U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1444

Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey 

Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Hazards Society

USGS

risk research 

and

applications
Cover:

Images, clockwise from top left:

A wildfire burns vegetation. 

An earthquake caused road and structural damage to houses.

Flooded road in Louisiana. Photograph by James Fountain, U.S. Geological Survey, August 15, 2016.

A breach in the coastline of Rodanthe, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Irene in 2011. 

Photograph by Karen Morgan, U.S. Geological Survey, August 29, 2011.

North Fork Stillaguamish River and SR530 Landslide near Oso, Washington; flow is from right to left. 

Photograph by Scott W. Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey, January 29, 2015.

Cracks in sediment during a drought.
Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey 

Plan for Risk Research and Applications

By Kristin A. Ludwig, David W. Ramsey, Nathan J. Wood, Alice B. Pennaz, Jonathan W. Godt, 

Nathaniel G. Plant, Nicolas Luco, Todd A. Koenig, Kenneth W. Hudnut, Donyelle K. Davis, and 

Patricia R. Bright

Circular 1444

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Aerial photograph of Hurricane Sandy storm damage at Mantoloking, 

New Jersey coastline. Photograph by Greg Thompson, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, November 2, 2012.
U.S. Department of the Interior

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Ludwig, K.A., Ramsey, D.W., Wood, N.J., Pennaz, A.B., Godt, J.W., Plant, N.G., Luco, N., Koenig, T.A., Hudnut, K.W., 

Davis, D.K., and Bright, P.R., 2018, Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and 

applications: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1444, 57 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1444. 

ISSN 2330-5703 (online) 
iii

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

A Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Risk Research and Applications............................................1

Plan Goals ..............................................................................................................................................2

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Overview and Motivation.....................................................................................................................2

USGS Hazards Mission........................................................................................................................4

About This Plan .....................................................................................................................................5

Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications .................................................................6

Defining the Concept of Risk...............................................................................................................6

External Users of USGS Risk Research and Applications .............................................................7

Range of USGS Risk Research and Applications............................................................................8

Core Competencies for USGS Risk Research and Applications.................................................10

Section 2. Building Institutional Capacity—Advancing and Creating Partnerships .............................17

Section 3. Building Institutional Capacity—Project Funding ...............................................................20

Appropriated Funds............................................................................................................................20

Shared Funds.......................................................................................................................................21

Reimbursable Funds...........................................................................................................................24

Supplemental Funds...........................................................................................................................25

Section 4. Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities..............................27

Section 5. Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information

Technology Capabilities ................................................................................................................32

Digital Tools and Applications for Risk Reduction.........................................................................32

Challenges of Creating and Delivering Digital Risk Products and Assessments.....................35

Section 6. Measurable Milestones—the Path to Implementation .....................................................40

The Important and Growing Role of USGS .....................................................................................40

Plan Recommendations.....................................................................................................................40

Section 7. Potential Projects for Advancing Risk Research and Applications .................................44

Hazards in My Backyard....................................................................................................................44

Landslide Risk Assessment for the Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure .............................44

Multi-Hazard PAGER-Type Alerts.....................................................................................................44

Risk Assessments in Public Lands...................................................................................................44

National Hazard Exposure Assessment..........................................................................................45

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................45

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................45

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................46

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................51

Appendix 1. Executive Summary from the 2015 “Translating USGS Science to Risk

Products” Workshop .....................................................................................................................52

Appendix 2. Risk Science in USGS Science Strategies and Planning Documents ..........................53

Appendix 3. Examples of USGS Efforts in Risk Research and Applications ......................................56
iv

Table

1. Summary of recommendations ................................................................................................41

Case Studies

Case Study—Partner Engagement and Outreach at the Cascades Volcano Observatory.............11

Case Study—ShakeOut, USGS Science, and the City of Los Angeles ...............................................12

Case Study—Environmental Health Risks after 9/11.............................................................................13

Case Study—The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal ....................................................................14

Case Study—USGS PAGER—Fast, Online, Earthquake Risk Information .........................................15

Case Study—Post-Wildfire Debris-Flow Hazards ................................................................................16

Case Study—Workshops with External Partners ..................................................................................19

Case Study—USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project ................................20

Case Study—SAFRR Cadre of Relevant Experts (CORE) ......................................................................21

Case Study—Rockfall Hazard and Risk Assessment for Yosemite Valley ........................................22

Case Study—The Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP)......................................................23

Case Study—Tracking Rising Waters with the Flood Inundation Mapper ........................................24

Case Study—Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Funding ........................................................................25

Case Study—Award-Winning Risk Communication..............................................................................31

Case Study—HERA—A Web Application for Visualizing Community Exposure to Natural

Hazards .............................................................................................................................................33

Case Study—Hurricane Matthew Response..........................................................................................34

Case Study—USGS Evacuation Modeling to Help Save Lives from Future Tsunamis.....................36

Case Study—Mitigating Risk Using the U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application....................39

Conversion Factors

International System of Units to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 0.0002642 million gallons (Mgal) 

cubic meter (m3) 0.0008107 acre-foot (acre-ft) 

Flow rate

meter per second (m/s) 3.281 foot per second (ft/s) 
v

Abbreviations

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response

3DEP 3D Elevation Program

CDI Community for Data Integration

CVO Cascades Volcano Observatory

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EDGE Equipment Development Grade Evaluation

FEV Flood Event Viewer

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIM Flood Inundation Mapping Program 

GIS Geographic Information System

HERA Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics

MHDP Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

NHMA Natural Hazards Mission Area

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NSHM National Seismic Hazard Maps

NSHMP National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project

NWIS National Water Information System

OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

ORCID Open Researcher and Contributor ID

PAGER Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response

RGE Research Grade Evaluation

SAFRR Science Application for Risk Reduction

SAFRR CORE SAFRR Cadre of Relevant Experts

SSP Science Strategy Plan

STAR Special Thanks for Achieving Results Award

IT Information Technology

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VASW Volcanism in the American Southwest

VDAP Volcano Disaster Assistance Program

WTC World Trade Center

Executive Summary 1

Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey 

Plan for Risk Research and Applications

By Kristin A. Ludwig, David W. Ramsey, Nathan J. Wood, Alice B. Pennaz, Jonathan W. Godt, 

Nathaniel G. Plant, Nicolas Luco, Todd A. Koenig, Kenneth W. Hudnut, Donyelle K. Davis, and 

Patricia R. Bright

Executive Summary

Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, 

volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, 

wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak 

havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural 

resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can 

claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes 

and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic 

activity and threats to national security. They also can have 

adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects 

that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with 

global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, 

and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts.

Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, 

reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets 

caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, 

including policy makers, community members, emergency 

managers, resource managers, utility operators, business 

owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, usercentric information to support decisions for planning a resilient 

future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated 

events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways.

Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of 

environmental observations; hazards science; and research 

on communications, social stressors, and human behavior 

to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible 

by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, 

scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match 

community needs with actionable insights, research, 

products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve 

information discovery and delivery.

A Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Risk 

Research and Applications

The confluence of the new demand on the scientific 

community for risk research and applications, growing 

public expectations, and technological advances creates 

an opportunity for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to 

contribute to empowering the Nation to prepare for and cope 

with hazards using scientific data and research. In recognition 

of this opportunity, the USGS developed this Plan for building 

internal capacity to advance its development and delivery of 

actionable information for risk reduction. Although this Plan 

primarily is intended for USGS scientific staff, managers, 

and leadership, it also identifies new opportunities for 

collaboration with external partners pursuing a broad range of 

risk reduction efforts.

USGS risk research and applications include hazard 

assessments, operational forecasts and warnings, vulnerability 

assessments, risk assessments, risk communication, decisionsupport systems, and post-event assessments. The objective 

of USGS risk research and applications is to serve as the 

analytical foundation upon which decision makers can 

integrate their information, assets, abilities, and priorities to 

make science-based decisions.

Developing USGS risk products is an iterative process 

that relies on three USGS core competencies—(1) partner 

engagement and outreach, (2) research, and (3) tool 

and product development. Each of these elements uses 

contributions from USGS physical and social scientists, 

analysts, engineers, programmers, communications and public 

affairs specialists, and managers. Notably, collaboration 

with partners from the beginning of research and product 

development through to message delivery and continuing 

during product evaluation is necessary to provide partners 

with information that can support actionable decisions for 

risk reduction. 
2 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Plan Goals

This Plan aims to initiate and maintain a community 

of practice focused on risk research and applications to 

improve internal communication, collaboration, and resource 

sharing across the USGS. This community of practice would 

allow USGS scientists and staff involved in risk research 

and applications from across the Bureau (spanning mission 

areas, programs, and science centers) to overcome existing 

geographic and disciplinary barriers to collaboration. 

Importantly, this Plan provides specific recommendations 

for addressing mechanisms to ensure that risk research and 

applications are supported, prioritized, and incorporated in 

USGS work. These recommendations range from identifying 

new pathways for connecting and coordinating expertise and 

resources across the Bureau to articulating new opportunities 

for training, mentoring, and regularly convening scientists and 

stakeholders for product development. The recommendations 

also draw attention to the need for improved capacity and 

capabilities in areas including technical expertise, product 

delivery, and expanding information technology capacity.

Throughout this Plan, case studies highlight how USGS 

risk research and applications show meaningful ways to 

connect with stakeholders, to leverage existing investments, to 

overcome challenges, and to capitalize on new opportunities. 

A collection of new project ideas envisions how the goals of 

this Plan could be embodied in future investments, including 

tools to assess multiple hazards and exposure at neighborhood, 

regional, and national scales; risk assessment on public lands; 

and products to improve situational awareness following 

events with multiple cascading consequences.

This Plan builds on priorities outlined in the U.S. 

Geological Survey Natural Hazards Science Strategy—

Promoting the Safety, Security, and Economic Well-Being of 

the Nation (Holmes and others, 2013), with a specific focus on 

risk, where hazards and societal values intersect. The goal of 

this work is not for USGS scientists and staff working in risk 

research and applications to make decisions for their partners. 

USGS scientists and staff instead would serve as listeners, 

translators, facilitators, and scientific guides to provide the 

objective, unbiased scientific knowledge needed to address the 

societal consequences of hazards within a dynamic world.

Introduction

Overview and Motivation

The number of disasters and related losses resulting 

from extreme natural events continue to show an increasing 

trend (Munich RE, 2016; fig. 1). New challenges arising from 

a growing global population, increasing urbanization, and 

climate change are exacerbating hazard-related losses. At the 

same time, loss of biodiversity, changes in natural resources, 

and disruptive events such as geohazards, emerging diseases, 

and anthropogenic disasters create a high-risk environment. 

Together, these forces threaten lives, property, economic 

vitality, and cultural and natural resources. Improving the 

resilience of our built and natural environment systems 

relies on integrating multiple sources of information—

including scientific analyses, environmental conditions, and 

socioeconomic data—to inform decision making in the nearand long-term.

Addressing these challenges requires new approaches 

to conducting and applying scientific research in hazards—

dangerous processes or phenomena that may cause damage—to 

enhance the reduction of risk—the potential for societally 

relevant losses caused by hazards (terms in bold underline 

are defined in section, “Glossary”). Maximizing the use of 

environmental data and our understanding of earth processes 

to reduce risk depends on delivering risk information in forms 

that are accessible and easily understood by decision makers 

and the public alike. This requires strong collaboration between 

scientists, community members, business owners, emergency 

managers, and policy makers, where ongoing dialogues 

influence the assessment of community needs and, in turn, the 

communication of actionable insights to improve situational 

awareness and mitigate the adverse consequences of hazards. 

Emphasis on the co-creation of knowledge and products 

would enable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists to 

incorporate user needs in hazard and risk assessments and to 

develop risk reduction tools, and would improve the societal 

value of scientific research. These opportunities are bolstered by 

advances in technology, such as near-real time data collection, 

collaborative information sharing, and hazard notifications to be 

incorporated into risk models and decision making.

The confluence of new demands on the scientific 

community, growing public expectations, and technological 

innovations create an exciting opportunity for USGS scientists 

to contribute to empowering the Nation to prepare for and cope 

with natural hazards. In response to this opportunity, the USGS 

has developed this Plan for advancing its development and 

delivery of actionable information to improve risk reduction.
Introduction 3

tac17-1174_fig 01

1 ,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

Number of loss events 1980–2015

Overall and insured losses 1980 to 2015 (in US$ bn)

350

400

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Hydrological events:

Flood, mass movement

Climatological events:

Extreme temperatures, 

 drought, wildfire

Meteorological events:

 Tropical storm, extratropical storm,

 convective storm, local storm

Geophysical events:

Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activity

EXPLANATION

Overall losses*

(2015 values)

Of which insured losses*

(2015 values)

Trend overall losses

Trend insured losses

Values adjusted for inflation using the

Consumer price index (CPI) of each

country and taking into account

fluctuations in exchange rates

EXPLANATION

Losses

Figure 1. World natural catastrophes and losses, 1980–2015. (Source: Munich RE, 2016).
4 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

USGS Hazards Mission

The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable 

scientific information to describe and to understand the Earth; 

to reduce loss of life and property from natural disasters; to 

manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and 

to enhance and protect our quality of life. The natural hazards 

mission of the USGS is to develop and apply science to help 

protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of 

the Nation.

Specifically, the USGS is responsible for providing 

assessments and warnings for multiple types of hazards 

nationwide. USGS seismic networks are used for issuing public 

earthquake alerts and support the National Oceanographic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tsunami warnings. 

USGS volcano monitoring provides timely warnings 

of volcanic activity and informs the Federal Aviation 

Administration and U.S. Air Force of dangerous volcanic ash 

clouds. USGS streamgages and storm surge sensors support 

NOAA flood and severe weather (including hurricane) 

warnings. Along and offshore of the Nation’s coasts, USGS 

coastal and marine research supports assessments of earthquake 

and tsunami hazards, coastal impacts from major storms, and 

sea level rise. USGS landslide hazard assessments support 

response to landslide emergencies and public information 

products. USGS geomagnetic observatories inform NOAA and 

the U.S. Air Force 557th Weather Wing of geomagnetic storm 

forecasts. Additionally, the USGS plays a key role in tracking 

chemical and biological threats, including acting as the eyes 

and ears for the Nation in monitoring diseases transmitted from 

animals to humans. USGS geospatial information coordination, 

collection, and archiving support response operations for 

flooding, wildfires, and many other disasters. USGS-developed 

vulnerability assessments, scenarios, and decision-support 

tools are used to improve preparedness, prevention, mitigation, 

response, and recovery on public and private lands across 

the Nation. On an international scale, the USGS supports 

capacity building, sharing technical expertise, and monitoring 

of hazards overseas, often in partnership with the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID) Office of U.S. Foreign 

Disaster Assistance (OFDA).

The USGS hazards mission is championed by the Natural 

Hazards Mission Area (NHMA), which is responsible for 

long-term planning across the full USGS hazards portfolio, 

including activities supported by programs in all USGS 

mission areas (Holmes and others, 2013). These activities are 

undertaken by science centers across the country and through 

collaborations with scientists, engineers, emergency managers, 

and planners from the public and private sectors at Federal, 

State, and local levels. 

Long-term planning for the USGS hazards mission 

is guided by the U.S. Geological Survey Natural Hazards 

Science Strategy—Promoting the Safety, Security, and 

Economic Well-Being of the Nation (Holmes and others, 

2013; hereinafter referred to as the “Hazards Science 

Strategy”), which identifies risk as “an integral part of hazards 

science.” One outcome of the Hazards Science Strategy 

describes the USGS commitment to ensure that its hazards 

information is incorporated into vulnerability and risk 

analyses, and that it is delivered in forms that can be used by 

decision makers to improve situational awareness and mitigate 

adverse consequences. The following excerpt from the 

Hazards Science Strategy identifies this issue:

 “... A particular challenge was how to address the 

need for information about vulnerability and risk, 

not just hazard. Hazard is the physical process that is 

independent of the impacts on humans. Vulnerability 

studies draw on physical science, engineering, and 

social and behavioral sciences to determine what 

aspects of human society are vulnerable to damaging 

processes. Risk assessment combines the hazard 

with vulnerability to evaluate the probability of 

losses. Thus, risk assessment requires the physical 

sciences that are a core hazard mission strength 

to be combined with engineering, and social and 

behavioral sciences that reside in different parts of 

the USGS, or are completely external. A message 

from many stakeholders was for the USGS to take 

a larger role in ensuring that hazards information 

results in accurate risk assessments that have 

broader use in the community. Recognizing that 

many aspects of vulnerability and risk analysis can 

be done by others or in partnership with others, 

this report treats risk as an integral part of hazards 

science and includes the research and development 

of risk assessments as one of the many types of 

assessment that are needed.” (Holmes and others, 

2013, p. 9)

Recognizing that the expertise required to fully address 

risk would not reside solely within USGS science centers 

funded by programs under the NHMA, the Hazards Science 

Strategy leaves open whether and how this work is conducted 

by these centers, or through collaborations with other mission 

areas, centers, and external public and private partners better 

equipped or positioned to complete such assessments. The 

appropriate mechanisms for conducting relevant fundamental 

research and delivering risk information likely would vary 

over time, across hazards, at various scales, and as multiple 

stakeholders are engaged. However, every effort requires the 
Introduction 5

USGS to ensure that the translation of its science into products 

that fulfill the needs of decision makers and that the best 

available science is used. This Plan was developed to advance 

this element of the Hazards Science Strategy.

The USGS has been successful in developing products 

used for a broad range of risk reduction measures, ranging 

from humanitarian response after earthquakes to community 

planning in tsunami-hazard zones. USGS scientists and 

their products play increasingly important roles in multiple 

dimensions of risk research and applications as hazards persist 

and as human populations expand into hazard-prone areas 

(for example, expansion of the wildland-urban interface), 

or in some cases, as new hazards emerge (for example, 

induced seismicity). These activities include researching and 

observing natural processes and human land use to advance 

our fundamental understanding of hazards and their cascading 

consequences, generating warnings to provide critical 

situational awareness, developing scientific assessments of the 

hazards and potential losses, and communicating the results 

in meaningful and timely ways to different audiences in 

accessible and easily understood formats. 

Although the USGS excels in its work on hazards and 

has created various useful risk products, the Bureau must 

continue to seek out new opportunities to further explore the 

development and application of its research to reduce risk and 

to leverage the already-successful activities it pursues in this 

arena. These products directly contribute to disaster mitigation 

and response efforts and have proven critical for implementing 

appropriate recovery measures. As a result of these efforts, 

stakeholders are requesting additional support and products, 

which motivates the USGS to work in new areas such as 

community resilience.

About This Plan

Charge and Development Process

In November 2015, the USGS “Translating USGS 

Science to Risk Products Workshop” (appendix 1) convened 

38 USGS scientists and managers to identify key elements of 

and priorities for translating USGS science into effective risk 

products and to develop a draft framework for a natural hazards 

risk reduction implementation plan. Following the workshop, a 

writing team composed of USGS hazard and risk scientists and 

managers was gathered to address the following charge:

Develop an actionable plan to ensure that USGS 

hazards information is delivered and incorporated 

into risk assessments and other products that 

can be used by decision makers to reduce loss. 

