital technology. Society is reaching a level of information 

overload, where more science information is collected and 

handled than can be readily processed. Scientists not only are 

relied upon to provide detailed data for supporting specific 

management actions, but also to develop complex process 

models that help provide fundamental understanding of how 

systems work and the ability to predict problems before they 

happen. Although valuable single-focus studies are still conducted, many programs are now following highly productive 

interdisciplinary approaches, resulting in new efforts to link 

interactions among scientific specialties. To foster and conduct these interdisciplinary efforts, the Menlo Park Science 

Center should:

Play a leadership role in promoting and coordinating interdisciplinary science throughout the Western 

Region.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Operational Objectives 29

THE UNDERWATER MICROSCOPE

The U.S. Geological Survey 

recently was granted a patent for an 

underwater microscope developed by 

scientists from Menlo Park and Santa 

Cruz (see Chezar and others, 2001). 

The system collects and analyzes 

electronic images of sediment 

deposits in riverbed, lakebed, or 

seabed environments. Scientists now 

can collect hundreds of electronic 

samples and analyze them for grain 

size in a matter of hours to days. This 

process typically takes months using 

traditional sampling and grain-size 

analyses. The underwater microscope 

not only saves time and money but 

also spares scientists 

from sampling activities 

that can be dangerous 

in areas of strong 

currents or extreme 

marine conditions. The 

technology has been 

licensed and is being 

commercially produced.

U. S. Geological Survey raft deploying underwater 

microscope system in the Colorado River.

Sample image of sand grains on the bed of the 

Colorado River. Image was taken in highly turbid 

water and is approximately 1 cm across. The ring 

of light spots near the outside of the image is a 

reflection from LED (light-emitting diode) lights 

built into the video camera assembly.

THE CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

ARE PARTNERS IN THE MENLO PARK SCIENCE CENTER

In October 2005, the California 

Geological Survey established an 

office at the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) Menlo Park Science Center. 

The California Geological Survey 

conducts over-the-counter sales of 

both State of California and USGS 

scientific information products at 

the Center. In addition, several California Geological Survey 

scientists involved in geologic mapping and natural-hazard 

assessment programs are stationed at the Center. The 

California Geological Survey and USGS have enjoyed a longstanding and productive partnership for many decades. Both 

agencies believe that sharing facilities at the Center will lead 

to even closer collaboration and more joint science ventures.
Environmental biomarker studies reveal how microbiological

communities influence geochemical processes within aquatic and

terrestrial environments

Geomicrobiologists study the influence of 

microorganisms on geochemical processes such as the 

formation or destruction of minerals and the release or 

transformation of toxic metals in the environment. U.S. 

Geological Survey scientists at the Menlo Park Science 

Center were at the forefront of geomicrobiology before 

that term was even coined. For example, several new 

species of bacteria that transform toxic metals such 

as selenium and arsenic were first discovered at the 

Center. Studies of single microorganisms remain an 

important component of environmental research at 

the Center, but a new generation of Earth scientists 

with new skills and technology are now developing 

environmental biomarker techniques at the Center that 

will allow the study of the interaction of specific groups 

of microbes or whole microbial communities with their 

environment. Environmental biomarkers are molecules 

present in sediments and waters that can be used to 

identify microorganisms or to monitor specific microbial 

processes of interest. Advanced technology for 

measuring these biomarkers has recently been acquired 

at the Center and is being used to determine the extent 

of microbial influence on key geochemical processes 

such as the oxidation/reduction of carbon, nitrogen, and 

sulfur, the degradation of subsurface hydrocarbon spills, 

and the transformation of potentially toxic elements such 

as mercury, selenium, and arsenic.

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MENLO PARK 

SCIENCE CENTER IS A PREFERRED NEWS 

SOURCE FOR EARTH SCIENCE TOPICS

The Menlo Park Science Center is a preferred news 

source when natural disasters, such as earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, landslides, and tsunamis occur 

within the United States or abroad. Reporters are 

attracted to Menlo Park 

because they know that 

there will be an opportunity 

to interview a wide variety of 

scientists who are directly 

involved in natural-hazard 

research and monitoring. 

Scientists from Menlo Park 

also are sought out for 

interviews and as expert 

advisors for documentaries 

on a spectrum of Earth 

science topics.

30 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
munications expertise to maintain the Center’s position 

as a preferred science news source and to help scientists reach these priority communications audiences.

Next Steps

This strategy provides long-term Science Goals and Operational Objectives intended to inspire and guide, rather than direct, 

the actions of the USGS at the Menlo Park Science Center and, 

as appropriate, other USGS centers in the Western Region and 

across the Nation. The principal responsibility for leading the 

Menlo Park Science Center toward these Science Goals lies with 

the Menlo Park Council. Designing, prioritizing, and implementing the actions necessary to achieve these goals and objectives, 

however, is an ongoing process that is the responsibility of the 

entire USGS research and science support community in Menlo 

Park. Each and every member of the USGS in Menlo Park must 

contribute to movement toward the common goals and objectives 

of the Center through their individual and team efforts, as well 

as by vigorously participating in collective planning activities 

as requested. An integral part of successfully achieving USGS 

Science Goals at the Menlo Park Science Center is collaboration 

with colleagues throughout the USGS, especially with national 

and regional program leadership.

Some specific actions that the Menlo Park Council should 

consider for implementing this strategy are:

Commissioning working groups to develop specific science plans for each of the Science Goals. Such working 

groups should, in addition to Menlo Park scientists, 

involve appropriate USGS scientists throughout the 

•

region and Nation, as well as non-USGS cooperators 

and clients. Planning activities should include appropriate involvement of USGS program coordinators to 

ensure that regional priorities are effectively considered 

in national program planning. The Menlo Park Council 

should consider sponsoring workshops that exert science leadership for the USGS in these science issues. 