The plan should address observations from the 

November 2015 “Translating USGS Science to 

Risk Products” workshop and should consider 

using the components of the Hazards Science 

Strategy (monitoring, science research/expertise, 

assessments, situational awareness, communication) 

as a guide for addressing the different components 

of risk translation. The plan should include a 

section highlighting case studies; suggestions for 

mechanisms and organizational structures to ensure 

that risk translation is supported, prioritized, and 

incorporated in USGS work; and recommendations 

for measureable milestones. The plan should define 

the “space” of risk translation and the role of the 

USGS in this arena.

The writing team combined its expertise with insights 

collected from the 2015 workshop, peer reviews provided 

by USGS and external partner colleagues, and published 

documents including journal articles and the Science Strategy 

Plans (SSPs) from all USGS mission areas. 

Intended Audience and Purpose

This Plan primarily is intended for internal stakeholders, 

including USGS scientists, staff, managers, and leadership. 

Internally, this Plan is intended to:

• Provide resources, guidance, and inspiration for 

scientists, managers, and staff interested in pursuing 

risk research, applications, and product development at 

the intersection of hazards and society;

• Demonstrate, using case studies, meaningful ways 

to connect with stakeholders, leverage existing 

investments, and capitalize on new opportunities when 

conducting risk research and applications;

• Lay a foundation for a community of practice in risk 

research and applications;

• Identify how existing projects, tools, products, 

technologies, programs, and collaborations can be 

used to advance USGS success in risk research and 

applications;

• Describe USGS needs (that is, expertise and 

technological resources) and chart a course forward to 

conduct work in risk research and applications; and, 

• Complement USGS SSPs (appendix 2) as well as 

program-specific plans for implementing the Hazards 

Science Strategy.
6 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

For external stakeholders, including scientists, planners, 

emergency managers, and decision makers at Federal, 

State, and local agencies, academia, and community and 

non-governmental organizations, this Plan highlights 

USGS activities, assets, and capabilities that support risk 

reduction, describes areas where the USGS may benefit 

from partnerships in conducting future risk research and 

applications, and identifies new opportunities for collaboration 

in risk research and applications.

Organization

This Plan defines risk and the role of USGS in risk research 

and applications. It identifies the Bureau’s core competencies 

in this arena and includes background on and specific 

recommendations for building institutional capacity for creating 

sustained partnerships, supporting professional staff, and 

improving product delivery. Case studies are used throughout 

the Plan to showcase existing products and highlight lessons 

learned in risk research and applications to date; these case 

studies are a selection of activities from across USGS programs 

and do not represent an exhaustive compilation of USGS work 

in risk research and applications. This Plan concludes with ideas 

for projects that would build on existing USGS expertise while 

advancing specific elements identified in this Plan and meeting 

long-standing stakeholder needs.

Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk 

Research and Applications

Defining the Concept of Risk

Risk is a part of everyday life, given the dynamic and often 

unpredictable nature of the Earth and the complexity of human 

endeavors (fig. 2). Decisions are constantly being made by 

individuals and organizations under conditions of uncertainty 

that require weighing benefits against potential negative 

consequences. These decisions range from individual and 

inconsequential (such as whether or not to bring an umbrella on 

a cloudy day) to more complex with far-reaching implications 

for many (such as deciding on design standards or where to 

locate critical infrastructure).

Risk is perceived in many ways by individuals and 

societies based on experience, culture, and other factors. 

Likewise, risk is defined in many ways by various fields of 

research and practice depending on emphasis, needs, and 

objectives. Risk often is used to describe a hazard, a probability 

of occurrence of an event or adverse outcome, the probability 

of failure of a specific asset, or the larger societal impacts if an 

adverse event or outcome occurs, or as a cost-benefit analysis of 

a proposed course of action. 

Hazards Society

USGS

risk research 

and

applications

Figure 2. Intersection of multiple hazards and coupled humannatural systems that create risk. Through collaboration across the 

Bureau and with external partners, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

risk research and applications improve our understanding of risk 

and support risk reduction decisions.

The Hazards Science Strategy describes risk as the 

likelihood of a hazard causing losses based on the probability 

of the hazard occurring and the value of assets in harm’s way. 

Although useful in certain contexts (for example, insurance 

decisions), this probability-based construct of risk can be 

limiting in other situations. For example, a probabilistic 

perspective of risk is less useful in situations where probabilities 

of a hazardous event occurring, of an asset being damaged, 

or of a larger system failing are unknown or unknowable. A 

probabilistic perspective may not be useful or appropriate for 

certain risk reduction strategies, such as raising awareness of 

tsunami threats in a community, avoiding exposure to potential 

contaminated floodwaters, evacuation training, or preparedness 

and response efforts. Quantification of asset value in societally 

relevant or acceptable ways, such as the value of human lives 

and cultural and environmental resources, also often is difficult. 

With this context in mind, risk is defined in this Plan as 

the potential for the full or partial loss of something of societal 

value due to current or proposed courses of action under 

conditions of uncertainty regarding real-time and future adverse 

events. The probability-based perspective of risk remains one 

interpretation, but is not the only approach. Instead, risk is more 

broadly characterized as the confluence of a hazard with societal 

assets or systems exposed to that hazard (fig. 2). In this frame, 

the vulnerabilities of the assets or systems are determined by 

their unique characteristics (for example, load and structural 

elements of a utility) and the societal context and perceptions 

of potential consequences over different timescales. Expected 

losses and the extent of uncertainty in risk assessments can be 

described quantitatively or qualitatively, based on the purpose of 

the analyses, and are interpreted within unique societal contexts. 

Relevant terms for characterizing and communicating risk are in 

section, “Glossary.”
Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications 7

External Users of USGS Risk Research 

and Applications

All individuals, businesses, organizations, and agencies 

regularly make risk-related decisions. In order to make 

effective decisions, they require objective information on 

potential adverse events, the likelihood of their occurrence, 

and for societal consequences of proposed actions, including 

the status quo. Users of risk information range from the 

individual deciding where to live or work to nations and 

international groups developing policies and competencies 

to efficiently manage system-level threats. The extent of use 

varies by user and product—some users may engage for eventonly information, whereas other users may engage over longlasting partnerships of sharing data and products. Therefore, 

a diverse audience for USGS risk research and applications 

exists, where each stakeholder would have different needs for 

information. An illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of users of 

USGS risk research and applications is shown in figure 3. In 

some cases, these decisions pertain to multiple and sometimes 

competing objectives.

Where to live

Potential mitigation

Family preparedness

Insurance potential 

Where to visit

How to seek safety

How to leave area

Where to locate 

Impacts to suppliers, shipping

 routes and customers

Business continuity plans

Where to invest

Strategic planning

Portfolio development

Re-insurance needs

Homeowners Recreationists

and tourists Business owners

Finance and Insurance Emergency managers

and public safety officials

Land and resource

managers

Public works and 

utilities managers

Social service providers Elected officials

and policymakers Nonprofit organizations

Real estate developers

and construction

National security Park interpretative staff

Media

Agriculture, forestry, 

and mining Shipping agents

Where to build

Building codes

Insurance potential

Outreach and preparedness 

Training exercises

Mitigation plans

Situational awareness

Mitigation plans

Restoration plans

Adaptation plans

Strategic planning

Capital-improvement plans

Mitigation plans

Situational awareness

Continuity plans

Training exercises

Response plans

Recovery plans

Background knowledge

Situational awareness

Public translation

Public outreach

Training exercises

Mitigation planning

Response plans

Strategic planning

Public outreach

Threats to furthering their 

 advocacy or social cause

Strategic planning/guidance

Prioritization of resources

Capital-improvement planning

Training exercises

Mitigation planning

Strategic planning

Situational awareness

Long-term planning

Situational awareness

Response planning

Post-event continuity plans

Users of USGS risk research and applications

Where to locate 

How to work on landscape

Continuity plans

State agencies

Situational awareness 

Response plans

Training exercises

Renters

Insurance policies 

Emergency supplies

Community networks

Schools

Evacuation plans 

Building safety

Emergency shelters

Federal agencies

Tool development

Expertise sharing

Warnings

Situational awareness

Figure 3. Typical users (including their needs) that potentially benefit from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) risk research 

and applications. Uses and applications vary at different scales of home, community, county, State, and the Nation. Colors 

are used to differentiate user groups.
8 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

The USGS supports a wide range of stakeholders with 

science and applications that benefit risk-management and 

risk reduction efforts. Some USGS partners seek information 

to communicate risks to their constituents; others seek 

information to reduce unacceptable risks through structural 

and non-structural mitigation; and still others seek to 

manage risks through targeted education, preparedness 

planning, or disaster financing. The objective of USGS risk 

research and applications is to serve as a vital analytical 

foundation upon which decision makers can integrate 

their information, assets, abilities, and priorities to make 

more informed, science-based decisions. USGS scientists 

and staff working in risk research and applications do not 

make decisions for our partners, but instead serve as listeners, 

translators, facilitators, educators, and scientific guides that

help frame societal decisions in a dynamic world.

Range of USGS Risk Research and Applications

The USGS delivers a range of risk research and 

applications, from peer-reviewed publications to actionable 

hazard assessments and decision-support systems (fig. 4). 

These activities and products are connected by the need 

to directly support decision makers in their efforts to 

better understand societal risk from hazards and to have 

the necessary information to make science-based, risk 

reduction decisions.

Providing this support is a transformative process 

of connecting USGS fundamental science to society and 

integrating multiple fields of knowledge and practice to create 

products that serve policy makers, emergency managers, and 

the public, as well as USGS scientific staff, managers, and 

leadership. This process manifests itself in the following ways 

within the USGS (fig. 4), with numerous examples of existing 

efforts from USGS and its partners (appendix 3): 

Hazard assessments include efforts to characterize and 

delineate areas and (or) times where adverse physical events 

may occur and the specific characteristics of those events. 

Hazard assessments support risk reduction efforts because 

of their use for actionable outreach, preparedness efforts, 

planning, and other activities. Important hazard attributes 

for decision makers include spatial extent, speed of onset, 

duration, magnitude, the potential for pre-event warnings, and 

post-event recovery considerations.

Examples: A map of all possible lahar-hazard zones on a 

single volcano; maps showing potential groundshaking 

during earthquakes; a tsunami-hazard map that shows 

maximum inundation from several earthquake sources 

around an ocean basin; and estimated potential coastal 

inundation based on an observed hurricane storm track.

Forecasts and warnings are similar to hazard assessments, 

but are integrated with relevant initial or boundary conditions 

and operationally focused visualizations, numerical modeling, 

rapid data processing, and communications technology 

for prompt dissemination and use by external partners for 

situational awareness and short-term decision making. 

Examples: USGS/National Weather Service-issued post-fire 

debris flow warnings; forecasts of storm-induced erosion, 

overwash, and inundation; and earthquake forecasts and 

fault afterslip forecasts.

Vulnerability assessments are efforts to characterize the 

exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of individuals 

or systems to adverse events, either to a broad range of 

events or a specific event. Vulnerability assessments focus 

not only on what is threatened by an adverse event, but also 

on why and how individuals or systems may be affected, and 

in some cases describe the societal forces that contribute to 

these vulnerabilities. Vulnerability assessments are useful 

for supporting general outreach and equity promotion; and 

planning and training for preparedness, prevention, mitigation, 

response, and recovery efforts.

Examples—Exposure: The presence of populations and 

societal assets in hazard zones related to earthquakes (for 

example, Wood and others, 2014; Jaiswal and others, 2015; 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2017); tsunamis 

(Jones and others, 2016); volcanic lahars (for example, 

Diefenbach and others, 2015); flooding related to sea level 

rise and storm surge (for example, USGS Hazard Exposure 

Reporting and Analytics [HERA]; Frazier and others, 2010; 

Abdollahian and others, 2016), and projected changes 

in population exposure to tsunami hazards (for example, 

Sleeter and others, 2017).

Examples—Sensitivity: Demographic differences of 

residents in tsunami hazard zones that may influence the 

degree to which individuals or groups are disproportionally 

affected by an extreme event (for example, Wood and 

others, 2010). 

Examples—Adaptive Capacity: Pedestrian evacuation 

potential from Cascadia tsunami hazards (for example, 

Wood and others, 2015); Vehicular evacuations from distant 

tsunami hazards (for example, Henry and others, 2017); 

and Construction of vertical evacuation areas.

Risk assessments summarize estimated impacts and losses 

from a specific event or scenario, or from all potential events.

Risk assessments synthesize existing knowledge of hazards and 

vulnerable systems and (or) communities for a given location 

or time to provide descriptive quantitative or qualitative 

loss estimates. Estimates can be based on deterministic or 
Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications 9

probabilistic assumptions of event occurrence, the specific 

hazards from that event, damage or failure of an asset, and loss 

of an asset, system, or individual. 

Examples: Estimated annualized earthquake losses for the 

United States (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

2017); USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction 

(SAFRR) project scenarios including ShakeOut (Jones 

and others, 2008), ARkStorm (Porter and others, 2011), 

and the Tsunami Scenario (Ross and others, 2013); and 

rockfall hazard and risk assessment for Yosemite Valley in 

Yosemite National Park (Stock and others, 2014).

Risk communication includes efforts informed by the social 

sciences to communicate information with various audiences 

in a way that leads to improved knowledge, actions, and 

behavior change for effective protective actions in the general 

public, practitioners, and elected officials.

Examples: Regional coordination plans for volcanic unrest 

(for example, Washington Military Department, 2014); and 

Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills worldwide earthquake 

preparedness exercise.

Decision-support systems structure information in ways that 

allow decision makers to test alternative courses of actions. 

These systems may include decision-tree diagrams to guide 

emergency managers, modeling and geographic information 

system (GIS) tools for overlaying determinants of multiple 

risks and challenges, and computer-based tools for comparing 

mitigation options. These systems are distributed by USGS 

and sometimes serve as the foundation for local entities to 

develop their own support systems or products. 

Examples: Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences 

Group scenarios (for example, Department of the 

Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group, 

2013); and USGS Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst 

ArcGISTM extension.

Post-event assessments include estimates or quantification of 

actual hazard magnitude or loss after an event has occurred.

Examples: ShakeMap showing peak ground motions 

after an earthquake; PAGER (Prompt Assessment 

of Global Earthquakes for Response) alerts showing 

earthquake-induced fatality and economic loss impact 

estimates; ShakeCast supporting assessment of impacts 

to infrastructure; and Photographic or topographic 

observations of hurricane impacts.

The USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory provided 

forecasts and warnings of eruptive activity during 

the spring and summer of 2018 for fissures along 

Kīlauea’s Lower East Rift Zone in lower Puna, Hawai‘i. 

Photograph shows lava fountains and channelized 

flow erupting from Fissure 8 spatter cone in the Leilani 

Estates subdivision on June 11, 2018. Photograph by 

David Ramsey, USGS.

Hawai‘i County Civil Defense messages and alerts 

bulletin board for Lower East Rift Zone eruption of 

Kīlauea as seen in the lobby of the Hilo Hawaiian 

Hotel on June 16, 2018. USGS forecasts and 

warnings of eruptive activity provided guidance for 

risk communication by emergency managers to a 

variety of audiences, including guests in local hotels. 

Photograph by David Ramsey, USGS.
10 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Core Competencies for USGS Risk 

Research and Applications

Three core competencies form the foundation of USGS 

risk research and applications: (1) Partner engagement, 

(2) research, and (3) product development (fig. 4). For any 

product, there is interaction and iteration across these three 

competencies. Because of the importance of “early and 

often” interaction with partners to determine and meet their 

needs, partner engagement frequently is the starting point of 

these competencies (fig. 4). This interaction is underpinned 

by research, in which partner engagement is combined with 

research to develop products. USGS time, resources, and 

expertise are required in each core competency to support the 

risk reduction efforts of external partners. 

Partner Engagement

Mechanisms to better understand partner needs are 

required to determine the kinds of USGS research and 

applications and the best delivery methods that would most 

help Bureau partners reduce risk. This requirement affects the 

need for collaboration across disciplinary, institutional, and 

jurisdictional boundaries. Collaboration can occur throughout 

the entire course of science investigation, from identifying 

societally relevant issues to delivering USGS results in a way 

that directly supports risk reduction efforts. This engagement 

improves USGS science because partner feedback helps 

identify priority areas to reduce uncertainty and gaps in 

understanding. Examples of structured partner engagement 

include local connections between researchers and external 

partners, listening sessions with key stakeholders, and 

participation in local-, State- and Federal-level interagency 

working groups.

tac17-1174_fig 04

Portfolio of USGS Risk Research 

and Applications

Hazard Assessments

Long-term or composite 

Short-term or scenario-based 

Operational Forecasts and Warnings

Situational awareness

Prompt dissemination

Vulnerability Assessments

Exposure - Sensitivity - Adaptive capacity

Risk Assessments

Descriptive loss estimation and scenarios

Probabilistic loss estimates

Risk Communication

Needs assessments 

Evaluations

Working groups

Decision Support Systems

Decision-tree diagrams

Computer-based tools

Post-Event Assessments

Impacts - Recovery - Resilience

Partner

Engagement

Research

Product 

Development

Core competencies integrated in every effort

Figure 4. Portfolio of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

risk research and applications supporting external 

partners in risk reduction efforts. Core competencies in 

partner engagement and outreach, research, and product 

development are integrated in every project and are critical 

to the success of all USGS risk research and applications.

USGS Geographer Nate Wood addresses 50 participants from Bureaus 

across the Department of the Interior (DOI) at a February 27–28, 2018, 

workshop for the Strategic Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

Project, a collaboration between the USGS and the DOI Office of Emergency 

Management to identify hazards and assess risks to DOI assets. Photograph 

by Alice Pennaz, USGS.
Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications 11

Case Study—Partner Engagement and Outreach at the Cascades Volcano Observatory

Figure 5. Interpretive sign for Mount Baker and Glacier Peak in Washington State developed through an 

interagency partnership between U.S. Geological Survey, State, and local authorities.

The USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) helps 

people in the Pacific Northwest live knowledgeably with 

volcanoes. CVO scientists study and monitor volcanoes and 

communicate their findings to the public through a partner 

engagement and outreach program that was initiated in 

1995. This program identifies and prioritizes stakeholders 

and partners; develops key complementary messages 

about hazards, risk, and preparedness; develops products 

in partnership with local stakeholders; and fosters mutually 

beneficial long-term, ongoing conversations between 

scientists and policy makers (as discussed in Mileti 

and Sorensen, 1990). Target audiences of CVO partner 

engagement and outreach include policy and decision 

makers; emergency managers; land-use managers; industry 

specialists; and professional information disseminators 

such as news media, educators, and park interpreters.

CVO scientists collaborate in interagency volcano 

hazards working groups with local-, State-, and Federal-level 

emergency managers at each volcano. Coordination plans 

for actions during potential volcanic crises are developed for 

each volcano by these working groups and are exercised and 

updated as needed. Volcano hazards messaging and many 

products are developed in partnerships, including interpretive 

signs (fig. 5), maps, web pages, teacher trainings, and a 

media guidebook. These products are designed to meet 

the specific needs of their intended audience, to provide 

clear images of what will happen when a volcanic event 

occurs, and to present steps for preparation and mitigation. 

Information about partner needs is commonly gathered 

through semi-structured interviews, focus group meetings, 

reviews by test audiences, and requests from teachers and 

park interpreters. As partner engagement and outreach is an 

ongoing conversation, CVO scientists often are engaged for 

highly valued consultation with partners.
12 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Case Study—ShakeOut, USGS Science, and the City of Los Angeles

Figure 6. The ShakeOut scenario was published in 2008 and has since been used to 

raise public awareness about earthquake preparedness and to identify actions needed 

to reduce risk for the southern California water system, among other applications. 

Source: Perry and others, 2008. 

Building upon the latest science, a USGS team 

developed a detailed scenario involving a magnitude 

7.8 earthquake along the southern San Andreas Fault. 

Using input from scientific, engineering, economic and 

social science partners, the USGS “ShakeOut” scenario 

used a sophisticated simulation of shaking to analyze its 

plausible impacts on human populations and infrastructure 

(Jones and others, 2008). The consequences of fault 

rupture and other ground failure as well as fire following 

the earthquake also were considered. 

This realistic, science-based multi-hazards scenario 

provided the State of California with the foundation for 

a statewide emergency management exercise (fig. 6). It 

also highlighted important societal and infrastructural 

vulnerabilities to be further explored and addressed. 

For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power has formed a Resilience Expert Panel and, along 

with the California Department of Water Resources and 

the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 

has also formed a Seismic Resilient Water Supply 

Task Force that USGS advises on risk reduction issues. 

These organizations have used the ShakeOut scenario 

to construct a more accurate estimate of the duration of 

disruption to imported water for all southern California. 

The scenario also was used to identify and prioritize 

a series of recommended actions needed to assess 

alternatives for reducing risk to the water system.
Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications 13

Research

Research targeted to advance fundamental understanding has 

been and will continue to be a core competency and priority of 

the USGS. USGS hazard science can be applied to risk reduction 

by improving basic understanding of hazardous processes, as 

well as by using scientific observations and analyses to reduce or 

quantify uncertainties that stem from hazards. These uncertainties 

include the nature, magnitude, and frequency of future hazard 

events compounded by the uncertainty of how hazard events 

impact and alter built and natural environment systems. USGS 

science also may be used to distinguish between real and 

perceived risks and to underpin critical public communications 

during and after a hazard event. Additionally, much remains 

to be understood as to whether and how human activities may 

aggravate natural hazards (such as induced seismicity from 

wastewater injection as described in Petersen and others, 2016, 

2017). USGS efforts to support risk reduction will require 

sustained research, baseline studies, and monitoring on the 

variability and change in human and biophysical systems, the 

natural or anthropogenic processes causing or driving these 

changes, and the potential consequences of these changes as 

a result of long-term stressors (for example, droughts, global 

change, and urbanization) and short-term events (for example, 

earthquakes, severe storms, hazardous material spills). The 

USGS is well situated to provide broad understanding of 

hazards and natural stressors given its multidisciplinary and 

distributed workforce, hazard monitoring networks, and ability 

to conduct longitudinal studies. However, the Bureau is only 

at the early stages of providing input on the origin, nature, and 

effects of societal stressors, and this remains a gap moving 

forward with multidisciplinary risk research and applications.

Case Study—Environmental Health Risks after 9/11

Figure 7. Photographs showing dust 

covering the interior of an apartment following 

the collapse of the World Trade Centers (top) 

and a U.S. Geological Survey researcher 

collecting dust samples for analysis at Ground 

Zero (bottom), in lower Manhattan, New York. 

Photographs by Mark Rushing (top) and Gregg 

Swayze (USGS, right), 2001. Used 

with permission. 

Two days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, with the dust 

of the collapsed World Trade Centers (WTCs) still swirling in the air in 

the streets of Manhattan, USGS scientists were contacted by officials 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Public Health 

Service Commissioned Corps (Plumlee, 2009). These officials sought 

USGS expertise in mineralogical characterization of dust because they 

wanted to understand what risks to public health the WTC dust might 

pose. Using Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer data and 

field samples of WTC dust, USGS scientists were able to allay fears 

of amphibole asbestos risk (generally viewed as the more dangerous 

asbestos variety) (fig. 7). However, USGS scientists found that the 

WTC dusts were a complex mix of bioreactive, bioaccessible, and 

biodurable particles (Plumlee and others, 2012). Incidental handling of 

dusts by hand-to-mouth contact or of dust particles cleared from the 

respiratory tract may have provided an exposure pathway for gastricbioaccessible toxicants such as lead. Within two weeks of the initial 

attacks, USGS scientists were able to supply emergency managers with 

maps showing the distribution of other forms of asbestos, concrete, 

and other minerals producing dust around lower Manhattan to allow 

them to assess these risks and form mitigation strategies. Challenges 

that USGS scientists faced were being placed in a situation with an 

extremely high media profile; the media was pressuring scientists 

to make sensationalist statements. USGS scientists also described 

the challenges of having their work embroiled in numerous ongoing 

litigations concerning the WTC.
14 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Product Development

USGS risk research and applications are of limited value 

if colleagues and external partners are not aware of them, do 

not understand them, or do not use them. To improve the use 

of USGS science by external partners, new investments will 

be needed in improving tool and product development. This 

would require social science expertise, flexible technology, 

amenable data policies, and staff to handle an ever-growing 

data input, analyze data, and deliver new and existing 

location-specific products in real time to a rapidly evolving, 

customizable, digital ecosystem. This work would benefit 

from additional technological expertise in visualization, data 

compilation and standardization, and application computer 

programming, as well from as an improved understanding of 

how users use USGS tools and products. A critical part of tool 

and product development also is the socialization of the use 

of the tools produced and the assurance that the correct user 

groups are aware of the existence of these tools.

Case Study—The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal 

Figure 8. Screen capture showing home page of U.S. 

Geological Survey Coastal Change Hazards Portal. 

The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal (hereinafter 

“the Portal,” U.S. Geological Survey, 2018) is a hazards 

assessment tool that integrates data, knowledge, and tools 

about storms, shoreline change, and sea level rise in an 

interactive online platform designed to support decision making 

for emergency managers, planners, and natural resource 

managers (fig. 8). Launched in 2014, the Portal was developed 

from a partnership between the USGS Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program and the Office of Water Integration.

The products presented through the Portal have their 

origins in research efforts that began in the late 1990s. 

This research was intended to develop methods and results 

that could quantify coastal change hazards consistently on 

a National scale. The research efforts were successful and 

the next step was to apply them to hazard and vulnerability 

assessments. The early development of the Portal was 

influenced by a need to increase user engagement and do so 

with limited resources to support such engagement. The 

shift toward prioritizing a tool such as the Portal came when 

Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005. The impact 

of Hurricane Sandy on the mid-Atlantic Coast in 2012 further 

increased interest in such a product and, finally, resulted in 

funding to support the Portal. The use of Portal assets during 

and after Hurricane Sandy also contributed to increasing 

public awareness and demand for coastal change forecasts, 

and the Portal has incorporated multiple variables of coastal 

change in response to user needs. 

The Portal enables users to investigate nationwide 

coastal hazards at various scales by zooming in and out of 

the interactive map. During major storm events, such as 

hurricanes and nor’easters, users can overlay the projected 

storm track from the National Weather Service with 

predictions of the severity of coastal change hazards, such as 

dune overwash and inundation. This capability can support 

emergency managers, business owners, and residents in 

determining when and where they may be in danger of 

coastal erosion and flooding. 

The Coastal Change Hazards Portal has been used to 

explain the occurrence and severity of coastal-change hazards 

along the Nation’s coastlines. Researchers and coastal 

resource and emergency managers depend on accurate, 

updated information that can be presented and delivered by 

the Portal. Challenges for the future are to maintain the Portal 

through investments in the information technology, data 

acquisition and analysis, and assessment models upon which 

it is based, as well as to integrate the Portal with flood event 

data to create a seamless understanding of storm events from 

the coast inland. The USGS is seeking new ways to ensure 

that this investment is made in a sustainable and nationally 

effective manner.
Section 1. Role of USGS in Risk Research and Applications 15

Case Study—USGS PAGER—Fast, Online, Earthquake Risk Information

0 5 50 100 500 1000 5000 10000

Population Exposure population per 1 sq. km from Landscan

PAGER content is automatically generated, and only considers losses due to structural damage.

Limitations of input data, shaking estimates, and loss models may add uncertainty.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ahv0#pager

–* 22,903k* 34,945k 27,301k 4,333k 1,219k 494k 0 0

I II-III IV V VI VII VIII IX X+

Not felt Weak Light Moderate Strong Very Strong Severe Violent Extreme

None None None V. Light Light Moderate Mod./Heavy Heavy V. Heavy

None None None Light Moderate Mod./Heavy Heavy V. Heavy V. Heavy

POTENTIAL

DAMAGE

PERCEIVED SHAKING

ESTIMATED MODIFIED

MERCALLI INTENSITY

ESTIMATED POPULATION

EXPOSURE (k=x1000)

Resistant

Structures

Vulnerable

Structures

Estimated Population Exposed to Earthquake Shaking

*Estimated exposure only includes population within the map area.

Structures

Overall, the population in this region resides in structures that are a mix of vulnerable and earthquake

resistant construction. The predominant vulnerable

building types are adobe block with concrete bond

beam and mud wall construction.

MMI City Population

VIII San Francisco del Mar Viejo 4k

VIII San Mateo del Mar 5k

VIII San Francisco Ixhuatan 6k

VIII Colonia Juarez 3k

VIII Nueva Tenochtitlan (Rizo de

Oro)

2k

VIII Villamorelos 2k

V Mexico City 12,294k

V Guatemala City 995k

V Puebla 1,590k

IV Merida 717k

III San Salvador 526k

bold cities appear on map. (k = x1000)

from GeoNames.org

Selected City Exposure

Event ID: us2000ahv0

Date Dist. Mag. Max Shaking

(UTC) (km) MMI(#) Deaths

1985-10-11 327 4.5 VI(14k) 0

1978-07-29 314 4.9 VII(14k) 17

1991-09-18 322 6.2 IX(9k) 25

Recent earthquakes in this area have caused secondary hazards such as tsunamis and landslides

that might have contributed to losses.

Historical Earthquakes

Estimated Fatalities Red alert for shaking-related fatalities and Estimated Economic Losses economic losses. High casualties and extensive damage are probable and the disaster is likely widespread. Past red alerts

have required a national or international response.

Estimated economic losses are 0-1% GDP

of Mexico.

Earthquake

Shaking

Red

Alert

FOR TSUNAMI INFORMATION, SEE: tsunami.gov

Location: 15.0222◦ N 93.8993◦ W Depth: 47.4 km

Origin Time: 2017-09-08 04:49:19 UTC (Thu 22:49:19 local)

M 8.2, 101km SSW of Tres Picos, Mexico

Created: 26 weeks, 3 days after earthquake

Version 12

PAGER

Figure 9. PAGER, the Prompt 

Assessment of Global Earthquakes for 

Response system, provides earthquake 

shaking and loss estimates following 

significant earthquakes worldwide. This 

example shows the estimated range of 

fatalities (left) and economic losses (right, 

in US dollars (USD), relative to the gross 

domestic product (GDP) for Mexico) 

for the magnitude (M) 8.2 earthquake 

occurring 101 kilometers (km) southsouthwest (SSW) of Tres Picos, Mexico 

on September 8, 2017 at 4:49 Coordinated 

Universal Time (UTC). The histograms 

show the percent (%) likelihood that 

adjacent fatality/loss ranges occur.

PAGER, the Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response 

system, was developed by USGS scientists to inform the general public, 

government and aid agencies, emergency managers, and responders 

at national and global scales of the potential outcomes of a significant 

earthquake within 20–30 minutes of the event (Wald and others, 2010). 

This system produces hundreds of alerts each year. Most often, these 

alerts emerge before eyewitness accounts are available. Accessible on the 

USGS web page and linked to the USGS Earthquake Notification Service 

that sends emails to subscribers, the automated PAGER system provides 

information on basic earthquake parameters, estimates economic losses 

and fatalities, exposed populations, and regionally specific commentary 

on the vulnerability of buildings in the region and potential secondary 

hazards (for example, tsunami) (fig. 9). The estimated losses trigger the 

appropriate color-coded alert (green, yellow, orange, red) to indicate 

suggested levels of response. As more information becomes available 

about the earthquake, these estimates are revised as needed. The ability 

of PAGER to make accurate assessments is based on rigorous USGS 

fundamental research on hazards, ground 

movement, and structures. PAGER alerts are 

used by emergency managers and responders 

to swiftly determine needed aid, by the 

media to share critical information with the 

public, by businesses to determine response 

activities, and by scientists and engineers to 

initiate post-earthquake investigations. On 

average, the PAGER site is viewed 12,514 

times per month, but viewing can increase 

considerably when there is a significant 

earthquake in an urban area. PAGER also 

distributes earthquake information by alert 

notifications. About 600 alert recipients 

receive a onePAGER alert that is sent 

automatically to email and mobile devices. 

Many of these recipients redistribute PAGER 

content as a part of response-center and 

watch-officer briefings. PAGER originally 

was supported by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) Office for 

U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) after 

the 2004 tsunami earthquake in Indonesia 

under the President’s Supplemental relief 

budget. PAGER primarily is supported by 

internal USGS Surveys, Investigations, and 

Research funding, and OFDA has continued to 

provide partial support for PAGER research, 

development, and operations.
16 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Case Study—Post-Wildfire Debris-Flow Hazards 

Wildland fires burned more than 80 million acres 

in the United States over the last decade, removing 

vegetation and changing hillside and stream channel 

hydrology. In mountainous areas, these changes can 

substantially increase the potential for flash floods and 

debris flows in the years immediately following the 

fire. Debris flows are slurries of water and loose soil 

and rock (debris) with the consistency of wet concrete. 

Because debris flows can grow in size, volume, speed, 

and momentum as they move downstream, they can be 

particularly destructive to nearby people, property, and 

infrastructure (fig. 10).

A decade-long effort by a team of Federal, State, 

and academic scientists to collect and analyze data from 

burned areas across the Western United States provided 

a basis for geospatial models to predict debris flow 

probability and volume given a rainfall amount (Cannon and 

others, 2009). The first emergency assessments of postwildfire debris-flow potential were delivered in 2002 and 

were presented as USGS Open-File reports. These reports 

typically were made available about 1 month following 

requests from Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

teams that are responsible for assessing and managing the 

impacts of wildfire and follow-on effects on Tribal and public 

lands. Between 2002 and 2013, USGS debris-flow hazard 

assessments provided key information for an average of 

about four major wildfires each year.

Figure 10. Photograph showing home and automobile 

buried by post-fire debris flow in Mullally Canyon, Los 

Angeles County, California. Photograph taken February 8, 

2010, by Susan Cannon, U.S. Geological Survey retired. 

To meet the growing number of requests from BAER 

teams and other partners for timely delivery of emergency 

hazard assessments, the USGS moved delivery to an 

automated web-based system in 2014. Building on the 

framework underlying other rapid-response information 

delivered by the USGS such as the PAGER product, post-fire 

debris-flow hazard assessments are routinely produced for 

fires across the Nation. This new framework has substantially 

decreased the time needed to meet requests and increased 

the ability to deliver critical, readily used geospatial data to 

existing emergency management systems. In 2016, more than 

35 hazard assessments and their accompanying geospatial 

data were delivered for wildfires in eight States, typically 

within a few days following receipt of a request (fig. 11).

Figure 11. Web page from 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Landslide Hazards Program 

showing post-wildfire debrisflow hazard assessment for 

the 2016 Pioneer fire in the 

Boise National Forest, Idaho.
Section 2. Building Institutional Capacity—Advancing and Creating Partnerships 17

As shown by the preceding examples and the case 

studies provided throughout this Plan, the USGS is already 

deeply involved in risk research and applications across its 

mission areas (also see appendix 2). Many of the products 

developed through this work have advanced fundamental 

research, leveraged monitoring and observation data, 

benefited partners, led to new collaborations, and garnered 

attention from many stakeholders ranging from decision 

makers to industry representatives. Building on this success 

and the core competencies described in the section, “Core 

Competencies for USGS Risk Research and Applications,” 

this Plan identifies several elements of building institutional 

capacity to further advance risk research and applications at 

the USGS. 

Section 2. Building Institutional 

Capacity—Advancing and Creating 

Partnerships

Partner engagement and outreach is one of the three core 

competencies that form the foundation of USGS risk research 

and applications (fig. 4). Developing relationships and 

building trust with potential partners paves the way for further 

engagement. Effective engagement with external partners 

to understand their needs and to deliver the right research 

and products in a timely and appropriate format is essential 

to successful risk reduction. Collaboration with partners 

from the beginning of scientific research and product 

development through to message delivery and continuing 

during use and evaluation is necessary to provide partners 

with information that can support actionable items for risk 

reduction. The feedback from this engagement helps improve 

USGS risk research and applications.

USGS risk research and applications are complemented 

by the work of its partners in Federal, State, local, Tribal, and 

territorial agencies, as well as those in non-governmental and 

academic institutions. These partners include decision makers 

such as scientists, engineers, emergency managers, land-use 

managers, and industry specialists, as well as professional 

information disseminators such as the news media, educators, 

and park interpretive staff. Many of these partners also are the 

main users of USGS risk research and applications (fig. 3). It 

is therefore essential to understand partner needs so that the 

most useful research can be conducted and applications can be 

developed for risk reduction.

Recommendation 2.1—Support and encourage USGS 

scientists involved in risk research and applications to 

engage and collaborate with external partners on scientific 

research, product development, and complementary message 

delivery. This engagement requires an investment of salary 

time and possibly travel that must be supported and funded in 

order to be successful.

Effective engagement with external partners cannot be 

an add-on process that occurs only if there is extra time or 

funding at the conclusion of a risk research and applications 

project. Partner engagement needs to guide risk research and 

applications in order to be effective for risk reduction. This 

engagement often is long-term and ongoing, and involves a 

commitment of time and funding that needs to be considered 

and budgeted for in risk research and applications projects. 

The value of this type of engagement also should be socialized 

and emphasized across the Bureau.

Successful, ongoing partner engagement occurs through 

various avenues, including interagency hazards working 

groups and committees, focused face-to-face workshops and 

professional meetings, and less-formal communications and 

consultations (fig. 12). It is important for these activities 

to be supported and continued. All these avenues involve a 

commitment of time and may require funding for travel or 

event hosting in order to establish a relationship and to build 

trust.