Planning should focus on the collective Science Goals of 

the center and should complement and enhance, rather 

than duplicate or compete with, planning for specific 

projects, organizational units, and programs.

Establishing committees as appropriate to address 

details of Operational Objectives. The Council should 

prioritize actions under these objectives and charter committees according to those priorities and the 

resources available for their implementation.

Developing a communications plan for the Menlo Park 

science strategy to reach not only USGS employees in 

Menlo Park, but also the USGS regionally and nationally, as well as appropriate audiences outside the USGS.

Developing an annual plan for the Center that outlines 

implementation plans, specifies resources available 

to advance the science strategy during the upcoming 

fiscal year, and documents accomplishments of the 

previous fiscal years.

Presenting an annual “State of the Center” address at 

the Menlo Park Science Center (video streamed to 

other locations) that presents the annual plan to the 

workforce and allows for discussion.

•

•

•

•

Next Steps  31

The U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park 

worked with a host of local cooperators to create 

an earthquake handbook for residents of the San 

Francisco Bay Region (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2005). This timely publication describes the likely 

impacts of future earthquakes in the Bay Area and 

gives the seven important steps that people should 

follow to prepare for, survive, and recover from 

future earthquakes. More than 750,000 copies have 

been distributed to the public as inserts in local 

newspapers, through large home-improvement chain 

stores, and directly by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country

Your Handbook for the San Francisco Bay Region

Developed by:

American Red Cross, 

Bay Area Chapter

Association of Bay Area 

Governments

California Earthquake Authority

California Geological Survey

Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute

Governor’s Offi ce of 

Emergency Services

San Francisco Offi ce of 

Emergency Services and 

Homeland Security

Southern California 

Earthquake Center

Structural Engineers 

Association of Northern California

University of California Berkeley

U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency

U.S. Geological Survey

General Information Product 15
USING THE INTERNET TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY 

AND THE PUBLIC

The Menlo Park Science Center is the only 

facility within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

where presentations can be videostreamed to other 

locations using the Internet. Seminars, training, and 

other presentations are routinely broadcast in real 

time over the Internet and are preserved for later 

viewing in an Internet archive (see for example, 

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/ for public lectures 

and http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/seminar.html talks for 

Volcano Hazard Team technical seminars).

In a videostream presentation on August 16, 2005, 

Acting Director Patrick Leahy addressed a live 

audience in Menlo Park and, simultaneously using 

videostream technology, all USGS facilities around 

the nation. Employees from other USGS facilities 

participated in a question and answer session by 

telephone that was linked to the broadcast.

On June 30, 2005, 

a team of USGS 

scientists presented 

a public lecture on 

tsunamis to a live 

audience at the 

Menlo Park Science 

Center. These 

monthly evening 

public lectures are 

simultaneously 

broadcast over 

the Internet using 

videostream 

technology.

32 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
Integration of Biological Resources programs into science activities of the Menlo Park Science Center is a special 

issue requiring additional attention of the Menlo Park Council 

and Western Region leadership as a whole. Greater integration 

of biological capabilities into the Center is critical especially 

to Science Goal 2 of this strategy; however, specifics of how 

to implement such integration requires further planning and 

more direct involvement of Biological Resources Discipline 

leadership. Among the key questions that must be addressed 

are: does participation require colocation?; what would be 

the mix of colocation and other means of collaboration?; and 

how should Biological Resources program participation be 

organized within USGS? How Biological Resources program 

regionally and nationally could benefit from potential scientific partnerships with San Francisco Bay Area institutions, 

from the laboratory and other science infrastructure at the 

Menlo Park Science Center, and from the cadre of invertebrate biologists, microbiologists, and biogeochemists already 

stationed in Menlo Park also must be explored. Budget and 

staffing realities dictate that development of a Biological 

Resources presence at the Menlo Park Science Center would 

be limited and its implementation phased over time. However, 

planning for this presence should be considered for immediate 

attention by Western Region managers.

Commissioning of this report was a first step on the part 

of the Menlo Park Council to chart a collective vision of the 

science future of the USGS Menlo Park Science Center into 

the twenty-first century. To achieve this vision, the Council 

must consider, as its most important charge, exerting leadership in enhancing the scientific vitality of the Center. This 

leadership must be made visible both within and external to 

the USGS.

Opportunities abound to strengthen the Nation’s ability 

to minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters, 

manage natural resources, and enhance and protect our quality 

of life on the basis of sound science. The need to advance the 

natural sciences to meet the challenges that face the Nation has 

never been greater. The scientific contributions of the Menlo 

Park Science Center will remain as, if not more, critical to the 

Nation over the coming 50 years as they have been since the 

center was established 50 years ago.

Acknowledgments

The USGS is grateful to all of those who contributed 

their time and thoughtful ideas to the development of this 

science strategy. The working group thanks the more than 100 

members of the USGS, clients, and cooperators who contributed to the development of this strategy through participating 

in panels, responding to questionnaires, and providing written 

comments on various drafts of the document. We also thank 

those members of USGS in Menlo Park who participated 

in the open Center meeting to discuss the strategy and who 

shared their ideas with working group members in numerous 

individual conversations.

References

Bedford, D.R., Miller, D.M., Schmidt, K.M., and Phelps, G.P., 

2004, Understanding relations between surficial geology, soil texture, hydrology, and vegetation in the Eastern 

Mojave Desert, California: Third Mojave Desert Science 

Symposium, Redlands, Calif., November 16-18, 2004.

Bernknopf, R.L., Dinitz, L.B., Rabinovici, S.J.M., and Evans, 

A.M., 2001, A portfolio approach to evaluating natural 

hazard mitigation policies; an application to lateral-spread 

ground failure in coastal California: International Geology 

Review, v. 43, p. 424-440.