Figure 12. A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcanologist

(left) and a Washington State Department of Transportation 

representative (right) discussing volcano hazards during a FEMA 

Volcano Crisis Awareness course in Mount Vernon, WA, March 

2014. Photograph by Carolyn Driedger, USGS.

Active participation in interagency hazards working 

groups provides consistent opportunities for USGS 

representatives to gain new perspectives and to understand 

concerns from partners. One example of these groups is 

the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, where 

formal members include State geological and emergencymanagement agencies, as well as representatives from the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and 

NOAA, and USGS scientists. Collaboration in interagency 

hazards working groups on risk product development leads to 

products and messaging that would be the most effective in 

conveying risk and eliciting action.
18 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

In order to engage and to collaborate with external 

partners outside existing interagency hazards working groups 

and across the government, academic, and private sectors, 

partners with a wide range of expertise can be brought 

together with USGS scientists for workshops focused on 

specific risk themes. These workshops can help broaden the 

use and understanding of USGS risk research and applications 

through brainstorming potential products, audiences, 

partnerships, and resources for risk reduction. Creative 

facilitation and human-centered design thinking, such as 

analyzing user experiences and product prototyping, can add 

beneficial structure to these valuable face-to-face interactions.

Although interactions among scientists, emergency 

managers, planners, and decision makers at events such 

as interagency hazards working group meetings and 

workshops are valuable, less formal communications and 

consultations also are a necessary part of successful partner 

engagement. These interactions include simple “day-today” communications such as emails, telephone calls, and 

visits to each other’s offices to discuss needs and to work on 

complementary messaging and product development. Such 

communications help build strong relationships by continuing 

the cycle of dialogue between scientists and users (fig. 13). 

Engagement with partners at local community meetings, town 

halls, school activities, emergency management meetings, 

and scientific meetings also proves equally valuable for 

improving mutual trust and understanding of user needs. The 

2015 “Translating USGS Science to Risk Products” workshop 

(appendix 1) identified one of the greatest strengths of USGS 

as its presence across the landscape, where USGS scientists 

are located and working in every state. USGS scientists 

should be encouraged to engage with partners in their local 

communities as a way to build and nurture relationships with 

local stakeholders. This engagement requires a commitment of 

time and possibly travel that must be supported and funded in 

order to be successful. 

Recommendation 2.2—Establish and support a process to 

evaluate and improve the dissemination, usability, knowledge 

uptake, and impact of USGS risk research and applications 

with key partners, recognizing that partners will vary by 

hazard and region. Work with external partners with expertise 

in program evaluation and adaptive management to help the 

USGS develop actionable metrics for gauging the societal use 

and impact of USGS risk research and applications.

Gathering feedback and evaluating messaging and 

product success is a key component of partner engagement. 

Ultimately, most of the messaging and products developed 

through USGS risk research and applications partnerships 

would be presented to target audiences and acted upon by 

partners to reduce risk. Therefore, it is critical to know 

whether or not USGS risk research and applications are 

meeting partner needs in order to improve the usability, 

knowledge uptake, and impact of risk research and 

applications.

Evaluation of messaging and products should be 

conducted in a systematic manner, begun at the outset of 

project planning, and should integrate social science and 

communications expertise (for example, Perry and others, 

2016; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine, 2018) as well as input from stakeholder focus 

groups and polling where appropriate. Actionable metrics 

to evaluate messaging and product effectiveness should be 

developed and applied. These metrics would address product 

use by diverse audiences (for example, people of different ages 

and genders, socio-economic, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds, 

urban compared to rural populations, and people with different 

technological capabilities). Feedback from partners then 

would be gathered consistently and evaluated. Findings from 

these evaluations should be documented and shared.

Tracking what messaging and products help USGS 

partners reach their goals would help improve the 

effectiveness of USGS risk research and applications. It 

also would help to prioritize and target partnerships that 

maximize combined effectiveness. An established USGS 

community of practice for risk research and applications (see 

Recommendation 4.1), in collaboration with partners in social 

science and communication, could help initiate effective 

messaging and product evaluation.

Figure 13. Scientists, designers, and community members 

work together during a “design storm” (a short, intensive burst 

of creative sessions with outside partners organized around 

a particular topic or challenge) as part of the development 

of the Science Application for Risk Reduction Atmospheric 

River 1,000 year storm (ARkStorm) scenario. This October 

2010 meeting was a collaboration among U.S. Geological 

Survey scientists, potential users of the ARkStorm scenario, 

and the Art Center College of Design Designmatters program. 

Photograph by Dice Yamaguchi, courtesy of Designmatters at 

Art Center College of Design. Used with permission.
Section 2. Building Institutional Capacity—Advancing and Creating Partnerships 19

Case Study—Workshops with External Partners

Figure 14. Photograph showing 

a USGS hydrologist presenting 

information about the ARkStorm 

scenario to a group of emergency 

managers and natural resource 

managers at a workshop in 

Reno, Nevada, December 2013. 

Photograph by Dale Cox, USGS. 

Facilitated, in-person workshops provide an 

effective means to connect USGS scientists and external 

partners for collective problem-solving in risk research 

and applications (fig. 14). Two such USGS-hosted 

workshops included the 2012 “Volcanism in the American 

Southwest” (VASW) workshop held in Flagstaff, Arizona, 

and the 2014 “New Audiences, New Products for the 

National Seismic Hazard Maps” (NSHM) workshop 

held in Denver, Colorado. The VASW workshop brought 

together USGS scientists, local geoscientists, social 

scientists with expertise in risk communication, and 

emergency managers to discuss the potential hazards 

and risks associated with low-probability, high-impact 

eruptive events in the American Southwest (Lowenstern 

and others, 2013). Discussions focused on bringing 

partners together to collaborate on risk messaging for 

people living in the Southwest and to discuss future 

product development and research directions. The VASW 

workshop served as a platform to identify and strengthen 

the community of practice for volcanic risk in the region.

The NSHM workshop brought together USGS 

scientists and SAFRR Cadre of Relevant Experts (CORE, 

see p. 21) partners with a wide range of expertise 

spanning 18 disciplines—anthropology, civil engineering, 

decision science, geography, geology, geophysics, 

hydrology, information design, journalism, marketing, 

medicine, political science, psychology, public health, 

seismology, sociolinguistics, sociology, and structural 

engineering. The workshop focused on broadening the 

use and understanding of the NSHM, with participants 

brainstorming potential products, audiences, partnerships, 

and resources for the NSHM. The NSHM team used the 

workshop outcomes to make maps for new users who need 

NSHM for planning, risk reduction, and education (Perry and 

others, 2016). 

The USGS also co-sponsors workshops with other 

organizations. For example, the 2015 Dune Management 

Challenges on Developed Coasts Workshop was organized 

by the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association 

and designed to connect coastal dune research with the 

needs of coastal management practitioners (American 

Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 2015). Workshop 

discussions highlighted the benefits of using a community 

of practice to provide a forum for managers to express 

challenges to researchers and to facilitate communication 

and understanding between different sectors including 

government, non-profit, and academic organizations. These 

workshops were successful in bringing together USGS 

scientists and partners to work toward common goals for 

risk reduction.
20 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Section 3. Building Institutional 

Capacity—Project Funding

USGS risk research and applications are supported 

using various funding streams, which include funds provided 

directly by the programs (appropriated funds); cooperative 

work funded across programs, centers, and regions (shared 

funds); and funding from other agencies or partners 

(reimbursable funds). In the aftermath of a disaster, projectspecific funding sometimes is made available through awards 

from supplemental funding (supplemental funds). 

Appropriated Funds

Many USGS programs allocate resources to support risk 

research and applications, and prominent, sustained efforts are 

occurring in the Natural Hazards and Land Resources Mission 

Areas. In particular, the Earthquake Hazards Program, SAFRR 

project, and the Land Change Science Program support the 

development and delivery of risk research and applications. 

These groups often cooperate or co-fund risk projects with 

other programs and regional management. Other strategies, 

such as interagency agreements or reimbursable funding, also 

are sometimes used to meet the need for expertise and product 

development across the Bureau.

The USGS periodically develops strategic plans, program 

plans, science plans, and new budget initiatives setting scientific 

priorities for the Bureau, and these plans and initiatives inform 

the direction of appropriated funds. The planning process presents 

unique opportunities to use risk reduction to frame stakeholder 

needs and to define scientific objectives and priorities.

Case Study—USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project

Improving risk research and applications was a key 

goal in establishing the USGS Science Application for Risk 

Reduction (SAFRR) project as part of the newly formed 

USGS Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) in 2012. 

SAFRR evolved from the Multi-Hazards Demonstration 

Project (MHDP), which was created to improve resilience 

to natural hazards in southern California through the 

application of science to community decision making and 

emergency response. 

Specifically, the MHDP was a 5-year effort to “assist 

the region’s communities to reduce their risk from natural 

hazards by directing new and existing research towards 

the community’s needs, improving monitoring technology, 

producing innovative products, and improving dissemination 

of the results” (Jones and others, 2007, p. 1). The MHDP 

Figure 15. The U.S. Geological Survey Science Application 

for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project integrates earth science, 

engineering, and social science to develop hypothetical yet 

scientifically plausible scenarios to analyze the impacts of 

hazard events and their cascading consequences. 

obtained funding from several mission areas and focused on 

user engagement and developing science-based scenarios, 

culminating in the roll-out of the ShakeOut earthquake 

scenario in 2008, the ARkStorm winter storm scenario 

in 2011, the SAFRR Tsunami Scenario in 2013, and most 

recently the HayWired Scenario in 2018. These scenarios 

were developed in collaboration with USGS scientists and 

multiple external partners and stakeholders to examine the 

cascading consequences of hypothetical yet scientifically 

plausible hazard events. Products included scientific papers 

and public service announcements. Results have led to lasting 

partnerships, changes in policy, and emergency response drills.

SAFRR has innovated the application of multi-hazard, 

multidisciplinary science for the safety, security, and economic 

well-being of the Nation (fig. 15). SAFRR has done this 

by connecting users with experts, promoting community 

engagement, and using collaborations with artists and 

social scientists to strengthen scenario products. SAFRR 

has supported product evaluation, including assessment of 

potential new uses of the Natural Hazard Seismic Maps. 

SAFRR is supported by the USGS Core Science Systems, 

Ecosystems, Land Resources, Natural Hazards, and Water 

Mission Areas.
Section 3. Building Institutional Capacity—Project Funding 21

Shared Funds

To address unique or immediate needs, USGS projects 

and programs may provide funding to partners in the public and 

academic sectors to conduct risk research and applications based 

on (and in support of) USGS science priorities. This typically is 

done cooperatively through contracts or cooperative agreements 

of many kinds. 

Interagency agreements and Participating Agency Program 

Agreements between government agencies provide effective 

partnering methods for sharing hazards science and risk research 

and applications. These agreements can be tailored for shortterm projects or long-term programmatic needs.

Case Study—SAFRR Cadre of Relevant Experts (CORE)

The USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction 

(SAFRR) project collaborates with many experts 

whose knowledge and experience could benefit USGS 

communication and training efforts. To leverage this 

expertise, SAFRR established a style of partnership called 

the SAFRR Cadre of Relevant Experts (SAFRR CORE). 

SAFRR CORE was designed to convene a rotating group of 

experts together with USGS scientists to address common 

problems (fig. 16). CORE meetings typically included social 

scientists, marketers, and social impact designers, as well 

as potential users of USGS science. The CORE provided a 

way to share and gain expertise that may not be present in 

the USGS in order to improve the understanding and use of 

USGS science.

SAFRR CORE was launched in 2014 and its first 

project focused on the USGS National Seismic Hazard 

Maps (NSHM). The NSHM provide a broad view of 

Figure 16. Science Application for Risk Reduction Cadre 

of Relevant Experts workshop attendees sharing ideas for 

novel communication products. This workshop brought 

together social science researchers from the University 

of California Los Angeles, Art Center College of Design, 

and City College of New York with U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) staff from the Land Resources, Hazards, Water, 

Core Science Systems Mission Areas and the Office of 

Communications and Publishing. Photograph by Erin 

Burkett, USGS, June 2015.

earthquake ground shaking hazard across the Nation. The 

main user group of NSHM traditionally has been engineers 

working with earthquake building codes. SAFRR CORE 

worked with the NSHM team to make maps for new 

users who need NSHM for planning, risk reduction, and 

education. Additionally, the SAFRR CORE has been engaged 

in a usability study of the Kīlauea daily updates issued to 

emergency managers and the public by the Hawaiian Volcano 

Observatory. Findings of this study will help ensure that the 

updates are clearly understood and are used correctly by their 

intended audiences. The updates are a primary source for 

information on the status of eruptive activity at Kīlauea and 

were utilized extensively by emergency managers and the 

public during the Lower East Rift Zone eruption of Kīlauea in 

the spring and summer of 2018.

The successes and lessons learned from the NSHM 

effort resulted in the publication of USGS Circular 1419, 

“Get Your Science Used—Six Guidelines to Improve 

Your Products” (Perry and others, 2016). The circular 

will be complemented by a forthcoming publication on 

“Communicating Hazards—A Social Science Review to Meet 

U.S. Geological Survey Needs.”
22 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Case Study—Rockfall Hazard and Risk Assessment for Yosemite Valley 

In 2010, the National Park Service (NPS) partially funded 

USGS researchers to collaborate on a quantitative rockfall 

hazard and risk assessment for Yosemite Valley in Yosemite 

National Park, California. Rockfalls from steep cliffs are a 

common natural hazard in Yosemite Valley, posing substantial 

risk to the approximately 4 million people who visit each year. 

For example, in October 2008, a rockfall damaged or destroyed 

25 wooden and tent cabins in the valley. Three people sustained 

minor injuries, and many more narrowly avoided injury or death. 

To inform preventative decisions to close, relocate, or repurpose 

buildings and campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, USGS and NPS 

research geologists and engineers developed probabilistic 

assessments of rockfall runout into the valley—the hazard—and 

consequent casualties—the risk. In doing so, the collaborators 

also developed a new rockfall hazard assessment methodology 

that is analogous to probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment 

and can be applied in other rockfall-prone areas. The results 

were used by the NPS to reduce the projected number of 

casualties in Yosemite Valley by 95 percent, partly by removing, 

relocating, or repurposing more than 200 structures in 2013. 

In February 2014, a rockfall boulder impacted the footprints 

of two wooden cabins that had been removed, as shown in 

figure 17C. Had the cabins not been removed, “they would have 

been extensively damaged, and had they been occupied, there 

almost certainly would have been injuries and perhaps even 

fatalities” (Stock and Collins, 2014, p. 261). The hazard and risk 

assessments also are being used to guide future park-planning 

efforts. The collaboration ultimately was published by Stock and 

others (2014) and posted to the NPS website.

Figure 17. Photographs showing rockfall hazard and 

risk in Curry Village, Yosemite Valley, California. A, 

Cabin damage resulting from an October 2008 rockfall. 

B, Same area following removal of more than 200 

cabins in 2013. C, Successful mitigation of rockfall 

risk. Dashed white lines indicate footprints of removed 

cabins. The yellow arrow identifies an approximately 

1-cubic-meter boulder that fell in February 2014, and 

the yellow shaded area shows the impact crater from 

this boulder within the footprint of a former cabin. 

(Source: Stock and Collins, 2014). 
Section 3. Building Institutional Capacity—Project Funding 23

Case Study—The Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP)

Figure 18. Volcano Disaster 

Assistance Program (VDAP)

scientists and counterparts 

from the Indonesia Center of 

Volcanology and Geological 

Hazard Mitigation installing 

a volcanic gas monitoring 

system at erupting Sinabung 

volcano, Indonesia. 

Photograph by Christoph 

Kern, U.S. Geological Survey/

VDAP, September 2016.

There are about 1,500 potentially active volcanoes 

around the world and only one international volcano 

response team that can deploy to help prevent eruptions 

from becoming disasters—the Volcano Disaster Assistance 

Program (VDAP). Established in 1986 by the USGS 

and USAID/OFDA, VDAP has been providing technical 

assistance worldwide for more than 30 years.

VDAP formed in response to the devastating volcanic 

mudflow that buried the city of Armero, Colombia, on 

the night of November 13, 1985, killing more than 23,000 

unsuspecting people. This tragedy was avoidable. Better 

education of the local population and protocols for 

communication would have allowed transmission of the 

important message that an eruption was underway at 

nearby Nevado del Ruiz volcano that would induce deadly 

lahars down the Río Lagunillas. VDAP strives to ensure that 

such a tragedy will never happen again.

VDAP scientific teams have deployed in response to 30 

major crises worldwide, assisted counterparts with hundreds 

of additional volcanic events, and strengthened response 

capacity in 12 countries since the program began (fig. 18). At 

the request of affected governments, VDAP works with hostcountry national scientists to monitor volcanic activity, to assess 

hazards, to generate eruption forecasts, and to develop early 

warning capabilities to get people out of harm’s way. VDAP also 

sponsors international exchanges where U.S. land managers 

and first responders visit the sites of foreign volcano disasters 

and learn from the survivors. Foreign officials, in turn, visit the 

United States to learn about U.S. emergency management 

systems, multi-agency response plans, and new monitoring tools 

as implemented in U.S. volcano observatory operations. The 

VDAP guiding philosophy is to assist international partners and 

to empower them to take the lead in mitigating hazards and risk 

from their threatening volcanoes in their respective countries.
24 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Reimbursable Funds

Partners that fund USGS projects have direct input into 

the products and (or) assessments that are needed and are well 

positioned to implement risk reduction measures. Cooperator 

or reimbursable funding commitments ensure partner 

engagement and articulation of science needs to support 

decisions. Key examples of reimbursable work by USGS are 

available in the Water Mission Area, which relies heavily on 

cooperator funding for day-to-day operations of assets such as 

the streamgage network and for event-response activities. The 

Water Mission Area also has established pre-scripted mission 

assignments with FEMA to secure funding before, during, and 

immediately after significant hydrologic events. 

Case Study—Tracking Rising Waters with the Flood Inundation Mapper

Figure 19. Photograph 

showing flooded house 

near the confluence of the 

Comite and Amite Rivers near 

Denham Springs, Louisiana, 

in August, 2016. Photograph 

by James Fountain, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

The USGS Flood Inundation Mapper is an online 

mapping application that combines flood inundation maps 

with real-time river-level data from USGS streamgages and 

National Weather Service flood forecasts in a powerful 

tool that helps communicate when and where floods may 

occur (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017d) (fig. 19). The Flood 

Inundation Mapper is part of the USGS Flood Inundation 

Mapping (FIM) Program, which focuses its efforts at State 

and local levels to help communities understand flood risks 

and make cost-effective mitigation decisions.

Flood inundation maps effectively translate historical 

and contemporary hydrographic data into operational 

maps that communicate risk and consequences. These 

maps are used to protect lives and property; to improve 

community preparedness, mitigation, response, and 

recovery; and to inform environmental assessments.

The Flood Inundation Mapper helps communities 

visualize potential flooding scenarios, identify areas and 

resources that may be at risk, and enhance their local 

response effort during a flooding event. Users also can use 

the application to access historical flood information and 

potential loss estimates based on the severity of the flood. 