Bernknopf, R., Rabinovici, S.J., Wood, N., and Dinitz, L., 

in press: The influence of hazard models on GIS-based 

regional risk assessments and mitigation policies: International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, Special 

Issue on Risk Assessment.

Bohlen, S.R., Halley, R.B., Hickman, S.H., Johnson, S.Y., 

Lowenstern, J.B., Muhs, D.R., Plumblee, G.S., Thompson, 

G.A., Trauger, D.L. and Zoback, M.L., 1999, Geology 

for a changing world; a science strategy for the Geologic 

Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1172, 59 p.

Chezar, Henry, Giller, Julia, and Neil, Mark, 2001, Underwater microscope system: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

135-01, 2 p.

Chouet, B., Dawson, P., Ohminato, T., Martini, M., Saccorotti, 

G., Giudicepietro, F., De Luca, G., Milana, G., and Scarpa, 

R., 2003, Source mechanisms of explosions at Stromboli 

volcano, Italy, determined from moment tensor inversions 

of very-long-period data: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 108(B1), 2019, doi:10.1029/2002JB001919.

Chouet, B., Dawson, P., and Arciniega-Ceballos, A., 2005, 

Source mechanism of Vulcanian degassing at Popocate'petl 

volcano, Mexico, determined from waveform inversion of 

very long period signals: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 110(B7), 7301, doi:10.1029/2004JB003524.

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D. A., eds., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p.

Essaid, H.I., and Bekins, B.A., 1997, BIOMOC, a multispecies 

solute-transport model with biodegradation: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4022, 68 p.

Gohn, K.K., 2004, Celebrating 125 years of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1274, 56 p.

Holling, C.S., 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and 

management: London, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 398 p.

Hornberger, M.I., Luoma, S.N., Cain, D.J., Parchaso, F., 

Brown, C.L., Bouse, R.M., Wellise, C., and Thompson, 

References
J.K., 2000, Linkage of bioaccumulation and biological 

effects to changes in pollutant loads in south San Francisco 

Bay: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, p. 

2401-2409.

Jachens, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., Simpson, R.W., Graymer, 

R.W., Graham, S., Williams, R.A., McLaughlin, R.C., and 

Langenheim, V.E., 2005, Three-dimensional geologic map 

of the Santa Clara Valley and adjacent uplands, California [abs.]: Geological Society of America Program with 

Abstracts, v. 37, no. 4, p. 89.

Mangan, M.T., Mastin, L.G., and Sisson, T.W., 2004, Gas evolution in eruptive conduits; combining insights from high 

temperature and pressure decompression experiments with 

steady-state flow modeling: Journal of Volcanology and 

Geothermal Research, v. 129, p. 23-36.

McMahon, Gerard, Benjamin, S.P., Clarke, Keith, Findley, 

J.E., Fisher, R.N., Graf, W.L., Gundersen, L.C., Jones, J.W., 

Loveland, T.R., Roth, K.S., Usery, E.L., and Wood, N.J., 

2005, Geography for a changing world; a science strategy 

for geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 

2005-2015: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1281, 54 p.

Michael, A.J., Ross, S.L., Simpson, R.W., Zoback, M.L., 

Schwartz, D.P., Blanpied, M.L., and Working Group 2000, 

2003, Is a powerful quake likely to strike in the next 30 

years?: U.S. Geological Survey Fact-Sheet 039-03, 4 p.

National Research Council, 2001, Future roles and opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey: Washington D.C., 

National Academy Press, 179 p.

National Research Council, 2002, Research opportunities in 

geography at the U.S. Geological Survey: Washington D.C., 

National Academy Press, 130 p.

Nimmo, J.R., Perkins, K.S., Rose, P.A., Rousseau, J.P., Orr, 

B.R., Twining, B.V., and Anderson, S.R., 2002, Kilometerscale rapid transport of naphthalene sulfonate tracer in the 

unsaturated zone at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 1, p. 

89-101.

Peters, K. E., Magoon, L. B., Lampe, Carolyn, Hosford 

Scheirer, Allegra, Lillis, P. G., and Gautier, D. L., in press, 

A four-dimensional petroleum system model for the San 

Joaquin Basin Province, California, chapter 12 in Hosford Scheirer, Allegra, ed., Petroleum systems and geologic assessment of oil and gas in the San Joaquin Basin 

province, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1713.

Reid, M.E., Sisson, T.E., and Brien, D.L., 2001, Volcano 

collapse promoted by hydrothermal alteration and edifice 

shape, Mount Rainier, Washington: Geology, v. 29, p. 779-

782.

Saffer, D.M., and Bekins, B.A., 2002, Hydrologic controls 

on the morphology and mechanics of accretionary wedges: 

Geology, v. 30 p. 271-274.

Singer, D.A., 1993, Basic concepts in three-part quantitative 

assessments of undiscovered mineral resources: Nonrenewable Resources, v. 2, no. 2, p. 69-81.

Singer, D.A., 1995, World-class base and precious metal 

deposits––a quantitative analysis: Economic Geology, v. 90, 

no.1, p. 88-104.

Spiker, E.C., and Gori, Paula, 2003, National landslide hazards 

mitigation strategy––a framework for loss reduction: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1244, 47 p.

Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, J., eds., 2003, Heat as a tool 

for studying the movement of ground water near streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 96 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, Biological Resources Division 

strategic science plan: U.S. Geological Survey, http://

biology.usgs.gov/science/strategicplan.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Strategic directions for the 

Water Resources Division, 1998-2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 99-249, 19 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, Implications for earthquake 

risk reduction in the United States from the Kocaeli, Turkey, 

earthquake of August 17, 1999: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1193, 64 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002 (last modified), Strategic plan, 

U.S. Geological Survey 2000-2005: U.S. Geological Survey, http://www.usgs.gov/stratplan/stratplan_rev/index.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Putting down roots in earthquake country; your handbook for the San Francisco Bay 

region: U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 15, 31 p.