The USGS partners with communities to assist in 

the development and validation of flood inundation map 

libraries—sets of maps that show where flooding may 

occur over a range of water levels in the local stream 

or river of a community. The USGS also works with 

the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and FEMA to connect communities with all 

available Federal flood data resources, thereby ensuring 

the quality and consistency of flood inundation maps across 

the country.
Section 3. Building Institutional Capacity—Project Funding 25

Supplemental Funds

Following a Presidentially declared disaster, the USGS 

sometimes receives supplemental funding, either directly or 

made available through the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

With thoughtful planning, such funds can be used to advance 

ongoing research in the affected area, and in particular, can 

boost building new assessments, products, and tools that 

address and communicate risk. These products often are in 

high demand during and after an event, when situational 

awareness regarding assets at risk is needed to inform 

response and recovery efforts.

Case Study—Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Funding

Figure 20. Oblique aerial photographs of Pelican and 

Fire Islands, New York, taken before (May 21, 2009; 

top) and after (November 5, 2012; bottom) Hurricane 

Sandy. View is looking northwest across Fire Island 

towards Great South Bay. Location is within Fire Island 

National Seashore near Old Inlet—a very narrow 

part of the island that has breached in previous 

large storms. The island breached during Hurricane 

Sandy, creating a new inlet. Despite the breach, the 

fishing shack (yellow arrow) remained standing (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2017e). 

Hurricane Sandy struck the U.S. East Coast on October 

29, 2012, as one of the largest and costliest storms to make 

landfall in the United States since Hurricane Katrina in 

2005 (fig. 20). Sandy affected 17 States, inundating coastal 

towns, knocking out power to more than 8 million people 

including residents and businesses in lower Manhattan, and 

transforming coastal habitats. In the immediate response to 

the storm, more than 160 USGS personnel from offices across 

the Nation were deployed to predict impacts and deploy 

instrumentation to collect essential environmental data 

(Buxton and others, 2013). 

In addition to the “boots on the ground” response in 

the immediate aftermath of the storm, the USGS developed 

the Hurricane Sandy Science Plan, “Meeting the Science 

Needs of the Nation in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy—A U.S. 

Geological Survey Science Plan for Support of Restoration 

and Recovery” (Buxton and others, 2013). The plan (Buxton 

and others, 2013) defined five science themes to delineate 

USGS priorities and to coordinate continuing USGS activities 

with other agencies. In October 2013, the USGS received 

$44.5 million in supplemental funds to support the Sandy 

Science Plan and to help with the Nation’s efforts to recover 

from the disaster and to improve the ability to respond and 

recover to future storms. Projects included observational 

assessment of substantial coastal and inland topographic and 

bathymetric changes, determining potential environmental 

health threats caused by the release of contaminants, 

evaluating coastal ecosystem impacts, and developing 

improved predictive and observational capabilities to better 

respond to future events. These funds have been used to 

substantially advance the development of numerous new 

products and tools for USGS science delivery, including the 

USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal.
26 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Recommendation 3.1—Explicitly identify risk research and 

applications when setting funding priorities and setting the 

course for new projects. Language to fund risk research and 

application projects should be included in annual mission area 

guidance, program plans, science plans, budget initiatives, 

and the annual USGS Budget Justification (“Greenbook”).

Risk reduction is one of the four foundational mandates 

of the USGS (“reduce loss of life and property from natural 

disasters”). Thus, risk research and applications should 

identify needs and affect priorities as program plans, science 

plans, and budget initiatives are developed within and across 

all mission areas of the USGS. Stakeholder engagement and 

the determination of project needs early on is essential to 

developing comprehensive budget plans. These plans and 

initiatives provide important opportunities to advance the goals 

and objectives outlined in this Plan. Importantly, they should 

emphasize that risk research and applications be considered at 

project inception and throughout project life spans.

Recommendation 3.2—Use existing Bureau-level funding 

opportunities, communities of practice, and collaboration 

mechanisms such as venture capital funds, the USGS 

Innovation Center, the Community for Data Integration 

(CDI), and the Powell Center to support risk research and 

applications initiatives. Encourage scientists from across 

USGS working in risk research and applications to submit 

proposals and to join or form working groups for researchto-operation transitions, communications approaches, and 

analytical methods related to risk research and applications.

In turn, collaborate with leaders of these capital fund 

efforts to identify incentives for soliciting risk research and 

application-specific proposals.

The Bureau has invested capital funds in programs 

such as the Innovation Center, CDI, and the Powell Center 

to explore new means for product development, crossprogram collaboration, and data integration. Specifically, the 

Innovation Center was created with the mission to “identify 

national scientific problems where USGS core interests are 

aligned with those of our external partners, and to pursue 

innovative technological solutions together, using scarce 

dollars to best serve the public” (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2017a) The CDI “leads the development of data management 

tools and practices, cyber infrastructure, collaboration tools, 

and training in support of scientists as well as technology 

specialists throughout the project and data lifecycles” (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2017b). The CDI is a venue for initiating 

short term pilot projects that advance Bureau priorities such as 

building Integrated Predictive Science Capacity. The Powell 

Center “serves as a catalyst for innovative thinking in Earth 

system science research by providing the time, creative space, 

and computational, data manipulation and data management 

resources to promote synthesis of existing information and 

emergent knowledge” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017c) 

Together, these resources offer unique opportunities to advance 

the development of risk products and to share and exchange 

expertise across programs and with external partners. 

Recommendation 3.3—Capitalize on opportunities to 

advance the recommendations of this Plan by including risk 

research and applications in proposals for supplemental 

funding when available. Project leads should be encouraged 

to consult the risk research and applications community of 

practice (see Recommendation 4.1) at the outset of project 

planning to identify opportunities and resources.

The preparation of a proposal for possible supplemental 

funding that includes risk research and applications before 

a disaster strikes could improve the chances of successful 

funding and help capitalize on opportunities to advance the 

recommendations of this Plan. Consultation between project 

leads and the risk research and applications community of 

practice (see Recommendation 4.1) to help draft effective 

proposals also could help projects get started immediately if 

and when they are funded. 

Logs and other debris jammed up against house 

along the South Fork Toutle River in Washington 

State resulting from the May 18, 1980, lahars. 

Supplemental funding and long-term investments 

following the devastating eruption of Mount St. 

Helens allowed scientists to research, study, and 

better understand the mechanics and depositional 

processes of previously unrecognized volcanic 

phenomena and events. Communities far distant 

from volcanoes were vulnerable to long-traveled 

lahars and associated erosion, sedimentation, and 

flooding. Photograph by Lyn Topinka, USGS.
Section 4. Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities 27

Section 4. Building Institutional 

Capacity—Professional Staff and 

Capabilities

If the USGS is to succeed in meeting demands from 

external partners and its commitment to addressing risk 

as part of its hazard mission, then additional professional 

capacity must be added and capabilities must be built. A key 

strength of USGS risk research and applications is that the 

people and projects involved are distributed throughout the 

Bureau, spanning mission areas, programs, and science centers 

(fig 21). Collaborating to build risk research and applications 

across this distributed workforce also is a challenge, as the 

people involved may not communicate on a regular basis, nor 

have the common demands for risk research among mission 

areas, programs, and centers been defined. Improved internal 

communication and collaboration are required across the 

organization to connect those involved in risk research and 

applications with specific areas of expertise and to share 

the methods, impacts, and potentially wider applicability of 

ongoing and completed risk research and application projects.

The development of the US West Coast ShakeAlert—

Earthquake Early Warning (EEW, see Burkett and others, 

2014) system is an example of the critical roles of the 

individuals involved in risk research and applications, and 

how these roles are interconnected:

• Science—advance research and monitoring of seismic 

properties and activity in EEW region, and understand 

how individuals and communities take action for EEW.

• Development—determine ShakeAlert seismic 

parameters within seconds from monitoring and 

develop cellphone push technology for messaging.

• Communication—foster partnerships with beta test 

users to iteratively test the system and collect user 

feedback, and to disseminate information on what 

EEW is and how it would benefit users.

• Leadership—share information on EEW progress, 

secure funding, enable internal resources and expertise, 

and manage relationships with multiple levels of 

stakeholders and supporters.

Recommendation 4.1—Create a community of practice for 

risk research and applications to create a central, Bureauwide point of contact for risk research and applications 

and to identify, connect, and coordinate relevant expertise 

across the Bureau. The CDI could be used as a model, where 

elements of the CDI could be emulated for a risk-related 

community of practice, including holding regular meetings 

of users, providing funds for supporting working groups, and 

issuing an annual request for proposals process to award seed 

funds for projects that focus on innovative risk research and 

applications.

By definition, a community of practice is a group of 

people who share a passion, expertise, or goal for something 

they do and who learn how to do it better as they interact 

and share information regularly. The USGS has multiple 

communities of practice and working groups, including the 

CDI, which can be used as a model for creating a USGS risk 

research and applications analog. This community would serve 

as a nexus for connecting scientists and staff within the USGS, 

sharing best practices, and for connecting and coordinating 

with partners at other agencies and organizations.

Recommendation 4.2—Develop an internal community 

of practice for risk research and applications web page or 

wiki to establish an online “home” for a USGS community 

of practice on risk research and applications. Like the CDI 

web page, this web page would facilitate the exchange of 

information on projects, in-house expertise, useful resources, 

and opportunities for collaboration in risk research and 

applications across the Bureau. This web page should have 

an external facing component to provide partners with 

information on the community of practice (for example, 

contacts, activities, opportunities for collaboration) (see 

Recommendation 5.1).

Creating an online collaborative workspace for people 

and projects in risk research and applications from across the 

Bureau would be a valuable tool for socializing the importance 

of this type of work, for improving communication and 

collaboration across organizational boundaries, and for helping 

individuals to advance and improve their own projects. The 

workspace would help to identify those involved in risk 

Science

Research

Analyze

Interpret

Development

Communication

Leadership

Guide

Foster

Support

Champion

Design

Build

Deliver

Listen

Create

RGE, EDGE, operations

Associate and Regional Directors

Program Coordinators

Center Directors

Public affairs officers

Congressional liasons

Illustrators

Publish

Promote

Analysts, Engineers, Programmers, 

 Software developers

Figure 21. How risk research and applications require input 

from many individuals across many levels of the U.S. Geological 

Survey. EDGE, Equipment Development Grade Evaluation; 

RGE, Research Grade Evaluation.
28 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

research and applications and their specific areas of expertise. 

It would briefly describe the characteristics of risk research 

and application projects, including methodologies and impact. 

The workspace also would provide contact information and 

(or) an interactive forum for community discussions and 

collaborative problem solving. Other projects and personnel 

that are not explicitly identified with risk research but that 

are recognized as having information and expertise that could 

complement or benefit risk researchers also would be included 

in the wiki. Pending interest, the community of practice could 

use the workspace to organize and advertise regular webinars, 

to disseminate information on ongoing projects through a blog 

or electronic newsletter, and (or) to facilitate group critiques of 

projects in development. 

Recommendation 4.3—Convene an annual meeting of the 

USGS risk research and applications community of practice.

This meeting would create a standing opportunity for scientists 

and staff to meet in person to exchange ideas, to network, 

and to report on new research and products, and challenges. 

This meeting potentially could be held in conjunction with 

another risk research and applications-related event, such as a 

conference or workshop, to leverage resources.

Transferring valuable knowledge and skills among people 

involved in risk research and applications across the Bureau 

also can be bolstered by convening a face-to-face meeting of 

the risk research and applications community of practice. This 

meeting could be structured similarly to the annual USGS 

Innovation Center Workshops or the annual CDI workshop 

and would include presentations, posters, panel discussions, 

and working groups. These meetings would allow for sharing 

innovative methods, project results, and project needs across 

disciplines with other USGS researchers as well as with 

partners and contacts from collaborating agencies. It would 

be a venue for identifying priority audiences and customers 

for USGS risk research and applications, including needed 

products and preferences in how they receive information. This 

meeting would be held annually, possibly in conjunction with 

another risk research and applications event such as the Natural 

Hazards Center Research and Applications Workshop.

Recommendation 4.4—Address needs for social science 

expertise by funding experts inside and outside USGS 

and by identifying Bureau needs for increasing staffing to 

advance risk research and applications. Continue to fund 

and promote opportunities for USGS scientists and staff to 

consult with internal and external social and hazard scientists. 

Additionally, Bureau hiring needs should be identified for 

long-term investments in building professional capacity 

in this area.

One of the main goals of building institutional capacity 

in USGS risk research and applications is to gain skills and 

knowledge for the creation of risk products that meet the 

needs of partners and external agencies. However, this may 

require expertise not currently available within a specific 

science center or the entire USGS workforce in some cases. 

For example, the expertise of a geographer or demographer 

may be needed to characterize the population potentially at 

risk from a specific hazard. A sociologist may be needed to 

help identify the reasons certain groups are more vulnerable to 

hazards than others. A behavioral psychologist may be needed 

to understand how individuals react to information about risk. 

Social impact designers may be needed to help create products 

and messaging specifically tuned to reaching these vulnerable 

groups. Adding this expertise can be accomplished through 

short-term collaborations and contracts or through long-term 

investments in Bureau hiring. 

SAFRR CORE is an existing mechanism for addressing 

needs for expertise in social sciences and product design 

through collaborations and contracts with outside experts 

(see “Case Study—USGS Science Application for Risk 

Reduction (SAFRR) Project” and “Case Study—SAFRR 

Cadre of Relevant Experts (CORE)”). Although collaborations 

and contracts can provide short-term support, long-term 

investments in Bureau hires could integrate additional social 

and behavioral science expertise in the USGS workforce and 

in USGS risk research and applications. The 2015 “Translating 

USGS Science to Risk Products” workshop identified social 

scientists and visualization expertise as potential staffing gaps 

(appendix 1). Because workforce planning is science-centerdirected, science centers would need to decide in conjunction 

with programs and mission areas what expertise is needed to 

accomplish major goals in risk research and applications and 

to achieve Bureau workforce goals.

Recommendation 4.5—Provide mentoring resources for 

scientists and staff pursuing risk research and applications.

Encourage early career scientists and staff interested in risk 

research and applications to enter the USGS Mentoring 

Program as protégés and to select mentors with experience 

in risk research and applications. Encourage those with 

experience in risk research and applications to apply 

to be mentors.

The USGS Mentoring Program focuses on intentional 

mentoring, the deliberate transfer of skills and knowledge 

from more experienced employees to those who are less 

experienced. This partnership between mentor and protégé 

often involves coaching, networking, sponsoring, and career 

training. Mentors and protégés who have taken part in this 

program note that it has contributed to valuable personal and 
Section 4. Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities 29

professional growth opportunities. Mentoring is available to 

all USGS employees and is a cost-effective tool for employee 

growth and development. The USGS Mentoring Program, 

therefore, would be an established Bureau-level means 

through which early career scientists and staff protégés could 

gain valuable skills and knowledge from mentors experienced 

in risk research and applications. Acknowledgment of risk 

research and applications at the USGS Mentoring Program 

“rollout” and quarterly “check in” meetings (which are 

attended by mentors and protégés nationwide) would help 

to heighten the awareness of people involved in and projects 

focused on risk research and applications across the Bureau.

Recommendation 4.6—Provide scientists and staff with 

opportunities for informal and formal training related to 

risk research and applications. Develop in-person and (or) 

online training courses on topics related to risk research and 

applications and (or) identify opportunities available at other 

agencies or organizations. Topics could include effective 

partnering, human-centered design thinking, risk analysis, 

risk communication, web application development, project 

management, and others.

Everyone involved in risk research and applications, 

from early career scientists to experts, benefits from acquiring 

new skills and knowledge that can be directly applied to their 

work. One way to gain new skills and knowledge is through 

in-person and (or) online training that can be done through 

informal mechanisms, such as webinars and project critiques, 

or formal mechanisms such as short courses.

Development of training opportunities on topics such 

as successful partner engagement, risk communication to 

stakeholders, GIS application building, web tool programming, 

collaborative project management, and design thinking 

strategies for risk products would benefit all involved in risk 

research and applications. These training resources could be 

developed by internal and external subject matter experts and 

presented in-person or online. At present (2018), there are 

no formal USGS or DOI training courses specifically geared 

toward the skills and knowledge needed for successful risk 

research and applications. Implementing this recommendation 

would require a determination of what types of training are 

needed and what training resources are available (for example, 

the Data Management Training Clearinghouse (Federation of 

Earth Science Information Partners, 2017) may be used as a 

model), and then creating a prioritized list of training resources 

to be developed or acquired to suit these needs. The USGS 

may be able to co-develop training with or leverage resources 

available at other organizations, such as the FEMA Emergency 

Management Institute. 

Recommendation 4.7—Share expertise in risk research and 

applications through short-term personnel assignments. 

Identify funding and administrative support for short-term 

assignments where individuals with risk expertise work with 

internal USGS projects and (or) partner agencies.

Another method for building professional capacity in risk 

research and applications is through short-term assignments 

(for example, detail opportunities or collaborations on 

specific projects), where those with risk expertise would 

work with projects in need from across the Bureau. Crossover 

collaboration helps transfer knowledge and skills between 

projects and people. Short-term assignments could be 

extended to include partner agencies that collaborate in risk 

research and applications with the USGS. These interagency 

collaborations would help transfer knowledge and skills while 

increasing the understanding of partner agency needs and their 

goals in risk research and applications.

Recommendation 4.8—Ensure risk research and 

application experts are selected to serve on internal peer 

evaluation panels of scientists working in risk research and 

applications. The risk research and applications community 

of practice (from Recommendation 4.1) may be a useful 

resource for finding research scientists to serve on Research 

Grade Evaluation (RGE) and Equipment Development Grade 

Evaluation (EDGE) panels that will be reviewing research 

scientists and staff making contributions to risk research 

and applications. A new RGE peer review group focused on 

societal risk could be an option for risk researchers whose 

work transcends a single hazard or environmental stressor.

Many USGS employees currently involved in risk 

research and applications are in positions officially classified 

as research scientists under RGE or as research engineers 

and scientists under EDGE. The performance of individuals 

in these positions is evaluated by a peer panel review 

process based on guidelines from the Office of Personnel 

Management. Because current USGS efforts in risk are 

distributed across the Bureau, an ongoing challenge is building 

review panels with sufficient background and understanding 

to review risk RGE and EDGE scientists. RGE and EDGE 

researchers with expertise in risk research and applications 

would be the most knowledgeable evaluators of their peers, 

as they would have a better understanding of the scientific 

journals where risk research is published, the types of USGS 

risk products commonly developed, and the impacts of risk 

research and applications. These researchers may be different 

from research scientists and technicians, with expertise in 

other fields.
30 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

An RGE peer group devoted specifically to societal risk 

research may be warranted to provide a more representative 

review process for interested researchers. The number of 

individuals self-identified in the community of practice of USGS

risk research may be large enough now for such a group and 

likely will grow in the future. Like current panel review groups, 

a societal risk panel review group could become an option 

for interested researchers who work across multiple hazards 

or environmental stressors. It would not impact researchers 

who would prefer to be evaluated through one of the existing 

discipline-specific groups.