Walters, C.J., 1986, Adaptive management of renewable 

resources (biological resource management): New York, 

Collier Macmillan, 374 p.

Wentworth, C.M., and Tinsley, J.C., 2005, Tectonic subsidence and cyclic Quaternary deposition controlled by 

climate variation, Santa Clara Valley, California [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Program with Abstracts, v. 

37, no. 4, p. 59.

Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003, 

Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, 

2002-2031: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

03-214, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-214/.

34  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
Appendixes 1–2
Appendix 1. Science and Science Support Units in Menlo Park

an interdisciplinary USGS coastal and marine science center 

that can partner with more than 25 institutions in the growing 

Monterey Bay Area ocean science community. The USGS 

center in Santa Cruz will retain strong collaboration with the 

Menlo Park Science Center, and some activities, particularly 

those related to hazards from offshore earthquakes, are likely 

to remain in Menlo Park.

Core Science Support

Research Laboratories and Field Capabilities—The Menlo 

Park Science Center currently supports a broad range of laboratory and field-based hydrologic, geophysical, geochemical, 

geotechnical, and computational tools to characterize Earth 

system components, understand Earth system processes, and 

model complex Earth systems (see appendix 2). Plans are 

to advance these laboratory and field capabilities, investing 

in and developing state-of-the-art tools that support evolving 

research at the Center and in the Western Region as a whole.

Geospatial Information Office provides the following four 

key elements of services central to the USGS Western Region 

Scientific community: 

National Geospatial Technical Operations Center—

Provides geospatial technical expertise and partnership 

services to the scientific community; regional, state 

and local government; business liaisons and partnership offices in support of The National Map and 

National Geospatial Program Office.

Natural Science Network—The Western Region 

Library and Earth Science Information Center are 

being realigned to create the Natural Science Network, 

a nationally linked network of USGS data, information, 

and knowledge strategically located in Menlo Park.

Western Region Library—Western Region hub for 

the USGS Library, which is the largest collection 

of Earth science literature in the world. Provides an 

invaluable information resource to USGS scientists, 

academics, other governmental agencies, and the 

general public, both locally and nationally. Plans are 

to remain a core science support function within the 

Menlo Park Science Center and to expand paperless 

(on-line) journal collections and electronic information acquisition systems.

Earth Science Information Center (ESIC)—Provides outreach support through information dissemination about the use of USGS data to both internal 

and external customers Sales of USGS products 

and publications at the Menlo Park Science Center, 

formerly provided by the ESIC, are now provided 

through cooperative agreement by the California 

Geological Survey.

•

•

•

•

Core Science Units

Earthquake Hazards Team—Conducts studies of earthquake 

processes in support of USGS earthquake hazard assessments 

and monitoring; operates the seismic monitoring network for 

Northern California in collaboration with the University of 

California Berkeley. Plans are to remain one of the core science programs at the Menlo Park Science Center.

Volcano Hazards Team—Conducts studies of volcanic 

processes in support of USGS volcano hazard assessments 

and monitoring; operates volcano monitoring observatories for 

Long Valley and Yellowstone. Plans are to remain one of the 

core science programs at the Menlo Park Science Center.

Branch of Regional Research in the Hydrologic Sciences—

Conducts long-term research in ground- and surface-water 

chemistry; ground- and surface-water hydrology; aquatic 

contaminants cycling, transport and toxicity; geomorphology; 

sediment transport; microbiology; and ecology. Plans are to 

remain one of the core science programs at the Menlo Park 

Science Center.

Mineral Resources Team—Conducts regional and global 

mineral resource assessments and research to improve quantitative resource assessment methods; conducts studies of geologic processes related to the evolution of mineral deposits and 

their environmental impacts. Plans are to retain a small group 

of researchers specializing in mineral resource information, 

processes, geochemical hazards, and assessment methodology 

at the Menlo Park Science Center.

Earth Surface Processes Team—Conducts geologic mapping, crustal characterization, process studies, and assessments to characterize and understand the landscape and 

solid earth as a framework for addressing issues of regional 

and national interest in natural hazards, energy, mineral and 

water resources, and environmental science. Plans are to 

remain one of the core science programs at the Menlo Park 

Science Center.

Geographic Research and Technology Team—Conducts 

studies to map changes on the land surface throughout the 

Western Region and explain their significance, to integrate 

natural science with social science, and to provide tools and 

measures to decisionmakers at many levels that will improve 

their use of scientific information. Plans are to build a larger 

geography research group at the Menlo Park Science Center. 

Coastal and Marine Geology Team—Conducts geologichazard, resource, and environmental studies and assessments that provide science needed to inform public decisions 

concerning America’s coastal and marine regions. Plans are to 

migrate most of Coastal and Marine Geology Team to Santa 

Cruz, California, by 2009 and develop there the nucleus of 

36  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
Information Technology Services—Provides telephone, video conferencing, remote access, and both 

local and wide-area network services. Menlo Park is 

the Western Region hub of the national network for 

Department of the Interior, serving the needs of all 

Interior bureaus with bandwidth access to five Optical 

Carrier levels, including three OC-3 connections that 

each has the capability of processing information at 

a rate of 155.52 megabits per second with redundant 

methodology.

Menlo Park Publishing Service Center—Provides a 

full range of publications support services, including 

planning, editing, graphics, layout, Web preparation, 

•

•

and archiving for print, Web, CD, and other formats of 

information dissemination. Part of the newly reorganized USGS Enterprise Publishing Network, this is 

the largest group of USGS publishing professionals in 

the Western Region. Plans are to remain a core science 

support unit within the Menlo Park Science Center.

Office of Regional Support—Provides region-wide 

financial, procurement, human resource, and facilities management support for the USGS. Plans are to 

migrate most of the Office of Regional Support to the 

campus of California State University Sacramento by 

2009 to reduce operating costs and facilitate recruitment of support personnel.

•

Appendix 1  37
Appendix 2. Menlo Park Science Center—

Key Research Laboratory and Portable (Field) Capabilities

Paleomagnetic Laboratory (Building 16, contacts Duane 

Champion and Jonathan Hagstrum)

The paleomagnetic laboratory houses a superconducting 

magnetometer that is used to determine the magnetostratigraphy of rock and sediment sequences and to quantify paleosecular variations of the geomagnetic field for correlation and 

dating purposes.

Mineralogy and Petrology Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Judy Fierstein)

The mineralogy and petrology laboratory is a shared 

facility for preparation and identification of mineralogical 

and petrologic samples. It houses automated X-ray powder 

diffractometer, heavy-liquid and magnetic mineral separation 

equipment, fine grinding and sieving equipment, wafering saw, 

petrographic and binocular microscopes, and fume hoods for 

caustic chemical treatments.

Rock Preparation Laboratory 

(Building 4, contact Judy Fierstein)

The rock preparation laboratory is a shared facility for 

rock cutting, grinding, and sieving of bulk samples. It includes 

a separate rock/core layout room.

Machine Shop (Building 4, contact Ben Hankins)

The machine shop is a shared facility for machining and 

repair of equipment. It includes lath, drill press, vertical mill, band 

saw, and standard hand tools, chemicals, and lab accessories.

Carbon Cycling Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Jennifer Harden)

The carbon cycling laboratory analyzes soil gases, solids, 

and liquids for elemental carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, and methane. It supports climate-change research; in particular, results 

are used to track global warming through monitoring of carbon reservoirs in soils and vegetation.

Soil Properties Laboratory 

(Building 4, contact Tom Holzer)

The soil properties laboratory contains equipment to 

measure density, grain size, and simple geotechnical properties 

of soils.

Gas Hydrates Laboratory 

(Building 4, contact Steve Kirby)

The gas hydrates laboratory is designed to measure physical properties of low-temperature gas hydrates with cryogenic 

scanning electron microscopy and conduct hydrate synthesis 

under high pressure/low temperature conditions. It also supports studies to analyze properties of planetary ices.

Magma Dynamics Laboratory 

(Building 2, contact Tom Sisson)

Partially or completely molten magma samples are created at controlled high temperatures and pressures (as high as 

1,400°C and 3 GPa) using specially fabricated furnaces and 

pressure vessels. Depending on the study, the samples may be 

held at fixed conditions, or can be decompressed or cooled at 

precisely controlled rates. They are then rapidly quenched to 

preserve magmatic compositions and assemblages of minerals, melt (glass), and gases or gas bubbles. Experiments are 

designed to simulate the creation, storage, ascent, and degassing of magma in order to develop a quantitative understanding of the physical and chemical processes leading to hazardous volcanic behavior. The facility also produces a wide range 

of high-quality interlaboratory glass and mineral standards.

Gas Chromatography and Stable Isotopes Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Jake Lowenstern)

The gas chromatography and stable isotopes laboratory is 

optimized for chemical and isotopic analysis of volcanic and 

geothermal fluids (gas and liquid phases).

Infrared Spectroscopy Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Jake Lowenstern)

The infrared spectroscopy laboratory is designed to 

measure the amount and speciation of water and carbon 

species dissolved in naturally and experimentally produced 

silicate glass and rock-forming crystals. The data are used in 

magmatic degassing studies and to determine the molecular 

structure of silicate melts and solid crystals.

High Precision Argon Geochronology Laboratory 

(Building 9G, contacts Andy Calvert and Bob Fleck)

Geochronology laboratories in Menlo Park provide 

absolute age control for a wide variety of USGS projects. 

The laboratories are world renowned for high-quality results 

on difficult samples and for careful work to develop new 

techniques and interlaboratory standards. Geochronologists 

use high-precision 40Ar/39Ar, conventional K/Ar, and Rb/Sr 

techniques to date rocks ranging in age from 10,000 years 

to billions of years old. Recent results have placed precise 

and reliable time constraints on tectonic events, volcanic 

systems, and ore deposits. In recent years, the emphasis has 

been on dating young (10,000 to 200,000 years) volcanic 

deposits from active centers to understand rates of volcanic 

growth and geochemical evolution and to constrain volcanic 

hazards. The laboratory has recently purchased a new multicollector noble-gas mass spectrometer and is developing 

a custom argon extraction line to date younger rocks with 

higher precision.

38  USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
Single Contact Pressure Solution Laboratory 

(Building 4, contact Steve Hickman)

This laboratory contains equipment to measures the rates 

of cementation, neck growth, and pressure solution for a single 

crystal contact in high-temperature/high-pressure aqueous 

solutions.

Rock Friction Laboratory (Building 4, contact David Lockner)

This laboratory is designed to measure frictional properties of faults, including rupture nucleation and propagation and 

time/rate/state/normal stress dependence of shear strength.

Stress and Heat Flow Mobile Laboratory 

(Building 9E, contacts Steve Hickman and Colin Williams)

This mobile laboratory provides field support and rock 

physical property measurements for borehole investigations 

of stress, heat flow, and fluid transport along active faults 

and in geothermal areas. Activities run out of this mobile 

lab include operation and maintenance of two geophysical wire-line logging trucks for making measurements of 

stress, heat flow, permeability, and fracture geometry in 

deep boreholes.