Recommendation 4.9—Recognize excellence in risk research 

and applications with a USGS Shoemaker Communications 

Award. A new award for Best Risk Product, created in the 

External Communications category, would be judged on how 

effectively a product addresses the needs of external partners 

by communicating risk and the significance of the product to 

external partners in reducing risk.

Recognition of the importance of risk research and 

applications to the mission of the USGS helps to legitimize and 

encourage work in risk research and applications. One way to 

recognize this importance is by granting prestigious Bureaulevel awards (such as the Shoemaker Communications Award) 

for excellence in risk research and applications.

The criteria upon which these awards are given are the 

same as many of the elements of successful risk communication. 

Several risk-related products and scientists communicating 

risk concepts have won awards, although they may not have 

been explicitly recognized as being awarded for risk. In order 

to explicitly recognize USGS risk research and applications, a 

Shoemaker Communications Award could be established in the 

External Communications category for the Best Risk Product. 

This new award would heighten the visibility of USGS risk 

research and applications across the Bureau.

Recommendation 4.10—Develop regularly scheduled 

communications and events to broadly share information 

about USGS activities in risk research and applications both 

internally and externally. Create an annual “Hazards Risk 

Reduction Month” campaign to highlight risk research and 

applications and why they matter. This campaign would help 

to identify the people, projects, and partners involved in risk 

research and applications and the impact of their work in 

risk reduction.

In order to highlight risk research and applications 

across the Bureau, an annual “Hazards Risk Reduction 

Month” campaign could be created, where USGS web page 

feature stories, leader blogs, public lectures, congressional 

briefings, and social media posts would focus on risk research 

and applications. This campaign would be coordinated 

with the community of practice and would help to identify 

the people, projects, and partners involved in USGS risk 

research and applications and the broader impacts of their 

work in contributing to risk reduction, Bureau prestige, and 

product innovation. Highlighting the breadth of the USGS 

community of practice and the significance of risk research 

and applications to the risk reduction efforts of external 

partners could encourage more scientists and managers to 

become involved, thereby building professional capacity and 

enthusiasm within the Bureau. This annual event would be 

an excellent opportunity to introduce new products and other 

items recommended in this Plan, should they be adopted. 

To improve external visibility, the annual “Hazards Risk 

Reduction Month” could be organized in conjunction with 

the annual September National Preparedness Month or the 

October ShakeOut exercise. It would be strengthened by 

partnering with a professional society or other organization 

(for example, the American Geophysical Union, American 

Meteorological Society, American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Geological Society of America, the Natural Hazards 

Center, or the USGS Coalition) to broaden its reach and 

the scope of campaign-related communications. Additional 

communications, such as a regular blog or newsletter, may be 

considered to maintain interest throughout the year. 

During a National Water Quality Network (NWQN) sampling trip in May 

to the St. Lawrence River, Hydrologic Technician Dave Knauer finds a 

batch of Zebra mussels, an invasive species, attached to the boat anchor. 

Risk is posed by a variety of hazards, ranging from the geophysical and 

meteorological to the ecological and climatological. The risk community 

of practice is intended to draw on USGS experts from across the Bureau. 

Photograph by John Byrnes, May 30, 2018.
Section 4. Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities 31

Case Study—Award-Winning Risk Communication

Figure 22. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) presenting the John Wesley Powell 

Award to Dr. Mary Skopec of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), 

center, for her research and development in estimating streamflow and waterquality values. Photograph courtesy Advisory Committee on Water Integration, U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2009.

Risk research and applications have been rewarded 

and applauded by the USGS community through 

formal mechanisms such as the Shoemaker and John 

Wesley Powell Awards. The Shoemaker Award was 

established in 1997 to recognize “extraordinary examples 

of communicating and translating complex scientific 

concepts and discoveries into words and pictures that 

capture the interest and imagination of the American 

Public” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017f, p. 21). Although 

the Shoemaker Award does not exclusively award risk 

communication, numerous scientists who work in risk 

research and applications have been honored with this 

award. For example, Brian Atwater, USGS research 

geologist, received a 2014 award for his ability to 

communicate the risks of megathrust earthquakes and 

tsunamis to both scientific and lay audiences. The John 

Wesley Powell Award honors non-Federal government 

employees or groups for contributions to the objectives 

of the mission of the USGS (fig. 22). Like the Shoemaker 

Award, the John Wesley Powell Award does not 

exclusively award risk-related work, but risk-related activities 

have been recognized by these awards in the past. Walter 

Arabasz of the University of Utah received a 2007 award for his 

efforts in helping the public and elected officials understand 

the risks posed by earthquakes and how to reduce these risks. 

Such awards, along with Meritorious, Dallas Peck Outstanding 

Scientist Emeritus, and Special Thanks for Achieving Results 

(STAR) Awards, could be used to continue to encourage riskrelated efforts within and in partnership with the USGS. Riskrelated work such as the research of USGS geochemist Michael 

Meyer examining the exposure risk of ecosystems to various 

contaminants, the studies of wildlife ecologist Diann Prosser 

on avian influenza risk, or the advancements of the Volcano 

Disaster Assistance Program’s (VDAP) in reducing volcanic risks 

abroad also have been recognized by awards external to USGS. 

Highly prestigious departmental and national awards such as 

the Distinguished Service Award, the Presidential Early Career 

Award for Scientists and Engineers and the Service to America 

Medal have acknowledged the importance of USGS risk work at 

a national level.
32 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Section 5. Building Institutional 

Capacity—Product Delivery and 

Expansion of Information Technology 

Capabilities

Disseminating risk products and communicating hazards 

and risks to multiple users requires a modern digital approach 

to reach a diversity of audiences in a timely fashion on widely 

used, increasingly mobile platforms. In a progressively digital 

world, USGS risk products are increasingly delivered to 

computers and (or) mobile devices through web applications. 

The results are flexible, easily updated interactive products 

that are more accessible to multiple audiences (for example, 

USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal, USGS Earthquake 

Notification Service, and USGS WaterAlert). These 

products are developed at different scales, where some allow 

increasingly more personalized delivery of information 

according to geographic location.

USGS risk products are grounded in fundamental research 

and long-term monitoring; the Bureau has published numerous 

reports, maps, and journal articles on risk research and 

applications over many years. A recent keyword search of the 

online USGS publications warehouse resulted in about 4,000 

entries related to impact, disaster, emergency, exposure, hazard, 

risk, vulnerability, or warning. These and future reports would 

continue to be important for establishing the scientific integrity 

of risk-related research in the USGS as well as serving as the 

scientific foundation upon which future reports are written and 

new digital risk applications 

are constructed.

The recommendations in this section build on several 

core principles of information technology (IT) infrastructure:

• Facilitating the ability for developers to find new 

applications, code, and projects that are in progress, or 

have already been done;

• Promoting the re-use of capabilities;

• Ensuring that the development process, from start 

to finish, includes multiple feedback loops to enable 

iterative improvements informed by communications 

between stakeholders and scientists, and scientists and 

developers; and

• Leveraging cloud services while ensuring secure 

platforms. 

Digital Tools and Applications for Risk 

Reduction

The development of digital tools is a strength of the 

USGS and examples include PAGER alerts, the Coastal 

Change Hazards Portal, the Hazard Exposure Reporting and 

Analytics (HERA) mapping application, the Flood Event 

Viewer (FEV), and the Flood Inundation Mapper (FIM). Many 

tools also are developed in collaboration with other agencies 

and institutions such as the Famine Early Warning System 

that was developed in partnership with the USAID. Digital 

dissemination of risk products often includes descriptive web 

pages that draw the attention of the viewer to USGS research 

and how USGS science can be applied to critical decisions. 

Online, real-time products such as model visualizations (for 

example, Ash3D models of volcanic ash plume transport) or 

educational videos (for example, the SAFRR “Preparedness 

Now” public service announcement, U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2017g) capture the attention of an audience and 

educate viewers about hazards in their environment that 

may become future threats. Some of the most common 

vehicles for delivering hazard assessments and risk products 

include interactive mapping applications, social media and 

crowdsourcing, and robust data-aggregation tools. 

Interactive Mapping Applications

Interactive mapping applications that place multiple 

datasets in a geographic context in near-real time allow users 

to quickly visualize the extent and severity of persistent 

and evolving threats, ranging from floods and droughts to 

contaminants and debris flows. For community planning, 

this fusion of data and geographic information can help 

local and state decision makers analyze and mitigate risks. 

For emergency response, geo-located information can be 

integrated in the USGS Hazards Data Distribution System 

and, therefore, would be accessible through the Department 

of Homeland Security Geospatial Information Infrastructure, 

enabling emergency managers to make decisions and to 

allocate resources with the best information available. 

The USGS has developed multiple interactive mapping 

applications to support hazards preparedness response and 

recovery, including the following:

• FIM, which allows users to explore inundation maps 

that show where flooding would occur given a selected 

stream condition;

• The Disaster Coordination Preparedness & Response 

web map, which provides USGS geospatial data 

integration with partner data for situational awareness 

and resource management; and,

• The Emergency Assessment of Post-Fire Debris Flow 

Hazards, which show the likelihood of debris flows in 

drainage basins burned by recent wildfires.
Section 5. Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information Technology Capabilities 33

Case Study—HERA—A Web Application for Visualizing 

Community Exposure to Natural Hazards

Figure 23. Screen capture showing home page of the U.S. Geological Survey 

Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics (HERA) web application. The panel 

on the left allows the user to choose coastal storm and sea level rise scenarios; 

community or communities to display; exposure category; and whether to look 

at maps, figures, or tabular data. Image shows flood-hazard zones (“=Flooding 

Potential”, in blue) associated with an annual storm and 50 centimeters of sea 

level rise in lower San Francisco Bay, California. “Maximum Uncertainty” areas 

(in pink) denote additional flood hazard zones if one takes into account the 

maximum uncertainty in the modeling. “Minimum Uncertainty” areas can be 

shown by toggling the slider bar at the bottom of the screen. 

Understanding how certain communities may be 

specifically vulnerable to natural hazards enables elected 

officials, emergency and public works managers, business 

owners, non-profit organizations, and the public to make 

better risk-management decisions. The USGS Hazard 

Exposure Reporting and Analytics (HERA) (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2017h) web application provides interactive maps, 

charts, and graphics to visualize hazard exposure at the 

community level in terms of populations, businesses, 

economic assets, land cover, and infrastructure (fig. 23). 

Currently (2018), HERA focuses on California community 

exposure to coastal flooding hazards based on storm and 

sea level rise scenarios. Users can examine flood-hazard 

exposure for an individual community, explore changes in 

community exposure given multiple scenarios, and compare 

multiple communities. To promote science literacy of the 

general public, HERA provides guidance on the range of 

sea level rise predictions for a given year based on the 

scientific literature and dynamic maps allow users to see 

how modeling uncertainty impacts the size of flood-hazard 

zones. To support targeted interventions at the local level, 

the web application provides detailed information on the 

demographics of exposed populations and the types of 

exposed businesses. HERA is a collaboration of the USGS 

Western Geographic Science Center, which developed 

the web application and the exposure analysis, and the 

USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, which 

funded the effort and produced the hazard zones under 

the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) project. 

Partners at multiple levels of government and at nonprofit organizations have leveraged USGS efforts to add 

community exposure to descriptions of hazard zones and 

are using results in climate adaptation plans. Challenges in 

creating HERA were largely related to management of large 

and disparate geospatial datasets from multiple sources 

and to compliance with new security protocols for USGS 

cloud-based applications.
34 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Case Study—Hurricane Matthew Response

Figure 24. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) response to Hurricane Matthew, as 

characterized by hydrographer standing on flooded West 5th Street in Lumberton, 

North Carolina, preparing to measure discharge at the Lumber River (USGS streamgage 

02134170). Photograph by Jeffrey Moss, USGS, October 13, 2016.

When Hurricane Matthew reached the Caribbean 

Sea in October 2016, it caused significant loss of life 

and economic damage and the United States braced for 

its impact along the coastline of the Southeast (fig. 24). 

As emergency responders at national and local levels 

prepared for the storm, they needed information about 

where the storm was most likely to breach the protective 

coastal dunes.

In near real-time, the USGS Coastal Change 

Hazards Portal and the USGS Flood Event Viewer (FEV) 

communicated these risks and allowed emergency 

managers to understand the probabilities of dune 

erosion, overwash, and inundation for sandy beaches and 

inland rivers along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts during a 

category 4 or 5 hurricane. As the storm progressed and 

brought heavy rains, high waves, and storm surges to 

Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, responders on the 

coast and inland waterways needed to know which areas 

were most likely to flood or were actively flooding, and 

by how much. The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal and 

FEV, used in conjunction with data from many of the 8,000 

USGS real-time streamgages and partner-agency forecast 

information, allowed responders to understand these risks 

and respond accordingly (Hamilton, 2017). Although stream 

gages and coastal event viewers are directly paid for by 

the USGS (or through cooperative agreements with States, 

counties, Tribes and other local entities), USGS deployment 

during a storm event like Hurricane Matthew is often paid 

for using a FEMA mission assignment that allows the USGS 

to respond rapidly and effectively to provide risk-related 

information to the Nation.

The information provided by USGS monitoring or 

prediction of high water marks, inundation, storm surges, 

and dune erosion is used as a basis for the design of future 

dams and other water-related infrastructure such as water 

or wastewater treatment plants, highway bridges, and 

contaminant containment sites. This information also is critical 

to the successful delineation of floodplain maps by FEMA.
Section 5. Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information Technology Capabilities 35

Social Media, Citizen Science, and Crowdsourcing

The USGS has leveraged social media, citizen science, 

and crowdsourced observations to share real-time information 

during a crisis and to enhance scientific observations of 

unfolding events. For example, the Texas Water Dashboard 

is a web mapping application that presents USGS real-time 

stream, lake, reservoir, precipitation, and well data in Texas 

in context with current weather and hazard conditions by 

combining data from the National Water Information System 

(NWIS) with a real-time Twitter feed to notify users of flood 

hazards. Current digital delivery methods are having an 

increasing ability to direct information to particular groups 

geographically using wireless emergency alerts. Likewise, 

long-standing crowdsourcing projects can gather information 

from groups of citizens. For example, the USGS “Did You 

Feel It?” web page collects information from people who 

felt an earthquake and produces maps that show what people 

experienced and the extent of damage. The USGS “Is Ash 

Falling?” web page uses observations from individuals who 

observe volcanic ash to develop a better understanding of 

ash distribution. As mobile devices become more ubiquitous, 

there likely would be many more opportunities in the future to 

harness citizen science and crowdsourced information for risk 

research and applications.

Data Aggregation Tools

Data-driven applications are able to aggregate multiple 

data types and models to support various stakeholders—

including emergency managers, businesses, and community 

leaders—in risk analysis. Analytical tools have been 

developed to create evacuation scenarios for tsunami-prone 

areas or model hazard scenarios such as extent of groundwater 

contamination by a chemical spill. Decision-support tools help 

to quantify risk in ways that focus on emergency management 

or response needs (for example, PAGER, Pedestrian 

Evacuation Analyst). In turn, partners integrate USGS data 

into their own applications (for example, FEMA Hazus). 

Challenges of Creating and Delivering Digital 

Risk Products and Assessments

Expanded capabilities in information technology 

have arisen repeatedly as a topic in discussions about 

advancing risk research and applications. Digital tools for 

risk reduction offer continuously evolving opportunities to 

share, to integrate, to visualize, and to communicate data and 

information for addressing increasingly complex problems. 

However, the process of creating and delivering these products 

faces multiple challenges and needs. The ever-increasing 

scale and size of data available requires computing capacity 

beyond that which is traditionally available. Curating and 

sharing these products internally and externally is challenging 

in that they all have a different look and feel, and typically 

are “housed” on the web page of a specific program such 

that there is no unified online portfolio of these products. 

As digital risk products are developed, the demand for them 

likely would increase. As a result, new products would need 

to be developed and delivered effectively, potentially taxing 

USGS capacity in this area. The delivery of these products 

also is complicated by the need to regularly update or maintain 

applications as data and technology change. In response to 

these challenges, following are several recommendations to 

address specific needs in improving digital product delivery 

and expanding IT capacity.

Recommendation 5.1—Create a web page dedicated to USGS 

risk research and applications. This may be housed on the 

National Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) web page, but should 

link to this Plan and to USGS risk tools and applications 

across programs and other mission areas.

Creating a central web page for USGS risk research and 

application products would facilitate the internal and external 

sharing of current and planned USGS capabilities in this area. 

This web page would provide links to existing products that 

are hosted in different locations across the USGS web page. 

For future risk products, visual identity standards should 

be considered for creating a consistent “look and feel” for 

USGS risk products. This web page would link to the online 

collaborative workspace for the community of practice on risk 

research and applications (see Recommendation 4.2).

Recommendation 5.2—Develop a Bureau-level capability 

to host and to maintain operational USGS products in a 

secure and powerful online environment for digital delivery 

to computers and mobile devices. Risk products should be 

included in this effort. 

Web pages and applications increasingly require skilled 

developers and visualization experts to create and maintain 

them. These experts often must have access to highperformance computing capabilities able to handle, model, 

and visualize large, complex hazards data. At the same time, 

the security requirements for online products are constantly 

changing. To keep up with these changes, the USGS 

should improve its capability for hosting and maintaining 

operational products as well as using and improving existing 

investments in advanced computing for model calculation and 

visualization. This issue extends beyond risk products, and 

may require additional staff or equipment. 
36 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Case Study—USGS Evacuation Modeling to Help Save Lives from Future Tsunamis

Figure 25. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pedestrian-evacuation modeling of future tsunamis 

including travel time schematics for (A) Ocean Shores and (B) Aberdeen, Washington (WA), (C) 

graph comparing population exposure as a function of travel time to safety for both communities, 

and (D) features of the USGS Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst tool. Tsunami-hazard zones for the 

travel time schematics are based on a moment magnitude scale (Mw) 9.0 Cascadia subduction 

zone earthquake and assume a pedestrian travel speed of 1.1 meters per second. 

In the past two decades, tsunamis have killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed coastal 

communities throughout the world. Many U.S. coastal communities are threatened by tsunamis from an array of 

local and distant sources and include threats that could impact shorelines within minutes of offshore generation. 

Geographers at the USGS Western Geographic Science Center recognized that there had been little research devoted 

to determining whether or not at-risk individuals in these communities would have enough time to evacuate before 

wave arrival. Funding by the USGS Land Change Science Program allows these researchers to develop geospatial 

modeling techniques for estimating and mapping pedestrian travel times out of tsunami hazard zones (fig. 25). To 

date, USGS efforts have included efforts in the Pacific Northwest, San Francisco Bay, Alaska, American Samoa, and 

New Zealand. Modeling of pedestrian travel times takes into consideration not only how far people have to travel 

in order to be safe, but also the landscape and elevation changes over which they need to travel. Modeling results 

are integrated with demographic data to estimate the number and type of people in hazard zones as a function of 

travel times to safety. Recent research also helps emergency managers identify major evacuation corridors, estimate 

population demand at assembly areas, understand regional trends in community vulnerability, minimize overevacuations, and compare the benefits of vertical evacuation refuge locations. USGS evacuation-modeling research in 

the Pacific Northwest contributed to the decision to build a vertical-evacuation structure at a local elementary school 

in Ocosta, Washington, which could save more than 1,000 students and community members from future tsunamis. 