Rock Deformation Laboratory 

(Building 10, contact Dave Lockner)

The rock deformation laboratory measures physical, 

mechanical, frictional, and hydraulic properties of rocks and 

fault-gouge materials at high pressures and temperatures 

appropriate for conditions found in seismogenic faults.

Cone Penetration Testing Mobile Laboratory 

(mobile lab, contact Tom Holzer)

This truck-mounted facility measures penetration resistance and shear wave velocity of unconsolidated sediment to 

characterize shaking and liquefaction potential in earthquakes 

as well as to map the shallow stratigraphy.

Portable Seismic Array 

(Building 3A, contacts Russell Sell and Joe Fletcher)

The USGS maintains an array of REFTEK portable 

seismic instruments for staging of passive field studies, such 

as earthquake aftershock studies.

Drill Rig Mobile Laboratory (mobile lab, contact Tom Holzer)

This truck-mounted hollow stem auger is used for collecting subsurface samples to depths of 50 feet.

Earthworm Computer Laboratory 

(Building 11, contact Will Kohler)

This facility is for the development, maintenance, and 

operation of the software and hardware used in the real-time 

detection and location of earthquakes throughout northern and 

central California.

Earthquake Hazards Computing Facility 

(Building 3, contacts G. Allen, L. Baker, and S. Silvermen)

This is a facility with conditioned air and power for 

Earthquake Hazards Team servers (Web, program, and data), 

cluster computing system, and Storage Area Network device.

Northern California Seismic Network (NCSM) Electronics 

Laboratory (Building 11, contact Gray Jensen)

The NCSM electronics laboratory provides for the development, repair, and maintenance of the seismometers, radios, 

voltage control oscillators (VCO’s), and related hardware used 

in each of the more than 500 seismic stations located between 

southernmost Oregon and central California.

Borehole Strain and Magnetometer Laboratory 

(Building 3A, contact M. Johnston)

This facility provides for development and maintenance 

of downhole strain meters and magnetometers used in both 

permanent and temporary installations.

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) 

Laboratory (Building 3A, contact C. Dietel)

This facility provides for maintenance, testing, and repair of 

GOES seismic recorders, which are used in both permanent and 

temporary seismic arrays, both in this country and internationally.

Potential Field Geophysics Facility 

(Building 2, contact T. Hildebrand)

This facility is a deployment hub for gravity and magnetic field measurements. It also serves as a computing facility 

for 3-D modeling and visualization.

Environmental Geochemistry & Geomicrobiology Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact A. Foster)

Microbial ecology of environmental samples is studied 

by culture-independent methods such as in-situ microscopic 

fluorescent hybridization and ex-situ analyses of prokaryotic 

(bacterial and archea) and eukaryotic (fungal, to date) ribosomal DNA via polymerase chain reaction, restriction fragment 

length polytypism, cloning, and sequencing. The lab is at the 

forefront of the development of high-throughput techniques for 

large-scale microbial ecology studies via denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography. The second major activity of 

the lab is in the nondestructive, in-situ determination of trace 

metal/metalloid speciation in complex matrices (for example, 

soils, mine wastes, aquifer sediments, plants, biota) using synchrotron-based X-ray absorption spectroscopic techniques. The 

lab also maintains field instruments and supplies for collection 

of environmental samples from historic mining sites.

Electron Beam Instruments 

(Building 11, contact Robert Oscarson)

A scanning electron microscope (SEM) and electron 

microprobe (electron probe microanalyzer, EPMA) provide 

Appendix 2
submicrometer imaging and micrometer-scale quantitative 

chemical analyses of natural and synthetic solid materials. 

The LEO 982 field-emission SEM is equipped with secondary electron, backscattered electron, and cathodoluminescence 

detectors for imaging objects such as microfossils and rock 

microtextures. The fully automated JEOL 8900 EPMA has 

5 wavelength-dispersive x-ray spectrometers and is used for 

quantitative analysis of minerals, volcanic glass, products of 

high-temperature experiments simulating rocks, and biological 

materials. Both instruments also are capable of energy-dispersive x-ray analysis (EDS) for rapid chemical characterization 

and identification of substances.

Ion Microprobe 

(housed at Stanford University, contact Charles Bacon)

In partnership with the Stanford University School of 

Earth Sciences, the USGS operates a large-format Sensitive 

High-Resolution Ion MicroProbe (SHRIMP) that provides 

a unique capability for the Western Region and the Bureau 

(http://shrimprg.stanford.edu). Ion microprobe analysis (secondary ion mass spectrometry, SIMS) is used for precise determination of isotope ratios and trace element concentrations in 

solid materials with high spatial resolution. The SHRIMP RG 

(Reverse Geometry) typically extracts atoms for analysis in its 

doubly focusing mass spectrometer from a volume 30 micrometers in diameter and a few micrometers deep. USGS scientists 

from all regions use the SHRIMP RG, most in geology, some 

in hydrology, and a few in biology. Recent research topics 

include U–Pb and U–Th (U series) geochronology; trace element concentrations in minerals, volcanic glass, and biogenic 

carbonates; and Sr isotope ratios in biogenic and hydrothermal 

calcium carbonate.

Paleontology Laboratory 

(Building 4, contacts Bonnie Murchy and Chuck Powell)

This laboratory provides for microfossil and macrofossil 

preparation and analysis for geologic framework, paleoclimate, and paleoenvironmental investigations.

Tephrochronology Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Andrei Sarna-Wojcicki)

This facility is a tephra (volcanic ash) preparation, characterization, and data archive lab for dating and correlating 

Quaternary and late Neogene deposits in the Western United 

States. Applications are to fault movements, volcanic sources 

and recurrence intervals, regional climate studies, and geologic 

mapping.