A free geospatial tool (Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst) has been developed by the USGS and it is now being used by 

partners to map tsunami-evacuation travel times in Alaska, Oregon, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, and India, and has 

been incorporated in a new tsunami module of the FEMA Hazus loss-estimation software.
Section 5. Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information Technology Capabilities 37

Recommendation 5.3—Develop life-cycle plans for risk 

products. Proposed new risk products should include a wellarticulated life-cycle plan that allows for the development 

and operationalization of the product to be funded in-place 

and (or) transferred to another USGS group, government 

agency, or non-government entity that is better equipped to 

maintain the product to meet user needs. The life-cycle plan 

should include a realistic cost-benefit analysis to ensure 

funding or to justify the use of existing funds, and should 

include architectural solutions to ensure that the final product 

is flexible. A clearly communicated sunset date, in the absence 

of long-term funding, is recommended as part of the life-cycle 

plan.

One of the key challenges that arises in the development 

and dissemination of USGS risk products is the transformation 

from development to operations—in many cases, products are 

developed and become widely adopted. As more people access 

digital USGS risk products, more server space and speed are 

required to meet demands, which can quickly escalate during a 

hazard event (for example, fig. 26).

All of this can add substantially to the cost of maintaining 

risk products, something that the groups who developed 

the products may not be prepared to fund or are capable of 

funding, especially as they continue the innovative research 

that made their products popular. This increasing strain on 

resources often results in delayed maintenance or in some 

products being discontinued in order to continue development 

of other products. Business models that proactively plan 

for the application life cycle are needed for the USGS to be 

able to continue innovating with new risk-related products. 

If successful, these models could be used in other USGS 

communities.

Recommendation 5.4—Assess and document current and 

pending digital risk products and developers. Develop and 

maintain an online catalog of current and pending USGS risk 

products, including web pages, publications, and applications. 

Host and maintain this catalog on a central web page that 

includes points-of-contact and case studies in their use for risk 

research and applications.

An assessment of current and pending digital risk 

products, developed to inform stakeholders and to assist 

development of future products, would catalog USGS web 

pages, publications, and applications in risk research and 

applications. This catalog should be made available on a central 

web page along with other key risk science information, such 

as points-of-contact, case studies, and awards. Additionally, a 

risk product catalog would serve as a starting point for future 

development, collaboration, and integration efforts within the 

USGS and with USGS partners. The ScienceBase Catalog may 

be a useful tool for this documentation.

Recommendation 5.5—Identify opportunities to collaborate 

with other agencies and outside partners to leverage 

resources for product development. Develop partnerships 

with other Federal, State, and local agencies that will provide 

cost efficiencies for sharing data and developing products 

for the benefit of all, including determining demand for new 

or updated products. Collaboration will require support for 

time and travel for USGS scientists and staff to participate in 

working groups or meetings with partners.

In an increasingly collaborative scientific environment, 

interagency (and even crowdsourced) data collection is 

gaining momentum and outside support. Relationships with 

external partners often are necessary to build collaborative 

datasets for risk reduction. Iterative approaches to application 

development must include partner evaluation and input to 

ensure their usefulness to an intended audience (Perry and 

others, 2016). Applications are in development and intended 

for collaborative risk-related data collection. For example, 

the USGS Short Term Network for high-water mark and 

storm surge data collection is being used as a post-disaster 

data collection point by the USGS, FEMA, State partners, 

and others. Similarly, USGS ShakeMap provides FEMA 

and State emergency management offices with the necessary 

shaking input for post-earthquake loss assessments using the 

FEMA Hazus loss estimation software. Another example is the 

Washington State Earthquake Scenario Catalog, which was 

developed using USGS data and technical assistance and then 

hosted by the Washington State Geological Survey.

Other loss and risk systems and products that have 

heavily leveraged partner resources in their development 

include PAGER, which received initial and continued partial 

support from the USAID/OFDA, and the USGS ShakeCast 

system, which was initially primarily funded by the California 

Department of Transportation and subsequently funded by 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
38 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Figure 26. Screen capture of web page analytics for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Change Hazards Portal 

showing increased page hits for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017. Image courtesy of M. Hines, USGS.

Recommendation 5.6—For each risk product, include 

language guiding users to effective use and product 

limitations, including information on data provenance and 

uncertainty.

Current digital trends and government policies encourage 

aggregation of data into novel products (for example, 

https://www.data.gov or https://data.usgs.gov). A potential 

consequence from the aggregation process is that data shared 

through web services and other modes may be stripped of its 

source information before it reaches its audience. Sometimes 

ensuring that data are widely used runs counter to ensuring 

that proper credit and quality attributions for the data are 

received. Potential confusion can be mitigated by thorough 

product documentation. Using Digital Object Identifiers for 

risk data and products and Open Researcher and Contributor 

ID (ORCID) identifiers for USGS researchers can support 

documentation, understanding, discoverability, and reuse of 

USGS risk resources.

Many ocean-front homes on Fire Island, New York, were damaged or destroyed during Hurricane Sandy. The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal allows 

users to overlay the projected track of major storms from the National Weather Service on an interactive map with predictions of the severity of coastal 

change hazards, such as dune overwash and inundation. Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey.
Section 5. Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information Technology Capabilities 39

Case Study—Mitigating Risk Using the U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application

Figure 27. Screen capture showing example page of U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Seismic 

Design Maps web application, which is used in designing earthquake-safe buildings and other 

structures throughout most of the United States.

Since the mid-1990s, the USGS National Seismic 

Hazard Modeling Project (NSHMP) has collaborated 

closely with building code committees funded by FEMA 

to develop maps of earthquake ground shaking used in 

designing trillions of dollars of construction. The maps 

are printed in building code documents such as the 

NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) 

Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings 

and Other Structures (Building Seismic Safety Council, 

2015). To enable users to obtain accurate values from 

the printed maps and to correctly implement them in 

building code provisions, structural engineers in the 

NSHMP have worked with USGS software engineers to 

develop tools. This group developed the U.S. Seismic 

Design Maps web application shown in figure 27. These 

tools have facilitated application of hazards science from the 

NSHMP and USGS-FEMA research on risk mitigation through 

design of safe structures. However, maintenance of the 

tools—including replying to inquiries, updating the software, 

and incorporating new editions of various building code 

documents—has consumed significant USGS resources, 

eventually beyond the capacity of the USGS developers 

assigned to the project. The roughly 1,800 uses per day of 

the tools have attracted private-sector developers who can 

monetize similar web applications. This outside interest 

allows USGS developers to focus on the underlying services 

that compute the earthquake ground shaking, as well as 

other hazard and risk research and applications, while 

industry developers provide graphical user interfaces that 

facilitate the design of earthquake-safe structures.
40 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Section 6. Measurable Milestones—the 

Path to Implementation

The Important and Growing Role of USGS

The USGS serves an important role in the 

characterization and communication of risk from an array 

of hazards. This role is well-supported by congressional 

authorizations, program and mission area directives, years 

of scientific experience, and extensive collaborations with 

partners and stakeholders at the Federal, State, and local 

levels. This role would become increasingly vital and would 

need to grow as hazards continue to disrupt built and natural 

environment systems and as human populations expand into 

hazard-prone areas. 

Because of the complex socioeconomic context within 

which USGS risk research and applications may be used, the 

success of USGS work in this area cannot solely be measured 

on the basis of whether or not a decision maker ultimately 

uses USGS risk research and applications to decide to change 

land use, strengthen building codes, develop new regulations, 

change insurance premiums, or take other societal actions. 

Attaching the success of USGS risk research and applications 

to specific risk reduction efforts by external partners may 

foster the perception of the USGS becoming an advocate for 

certain courses of action and thereby reduce our objectivity 

in helping the Nation understand the threats posed by natural 

hazards. Instead, the goal of USGS engagement in risk 

research and applications is to provide decision makers and 

the public with the best possible science, information, and 

products to inform their decisions about actual or perceived 

risks before, during, and after a hazard event. 

Plan Recommendations

This Plan presents a suite of recommendations aimed 

at advancing existing capabilities in risk research and 

applications and leading future investigations toward risk 

reduction (table 1). The success of this Plan depends on the 

implementation of these recommendations.

Some recommendations are intended to be implemented 

in the short term (for example, in less than 1 year), such as 

building a community of practice and associated internal web 

page of USGS scientists and staff engaged in risk research and 

applications (in accordance with Recommendations 4.1 and 

4.2). Building this community and creating a first version of 

its web page could be accomplished within 1 year. 

Other recommendations more realistically would be 

accomplished over several years. The following are all goals 

that would take time and buy-in to achieve:

• Developing mechanisms and formal opportunities for 

USGS scientists to share lessons learned in doing risk 

research and applications,

• Creating training courses to share best practices, and

• Including language advocating for USGS work in risk 

research and applications in program plans, science 

plans, and budget initiatives.

Accomplishing short-term recommendations as quickly as 

possible would take advantage of the momentum gained by 

the publication of this Plan. Implementing the collection of 

Plan recommendations would cement the USGS position in 

risk research and applications and would ensure that Bureau 

capacity and capability in risk research and applications grows 

with demand.

Recommendation 6.1—Develop a Bureau-level request for 

proposal (RFP) process to enable USGS science centers to 

contribute to various products recommended in this Plan 

(for example, databases, guidelines, courses, workshops, 

detail opportunities, mentoring).

Within the Bureau, no one science center will have all 

the capabilities and capacity to ensure the success of this 

Plan. Involvement of science centers across mission areas and 

regions will help increase communication and collaborations.

Recommendation 6.2—Routinely assess the progress of 

implementing this Plan.

To ensure that this Plan is implemented and remains 

topical, the authors of this Plan or some form of an advisory 

working group should convene annually to assess and report 

on progress towards implementation.
Section 6. Measurable Milestones—the Path to Implementation 41

Table 1. Summary of recommendations.

[Abbreviations and symbol: This Plan, this report (Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications); 

USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; <, less than]

Recommendation Recommended timeline 

for implementation

Building Institutional Capacity—Advancing and Creating Partnerships

2.1

Support and encourage USGS scientists involved in risk research and 

applications to engage and collaborate with external partners on scientific 

research, product development, and complementary message delivery. This 

engagement requires an investment of salary time and possibly travel that must be 

supported and funded in order to be successful.

<1 year

2.2

Establish and support a process to evaluate and improve the dissemination, 

usability, knowledge uptake, and impact of USGS risk research and 

applications with key partners, recognizing that partners will vary by hazard 

and region. Work with external partners with expertise in program evaluation and 

adaptive management to help the USGS develop actionable metrics for gauging the 

societal use and impact of USGS risk research and applications.

1 year

Building Institutional Capacity—Project Funding

3.1

Explicitly identify risk research and applications when setting funding 

priorities and setting the course for new projects. Language to fund risk research 

and application projects should be included in annual mission area guidance, 

program plans, science plans, budget initiatives, and the annual USGS Budget 

Justification (“Greenbook”).

1–3 years

3.2

Use existing Bureau-level funding opportunities, communities of practice, and 

collaboration mechanisms such as venture capital funds, the USGS Innovation 

Center, the Community for Data Integration (CDI), and the Powell Center to 

support risk research and applications initiatives. Encourage scientists from 

across USGS working in risk research and applications to submit proposals 

and to join or form working groups for research-to-operation transitions, 

communications approaches, and analytical methods related to risk research 

and applications. In turn, collaborate with leaders of these capital fund efforts to 

identify incentives for soliciting risk research and application-specific proposals.

1 year

3.3

Capitalize on opportunities to advance the recommendations of this Plan by 

including risk research and applications in proposals for supplemental funding 

when available. Project leads should be encouraged to consult the risk research 

and applications community of practice (see Recommendation 4.1) at the outset of 

project planning to identify opportunities and resources.

As opportunities arise

Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities

4.1

Create a community of practice for risk research and applications to create a 

central, Bureau-wide point of contact for risk research and applications and 

to identify, connect, and coordinate relevant expertise across the Bureau. The 

CDI could be used as a model, where elements of the CDI could be emulated for 

a risk-related community of practice, including holding regular meetings of users, 

providing funds for supporting working groups, and issuing an annual request for 

proposals process to award seed funds for projects that focus on innovative risk 

research and applications.

<1 year
42 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Table 1. Summary of recommendations.—Continued

Recommendation Recommended timeline 

for implementation

Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities—Continued

4.2

Develop an internal community of practice for risk research and applications 

web page or wiki to establish an online “home” for a USGS community of 

practice on risk research and applications. Like the CDI web page, this web page 

would facilitate the exchange of information on projects, in-house expertise, useful 

resources, and opportunities for collaboration in risk research and applications across 

the Bureau. This web page should have an external facing component to provide 

partners with information on the community of practice (for example, contacts, 

activities, opportunities for collaboration) (see Recommendation 5.1).

<1 year

4.3

Convene an annual meeting of the USGS risk research and applications 

community of practice. This meeting would create a standing opportunity for 

scientists and staff to meet in person to exchange ideas, to network, and to report on 

new research and products, and challenges. This meeting potentially could be held 

in conjunction with another risk research and applications-related event, such as a 

conference or workshop, to leverage resources.

1 year

4.4

Address needs for social science expertise by funding experts inside and outside 

USGS and by identifying Bureau needs for increasing staffing to advance risk 

research and applications. Continue to fund and promote opportunities for USGS 

scientists and staff to consult with internal and external social and hazard scientists. 

Additionally, Bureau hiring needs should be identified for long-term investments in 

building professional capacity in this area.

1 year

4.5

Provide mentoring resources for scientists and staff pursuing risk research and 

applications. Encourage early career scientists and staff interested in risk research and 

applications to enter the USGS Mentoring Program as protégés and to select mentors 

with experience in risk research and applications. Encourage those with experience in 

risk research and applications to apply to be mentors.

1–2 years

4.6

Provide scientists and staff with opportunities for informal and formal 

training related to risk research and applications. Develop in-person and (or) 

online training courses on topics related to risk research and applications and (or) 

identify opportunities available at other agencies or organizations. Topics could 

include effective partnering, human-centered design thinking, risk analysis, risk 

communication, web application development, project management, and others.

2–3 years

4.7 Share expertise in risk research and applications through short-term personnel 

assignments. Identify funding and administrative support for short-term assignments 

where individuals with risk expertise work with internal USGS projects and (or) 

partner agencies.

1–2 years

4.8

Ensure risk research and application experts are selected to serve on internal 

peer evaluation panels of scientists working in risk research and applications. 

The risk research and applications community of practice (from Recommendation 4.1) 

may be a useful resource for finding research scientists to serve on Research Grade 

Evaluation (RGE) and Equipment Development Grade Evaluation (EDGE) panels that 

will be reviewing research scientists and staff making contributions to risk research and 

applications. A new RGE peer review group focused on societal risk could be an option 

for risk researchers whose work transcends a single hazard or environmental stressor.

1–2 years
Section 6. Measurable Milestones—the Path to Implementation 43

Table 1. Summary of recommendations.—Continued

Recommendation Recommended timeline 

for implementation

Building Institutional Capacity—Professional Staff and Capabilities—Continued

4.9

Recognize excellence in risk research and applications with a USGS Shoemaker 

Communications Award. A new award for Best Risk Product, created in the External 

Communications category, would be judged on how effectively a product addresses 

the needs of external partners by communicating risk and the significance of the 

product to external partners in reducing risk.

1 year

4.10

Develop regularly-scheduled communications and events to broadly share 

information about USGS activities in risk research and applications both 

internally and externally. Create an annual “Hazards Risk Reduction Month” 

campaign to highlight risk research and applications and why they matter. This 

campaign would help to identify the people, projects, and partners involved in risk 

research and applications and the impact of their work in risk reduction.

<1 year

Building Institutional Capacity—Product Delivery and Expansion of Information Technology Capabilities

5.1

Create a web page dedicated to USGS risk research and applications. This may 

be housed on the Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) web page, but should 

link to this Plan and to USGS risk tools and applications across programs and other 

mission areas.

1 year

5.2

Develop a Bureau-level capability to host and to maintain operational USGS 

products in a secure and powerful online environment for digital delivery to 

computers and mobile devices. Risk products should be included in this effort.

2–3 years

5.3

Develop life-cycle plans for risk products. Proposed new risk products should 

include a well-articulated life-cycle plan that allows for the development and 

operationalization of the product to be funded in-place and (or) transferred to another 

USGS group, government agency, or nongovernment entity that is better equipped to 

maintain the product to meet user needs. The life-cycle plan should include a realistic 

cost-benefit analysis to ensure funding or justify the use of existing funds, and should 

include architectural solutions to ensure that the final product is flexible. A clearlycommunicated sunset date, in the absence of long-term funding, is recommended as 

part of the life-cycle plan.

1 year, as new products

are proposed

5.4

Assess and document current and pending digital risk products and developers.

Develop and maintain an online catalog of current and pending USGS risk products, 

including web pages, publications, and applications. Host and maintain this catalog on 

a central web page that includes points-of-contact and case studies in their use for risk 

research and applications.

1–2 years

5.5

Identify opportunities to collaborate with other agencies and outside partners 

to leverage resources for product development. Develop partnerships with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies that will provide cost efficiencies for sharing data 

and developing products for the benefit of all, including determining demand for new 

or updated products. Collaboration will require support for time and travel for USGS 

scientists and staff to participate in working groups or meetings with partners.

<1-2 years, as 

opportunities arise

5.6 For each risk product, include language guiding users to effective use and 

product limitations, including information on data provenance and uncertainty. 1 year

Measurable Milestones—The Path to Implementation

6.1

Develop a Bureau-level request for proposal (RFP) process to enable USGS 

science centers to contribute to various products recommended in this Plan 

(for example, databases, guidelines, courses, workshops, detail opportunities, 

mentoring).

1 year

6.2 Routinely assess the progress of implementing this Plan. Annually
44 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Section 7. Potential Projects for 

Advancing Risk Research and 

Applications

Developing new projects centered on risk would provide 

an opportunity to implement the recommendations of this 

Plan. Following are several envisioned projects that would 

build on existing USGS expertise while advancing specific 

elements identified in this Plan and meeting stakeholder needs. 

This list is not ranked, nor is it intended to be prescriptive—

instead, it is meant to provide inspiration for some new 

projects as well as some long-standing visions held by the 

USGS and its colleagues for supporting the Nation with 

science-based decisions regarding risk in the future.

Hazards in My Backyard

Stakeholders ranging from State and local decision 

makers to urban planners are becoming increasingly interested 

in obtaining regional-to-neighborhood-scale information 

on hazards to better tailor mitigation projects and to better 

tailor individual/household preparedness recommendations. 