Isotope Tracers/Mass Spectrometer Laboratory 

(Building 15, contacts Carol Kendall and Steve Silva)

This laboratory contains four stable-isotope mass spectrometers capable of analyzing C, N, O, H, S, Cl, and Br isotopes in a wide variety of natural materials, including waters, 

organic matter, gases, and minerals. It also has peripheral 

equipment for automated preparation of samples for stableisotopic analysis, including gas chromatographs, combustion 

and pyrolysis elemental analyzers, purge and trap, head-space 

gas analyzer, CO2

-water and H2O-water equilibration devices, 

carbonate autoanalyzer, automated manifold for sealed tubes, 

and total inorganic/organic carbon instruments. In addition, 

there are four liquid scintillation counters for tritium and 35S, 

3H extraction systems (distillation and electrolysis).

Phytoplankton Dynamics Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Tara Schraga)

The phytoplankton dynamics laboratory is a facility to 

determine the chemical and biological aspects of water quality 

related to phytoplankton dynamics using a CHN analyzer to 

measure particulate organic carbon, fluorometer, oxygen analyzer, gas chromatograph (for CO2

), and microscopes.

Solute Transport Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Jim Kuwabara)

This facility measures water-quality parameters including dissolved organic compounds in high-ionic-strength 

solutions. In addition, the lab contains an atomic absorption 

spectrophotometer with a hydride generator for As and Se, a 

hanging mercury-drop electrode for sulfide measurement in 

high-ionic-strength solutions and a Winkler titrator for small 

(7 mL) samples.

Metals in Aquatic Environments Laboratory (Building 15, 

contacts Dan Cain, Jim Carter, and Jan Thompson)

This laboratory provides for the identifying and quantifying of freshwater and estuarine invertebrates using specialized 

microscopic and macroscopic techniques and measurement of 

trace metals in bed sediments as well as in aquatic organisms 

using ICP-OES (inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy). In addition, the lab contains the necessary equipment needed to analyze for trace metals including 

specialized hoods, a freeze drier, a bench-top centrifuge, and a 

muffle furnace.

Metal Partitioning Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Chris Fuller)

This laboratory provides analysis of soils and water for 

metals using ICP-OES (inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy). In addition, the lab contains an 

ultracentrifuge, a liquid scintillation counter, a gamma ray 

spectrometer, a KPA (kinetic phosphorescence analyzer) for 

low concentrations of uranium, a flow-injection analysis unit 

for routine colorimetric analysis (currently used for Br, but it 

can also be used for phosphate, silicate, nitrate, and nitrite), a 

glove box for anoxic work, and a CO2

 analyzer.

Microbial Biogeochemistry Laboratory (Building 15, contacts 

Larry Miller and Mark Marvin-DiPasquale)

This laboratory contains equipment used to determine 

biogeochemical transformations including gas chromatographs (with detectors including flame, thermal conductivity, 

40 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
photoionization, and mass spectrometer––to quantify volatile 

organic compounds), ion chromatographs (for organic and 

inorganic anions and nonmetallic cations), HPLCs (high-performance liquid chromatography; for semivolatiles), microscopes, and equipment to work with cultures under anaerobic 

conditions (Hungate system, glove boxes).

Fluvial Transport Processes Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Ron Avanzino)

This laboratory has equipment for analysis of water for 

dissolved constituents, including ion chromatograph (for 

anions) and gas chromatograph (for gases such as CH4, N2O, 

acetylene). In addition, this lab has a low-level nutrient analyzer (nitrogen and phosphorus).

Geochemical Processes Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Larry Schemel)

This laboratory provides analysis of aqueous samples 

using physical and chemical techniques for water-quality 

parameters. Equipment includes a salinometer to measure 

salinity, ion chromatograph to measure anions, atomic absorption spectrophotometer for major metals, and a double beam 

ultraviolet spectrophotometer.

Molecular Biology Common Use Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Ean Warren)

The molecular biology common use lab serves science 

projects intent on expanding research capabilities to include 

analysis of biomolecules in environmental samples. The lab 

contains instruments capable of amplifying DNA and RNA to 

detectable levels using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). 

The resulting products can be analyzed using restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) and DNA separation 

techniques including gel electrophoresis and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE). Further manipulations can be 

achieved through cloning DNA PCR products.

ICP Common Use Laboratory (Building 15, contact Tom Bullen)

This laboratory consists of an ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer), whose function is to measure 

concentrations of elements by measuring specific isotopes, 

and a thermal ionization mass spectrophotometer to measure 

elemental isotopes.

Geochemical Reactions Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Jori Schulz)

This laboratory provides analysis of mineral surfaces 

and water using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer, an autotitrator for alkalinity and pH, a gas chromatograph, a chamber 

for suboxic conditions, a BET (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) 

analyzer for specific surface area, a petrographic microscope 

to look at rock thin sections, a Franz magnetic separator to 

isolate different mineral fractions, a muffle furnace, and a 

bench-top centrifuge.

Soils Laboratory (Building 15, contact Kim Perkins)

The soils laboratory provides determination of physical characteristics of soils using a particle size distribution 

analyzer, centrifuges to measure water flow through soils, and 

a SPOC (submersible pressure outflow cell) to measure water 

(not electrical) conductivity.

Environmental-Organic-Inorganic Geochemistry Complex 

(Building 15, contact Robert Rosenbauer)

This laboratory contains a wide array of analytical 

capabilities, including the following: high sensitivity gas 

chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) for determining 

low levels of environmental contaminants and biomarkers in 

sediments and oils; an older gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer for routine determinations of biomarkers; a variety 

of gas chromatographs for determining hydrocarbons and permanent gases in water, sediment, and environmental samples; 

microwave extraction system for the simultaneous extraction 

of organics from multiple sediment samples; Zymark solvent 

evaporation system that allows simultaneous nitrogen blowdown of multiple samples; experimental capability to react 

rocks and fluids, in both fixed and flexible inert cells, over a 

wide range of geologic conditions and monitor these reactions 

with time; alpha spectrometers for dating various geologic 

materials using the U-decay scheme; atomic absorption 

spectrometer for the determination of dissolved components in 

fluids; and hydrogen, air, and nitrogen generators for the GC/

MS and evaporators to eliminate the need for these as bottled 

gasses. Purchase is anticipated of a CHNS analyzer for the 

determination of total carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur 

in environmental samples.

Micropaleontology Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Mary McGann)

This laboratory provides for the subsampling, processing, and data archiving of sediment cores and grabs obtained 

by the Coastal and Marine Geology program in order to 

gain information on the paleoecology and biogeography of 

sedimentary deposits for mapping historic and paleoenvironments, for reconstructing past climates, for determining 

sedimentation rates, and for dating sediments using detailed 

biostratigraphy and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 

C-14 chronostratigraphy. Laboratory processing techniques 

include vital staining for live studies, wet sieving, settling, 

and nontoxic floatation (sodium polytungstate). In addition, 

the lab has the capability to study ostracods, nannofossils, 

radiolarians, pollen, and diatoms.

Sediment Laboratory (Building 15, contact Michael Torresan)

The sediment laboratory includes a specialized, leadlined room for X-ray imaging of long (1.5 m) core section, 

a darkroom for processing X-ray radiographs of marine 

sediment, facilities to split, describe, photograph, and 

subsample sediment cores, and facilities for coarse-fraction sediment analysis using USGS-built rapid sediment 

Appendix 2  41
analyzers (RSA's). Also available is equipment for analysis 

of fine-fraction sediment texture, carbon/carbonate content, 

heavy mineral separation, insoluble residues, and preparation 

of samples for use in other laboratories (for example, marine 

mineralogy). Results are useful in defining sedimentary environments, biohabitats, and establishing sediment transport 

models. Specific items of equipment include: Coulometrics 

coulometer (carbon/carbonate analysis), state-of-the-art digital Faxitron/MFI X-ray imaging system for 8-cm-diameter 

cores up to 1.5 m in length, three 2-m-long settling tubes for 

sand-fraction textural analysis, and a SediGraph (for finegrained, silt-clay sediment size analysis).

Particle Size Analysis Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Michael Torresan)

Three laboratories house analytical equipment used 

to conduct particle-size analysis based on both sieve and 

sedimentation analysis. The systems used in these laboratories range from classical techniques employing sieves 

and pipettes to modern techniques using automated systems 

that employ sedimentation analysis as it applies to particles 

settling in columns of water or to light or X-ray attenuation through a dispersed sediment suspension. A separate 

room is dedicated to determining the size distribution of 

mud. Another room houses settling tubes for the analysis of 

sand-size particles. The Sediment Laboratory (previously 

described) houses sieves and a rotap machine used to analyze gravel- and sand-size distributions. Sediment analysis 

requires that samples be pretreated and disaggregated to 

remove flocculating agents, cements, organic matter, and 

soluble materials in order to obtain an accurate measurement 

of the grain-size distribution. Sample preparation is conducted in the Sediment Laboratory.

Sediment Dynamic Laboratory (Building 15, contact Homa Lee)

This laboratory specializes in the instrumented study of 

sediment transport. Functions include calibration tests and 

experiments on optical sensors used in bottom tripods or 

moored instrument arrays, experiments on the fall velocities 

of particles, internal wave and turbulence experiments using 

flume tanks, and specialized particle analyses. Results are 

useful for sediment transport studies (for example, pollutant 

dispersal studies). Specialized equipment includes a Coulter 

counter for specialized fine-fraction particle analysis and a 

calibration tank for sensors used in field measurements of 

suspended sediments.

Geotechnical Laboratory (Building 15, contact Robert Kayen)

This laboratory specializes in geotechnical studies of 

marine, estuarine, lacustrine, and terrestrial sediment. Capabilities include fully automated computer-controlled testing 

of consolidation, permeability, and shear-strength properties, 

as well as nondestructive analysis of whole-core sediment 

sections using a whole-core logging system. Results are 

extremely useful in submarine and earthquake failure analysis. The facility includes state-of-the-art computer-controlled 

geotechnical testing equipment and GEOTEK multi-sensor 

logging system (MSL), which nondestructively provides data 

on P-wave velocity, bulk density, and magnetic susceptibility 

in 1-cm increments.

Sea-floor Mapping Laboratory 

(Building 15, contact Peter Dartnell)

This laboratory can process, display, and generate maps 

from high-resolution multibeam data. It also has the capability to archive data on CD-ROM. The laboratory uses University of New Brunswick's Ocean Mapping Group software 

to process multibeam data and Interactive Visual Systems 

software to interactively fly through color and (or) blackand-white georeferenced sea-floor images (sidescan and 

(or) bathymetry). This software can create oblique views, 

combine backscatter and bathymetry into a single image, and 

quantitatively analyze the images. In addition, georeferenced 

data of different resolution can be combined into a single or 

multiple images, and multiband satellite data, USGS DEMs, 

or Seasat altimetry can be combined with our own multibeam 

data for overviews of any area of interest. Procedures developed in-house can generate hard-copy color and (or) blackand-white maps of the sea floor. All datasets are routinely 

made available as on-line reports.

Infrared Mineral Analyzer (portable, contact David John)

This facility is a portable spectrometer capable of determining the mineralogy of rocks containing hydrous phases 

(clays, micas, amphiboles), carbonate minerals, and ammonium-bearing minerals in the field.

42 USGS Science in Menlo Park—A Science Strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015
Brocher and others—USGS Science in Menlo Park—Circular 1290