This presents an opportunity for the USGS to develop an 

interactive map to enable users to examine and understand 

hazards “in their backyard.” Hazards information would be 

geocoded such that anyone can input an address to see all 

the hazards that could affect them. This hazards information 

could be visualized using enhanced-reality applications 

or visualizations to show the potential real-world impacts 

of these events. One of the challenges of this project is 

overcoming differences in scale, coverage, units, and 

availability of data to accomplish this level of scalability. This 

project would require significant collaboration with Federal, 

State, and local agencies to overcome these challenges, and 

may require the acquisition of new data to close the gaps. 

Landslide Risk Assessment for the Nation’s 

Transportation Infrastructure

In cooperation with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), State departments of transportation, 

State geological surveys, USGS 3-D Elevation Program 

(3DEP), National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, 

and Landslide Hazards Program, this project would develop 

a risk assessment for landslide impacts along the major 

transportation routes across the United States to support 

improvements to the Nation’s aging infrastructure. Such an 

assessment would require new high-resolution topographic, 

geologic, and geophysical information, which combined 

with State department of transportation information on traffic 

volume and value, would be used to develop a consistent 

and comparable landslide risk assessment. The development 

of these products should include State and local agencies to 

determine implications for liability with the release of a new, 

comprehensive assessment. Results would be used to identify 

the highest-priority route sections for structural mitigation, 

near-real-time monitoring, and repeat topographic survey. 

Multi-Hazard PAGER-Type Alerts

PAGER has been a widely used tool for rapidly 

estimating the fatalities and economic losses of seismic 

events and determining the level of needed response. The 

development of a PAGER-equivalent for other hazards (for 

example, contaminant spills, volcanic eruptions, severe 

coastal inundation, post-wildfire debris flows and (or) multihazards and cascading consequences) would benefit a similar 

group of users by communicating risk (including social, 

economic, health, environmental impacts), and would be 

delivered in near real-time. Results could be used to inform 

and communicate evacuation plans, water and recreation use 

limitations, changes to accessible roadways and transportation 

corridors, and anticipated property damage or loss in affected 

areas. Such a tool would be modeled on PAGER but would 

be focused on domestic events, ideally using a similar 

“stoplight” color pattern for alert levels to inform response. 

Like the Hazards in My Backyard project, this effort would 

require significant collaboration with Federal, State, and local 

agencies to overcome challenges in collecting available data 

and may require the acquisition of new data to close the gaps. 

Risk Assessments in Public Lands

Hundreds of millions of visitors frequent U.S. national 

parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife National Refuges, and other public lands every year, 

generating revenues to nearby communities and supporting 

jobs in the DOI and local communities. More than 4 million 

people live and work on Tribal lands in the United States. 

Bureau of Reclamation lands are home to billions of dollars’ 

worth of critical infrastructure upon which millions of 

Americans depend. Thousands of cultural sites, artifacts, 

national icons, and important areas for ecosystem services 

and economic production also are located on public lands. 

Public safety and the preservation of valuable national 

treasures could be improved through the evaluation and 
Acknowledgments 45

understanding of hazards and associated risks posed to assets 

in these areas and the use of tools to help mitigate those risks. 

Using quantified relative risks to human populations and to 

cultural, economic, and environmental resources, the USGS 

would: train local land and emergency managers in the use of 

USGS-developed evacuation modeling; develop GIS maps 

and decision tools depicting areas of high risk to human 

health and safety, as well as to various environmentally and 

societally important resources; monitor and prioritize relative 

risks from different types of exposures; and, collaborate with 

outreach programs on public lands to use citizen science to 

engage visitors, employees, and residents to report observed 

hazards. Challenges with this project include the availability 

of some hazards and asset data at a nationwide scale, as well 

as the interoperability of these data. Probabilistic risk products 

may not be possible for all hazards given the high level of 

uncertainty inherent in the occurrence of some hazards.

National Hazard Exposure Assessment

This project would entail the development of a national 

exposure assessment available at the community level to 

all hazards of USGS interest and their likely cascading 

consequences (for example, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, 

landslides, flooding, coastal change, invasive species, and 

contaminants). The assessment would be based on geospatial 

data characterizing hazards and their intersection with 

populations, hydrology, habitats, land cover, infrastructure, 

and critical facilities. Geospatial analysis could be used 

to quantify community-level exposure, statistical cluster 

analysis could be used to develop “sister cities” of common 

vulnerability issues, and visualizations using a web-based 

platform would be used to allow users to compare and contrast 

communities of interest or focus on specific hazards. The 

assessment could be updated on a consistent timescale and 

could be scalable at community, county, congressional-district, 

and national levels. Because the national assessments would 

show relevance to everyday lives and livelihoods, the work 

would raise public awareness of USGS hazards science. The 

HERA platform (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017h) could be 

expanded to handle such a national assessment.

Conclusion

This Plan presents a set of recommendations for 

enhancing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) development and 

delivery of actionable information to improve risk reduction. 

By introducing a Bureau-wide focus on risk research and 

applications, the USGS is well-positioned to meet the 

challenge of reducing risk in the face of increasing disasterrelated losses combined with rapid environmental change, 

shifts in urbanization, and evolving resource management 

needs. This Plan describes specific actions that the USGS may 

take to advance partnerships, to adjust project planning, to 

develop internal professional capacity and capabilities, and 

to improve product delivery. These activities are underpinned 

by fundamental needs, including bolstered information 

technology capacity, adding expertise to the USGS and 

access to expertise outside the USGS, and developing new 

opportunities for fostering a community of practice focused on 

risk research and applications. The process of implementing 

the recommendations of this Plan can be incorporated in new 

projects. This Plan presents several projects that would build 

on existing USGS expertise while advancing specific elements 

identified in this Plan and meeting long-standing 

stakeholder needs. 

Acknowledgments

This report was supported by the U.S. Geological 

Survey Natural Hazards Mission Area. The authors thank 

Nina Burkardt (USGS), Lori Peek (University of Colorado 

at Boulder and the Natural Hazards Center), and Hilary 

Stockdon (USGS) for their thoughtful and extensive reviews 

of this Plan. The authors also thank USGS colleagues Susan 

Benjamin, Sky Bristol, Earl Campbell, Lance Clampitt, 

Michael Dettinger, Mike Frame, Janice Gordon, Leslie Hsu, 

Deborah Martin, Robert Mason, Jill McCarthy, Larry Meinert, 

James Meldrum, Cheryl Morris, Sue Perry, Geoff Plumlee, 

Jordan Read, Tim Reilly, Jonathan Smith, David Wald, 

Anne Wein, and Ben Wheeler for their valuable feedback 

and suggestions. The authors are grateful for the ideas and 

input provided by partners from Federal and State agencies, 

academia, and non-governmental organizations in developing 

this Plan.
46 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

References Cited 

Abdollahian, N., Jones, J., and Wood, N., 2016, Community 

exposure to potential climate-driven changes to coastalinundation hazards for six communities in Essex County, 

Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2016–1187, 87 p.

American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 

2015, Dune management challenges on developed coasts 

workshop, accessed January 8, 2018, at http://asbpa.org/getinvolved/science-technology/dune-workshop/.

Bright, P.R., Buxton, H.T., Balistrieri, L.S., Barber, L.B., 

Chapelle, F.H., Cross, P.C., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Plumlee, 

G.S., Sleeman, J.M., Tillitt, D.E., Toccalino, P.L., and 

Winton, J.R., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey environmental 

health science strategy—Providing environmental health 

science for a changing world: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1383–E, 43 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383e/. 

Bristol, R.S., Euliss, N.H., Jr., Booth, N.L., Burkardt, Nina, 

Diffendorfer, J.E., Gesch, D.B., McCallum, B.E., Miller, 

D.M., Morman, S.A., Poore, B.S., Signell, R.P., and Viger, 

R.J., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey core science systems 

strategy—Characterizing, synthesizing, and understanding 

the critical zone through a modular science framework: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–B, 33 p., accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383b/.

Building Seismic Safety Council, 2015, NEHRP (National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended 

Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures 

(FEMA P-1050-1) Volume 1: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 

Commentary. National Institute of Building Sciences: 

Washington, D.C., 555 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1440422982611-

3b5aa529affd883a41fbdc89c5ddb7d3/fema_p-1050-1.pdf.

Burkett, E.R., Given, D.G., and Jones, L.M., 2014, 

ShakeAlert—An earthquake early warning system for the 

United States West Coast (ver. 1.2, February 2017): U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2014–3083, 4 p., accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

fs20143083.

Burkett, V.R., Kirtland, D.A., Taylor, I.L., Belnap, J., 

Cronin, T.M., Dettinger, M.D., Frazier, E.L., Haines, J.W., 

Loveland, T.R., Milly, P.C.D., O’Malley, R., Thompson, 

R.S., Maule, A.G., McMahon, G., and Striegl, R.G., 2013, 

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science 

strategy—A framework for understanding and responding 

to global change: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–A, 

43 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at https://pubs.usgs.

gov/circ/1383a/.

Buxton, H.T., Andersen, M.E., Focazio, M.J., Haines, J.W., 

Hainly, R.A., Hippe, D.J., and Sugarbaker, L.J., 2013, 

Meeting the science needs of the Nation in the wake of 

Hurricane Sandy—A U.S. Geological Survey science plan 

for support of restoration and recovery: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1390, 26 p., accessed December 29, 2017, 

at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1390/.

Cannon, S.H., Gartner, J.E., Rupert, M.G., Michael, J.A., Rea, 

A.H., and Parrett, C., 2009, Predicting the probability and 

volume of post-wildfire debris flows in the intermountain 

Western United States: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin v. 122, p. 127–144, accessed December 29, 2017, 

at https://doi.org/10.1130/B26459.1.

Cutter, S.L., 1996, Societal vulnerability to environmental 

hazards: International Social Science Journal, v. 47, no. 4, 

p. 525–536. 

Cutter, S.L., Richardson, D., and Wilbanks, T., 2003, A 

research and action agenda, in Cutter, S., Richardson, D., 

and Wilbanks, T., eds., The geographical dimensions of 

terrorism: New York and London, Routledge, p. 223–229.

Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group, 2013, 

Operational Group Sandy technical progress report: 

Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior, 75 p., 

accessed December 29, 2017, at https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/

hurricanes/sandy/sandy_tech_122413.pdf.

Diefenbach, A.K., Wood, N.J., and Ewert, J.W., 2015, 

Variations in community exposure to lahar hazards from 

multiple volcanoes in Washington State (USA): Journal of 

Applied Volcanology Society and Volcanoes, v. 4, no. 4, 

p. 1–14, accessed December 29, 2017, at https://doi.

org/10.1186/s13617-015-0024-z.

Dow, K., 1992, Exploring differences in our common 

future(s)—The meaning of vulnerability to global 

environmental change: Geoforum, v. 23, p. 417–436.
References Cited 47

Evenson, E.J., Orndorff, R.C., Blome, C.D., Böhlke, J.K., 

Hershberger, P.K., Langenheim, V.E., McCabe, G.J., 

Morlock, S.E., Reeves, H.W., Verdin, J.P., Weyers, H.S., 

and Wood, T.M., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey water 

science strategy—Observing, understanding, predicting, 

and delivering water science to the Nation: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1383–G, 49 p., accessed December 29, 

2017, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383g/.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2017, Hazus 

Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United 

States FEMA P-366/April 2017, p. 1-78, accessed 

March 18, 2018, at https://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/1497362829336-7831a863fd9c5490379b28409d541

efe/FEMAP-366_2017.pdf.

Federation of Earth Science Information Partners, 2017, Data 

Management Training Clearinghouse web page accessed 

December 22, 2017, at http://dmtclearinghouse.esipfed.org/.

Ferrero, R.C., Kolak, J.J., Bills, D.J., Bowen, Z.H., Cordier, 

D.J., Gallegos, T.J., Hein, J.R., Kelley, K.D., Nelson, P.H., 

Nuccio, V.F., Schmidt, J.M., and Seal, R.R., 2013, U.S. 

Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy—A 

resource lifecycle approach: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1383–D, 37 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383d/.

Frazier, T.G, Wood, N., Yarnal, B., and Bauer, D.H., 2010, 

Influence of potential sea level rise on societal vulnerability 

to hurricane storm-surge hazards, Sarasota County, Florida: 

Applied Geography, v. 30, no. 4, p. 490–505.

Hamilton, H.M., 2017, After the Storm—Hurricane Matthew 

and the Floods web page, accessed March 17, 2018, at 

https://www.usgs.gov/news/after-storm-hurricane-matthewand-floods.

Henry, K.D., Wood, N.J., and Frazier, T.G., 2017, Influence 

of road network and population demand assumptions in 

evacuation modeling for distant tsunamis: Natural Hazards, 

v. 85, p. 1,665, accessed December 29, 2017, at https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11069-016-2655-8.

Hewitt, K., 1997, Regions of risk—A geographical 

introduction to disaster: New York, Addison Wesley 

Longman, 410 p.

Holmes, R.R., Jr., Jones, L.M., Eidenshink, J.C., Godt, 

J.W., Kirby, S.H., Love, J.J., Neal, C.A., Plant, N.G., 

Plunkett, M.L., Weaver, C.S., Wein, A., and Perry, S.C., 

2013, U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science 

strategy—Promoting the safety, security, and economic 

well-being of the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1383–F, 79 p. [Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/1383f/.]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Annex 

II—Glossary, in Pachauri, R.K., and Meyer, L.A., Core 

writing team eds., Climate change 2014—Synthesis 

report—Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, p. 117–130, accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Glossary.pdf.

Jaiswal, K.S., Petersen, M.D., Rukstales, K., and Leith, W.S., 

2015, Earthquake shaking hazard estimates and exposure 

changes in the conterminous United States: Earthquake 

Spectra, v. 31, no. S1, p. S201–S220.

Jenni, K.E., Goldhaber, M.B., Betancourt, J.L., 

Baron, J.S., Bristol, R.S., Cantrill, Mary, Exter, P.E., 

Focazio, M.J., Haines, J.W., Hay, L.E., Hsu, Leslie, 

Labson, V.F., Lafferty, K.D., Ludwig, K.A., Milly, P.C., 

Morelli, T.L., Morman, S.A., Nassar, N.T., Newman, T.R., 

Ostroff, A.C., Read, J.S., Reed, S.C., Shapiro, C.D., 

Smith, R.A., Sanford, W.E., Sohl, T.L., Stets, E.G., 

Terando, A.J., Tillitt, D.E., Tischler, M.A., Toccalino, P.L., 

Wald, D.J., Waldrop, M.P., Wein, A., Weltzin, J.F., and 

Zimmerman, C.E., 2017, Grand challenges for integrated 

USGS science—A workshop report: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2017–1076, 94 p. [Also available 

at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171076.]

Jones, J., Jamieson M., and Wood, N., 2016, Community 

exposure to tsunami hazards in Hawai‘i: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2016–5053, 32 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

sir20165053.]
48 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Jones, L.M., Bernknopf, R., Cannon, S., Cox, D.A., 

Gaydos, L., Keeley, J., Kohler, M., Lee, H., Ponti, D., 

Ross, S., Schwarzbach, S., Shulters, M., Ward, A.W., and 

Wein, A., 2007, Increasing resiliency to natural hazards-A 

strategic plan for the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project 

in Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1255, 19 p. [Also available at https://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2007/1255/pdf/ofr_2007-1255.pdf].

Jones, L.M., Bernknopf, R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., 

Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., 

Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., 2008, 

The ShakeOut scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008-1150, 312 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/.

Lave, J., 2014, Communities of practice: Learning theories, 

July 16, 2014, accessed September 26, 2017, at https://

www.learning-theories.com/communities-of-practice-laveand-wenger.html.

Lowenstern, J.B., ed., 2013, Abstracts for the October 

2012 meeting on Volcanism in the American Southwest, 

Flagstaff, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2013–1026, 39 p.

McMahon, G., Benjamin, S.P., Clarke, K., 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 the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 

2005–2015: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1281, 76 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1281/.]

Mileti, D.S. and Sorensen, J.H., 1990, Communication of 

emergency public warnings—A social science perspective 

and state of-the-art assessment: Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory Report ORNL-6609, 145 p. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.2172/6137387.]

Munich RE, 2016, Topics Geo natural catastrophes 2015: 

Analyses, assessments, positions, 82 p., accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://www.munichre.com/

site/touch-publications/get/documents_E1273659874/

mr/assetpool.shared/Documents/5_Touch/_

Publications/302-08875_en.pdf. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 

2018, Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within 

the Weather Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press, p. 1-160, accessed March 18, 2018, at 

https://doi.org/10.17226/24865.

National Research Council, 2007, Earth materials and health: 

Research priorities for Earth science and public health: 

Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press, 188 p.

National Research Council, 2012, International science in the 

national interest at the U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, 

D.C., The National Academies Press, 112 p. 

Perry, S., Cox, D., Jones, L., Bernknopf, R., Goltz, J., 

Hudnut, K., Mileti, D., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., 

Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., 2008, 

The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario − a story that southern 

Californians are writing: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1324 and California Geological Survey Special Report 207, 

16 p. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1324/.]

Perry, S.C., Blanpied, M.L., Burkett, E.R., Campbell, N.M., 

Carlson, A., Cox, D.A., Driedger, C.L., Eisenman, D.P., 

Fox-Glassman, K.T., Hoffman, S., Hoffman, S.M., 

Jaiswal, K.S., Jones, L.M., Luco, N., Marx, S.M., 

McGowan, S.M., Mileti, D.S., Moschetti, M.P., Ozman, D., 

Pastor, E., Petersen, M.D., Porter, K.A., Ramsey, D.W., 

Ritchie, L.A., Fitzpatrick, J.K., Rukstales, K.S., 

Sellnow, T.S., Vaughon, W.L., Wald, D.J., Wald, L.A., 

Wein, A., and Zarcadoolas, C., 2016, Get your science 

used—Six guidelines to improve your products: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1419, 37 p. [Also available at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1419.]

Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, 

S.M., Llenos, A.L., Ellsworth, W.L., Michael, A.J., 

Rubinstein, J.L., McGarr, A.F., and Rukstales, K.S., 2016, 

2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and 

Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1035, 

52 p., accessed March 18, 2018, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr20161035.

Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, 

S.M., Shumway, A.M., McNamara, D.E., Williams, R.A., 

Llenos, A.L., Ellsworth, W.L., Michael, A.J., 

Rubinstein, J.L., McGarr, A.F., and Rukstales, K.S., 2017, 

2017 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central 

and Eastern United States from induced and natural 

earthquakes: Seismological Research Letters, v. 88, no. 3, 

p. 772–783., accessed March 18, 2018, at https://doi.

org/10.1785/0220170005.

Plumlee, G., 2009, Report from ground zero: how 

geoscientists aid in the aftermath of environmental 

disasters: EARTH Magazine, accessed March 16, 2018, at 

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/report-ground-zero.
References Cited 49

Plumlee, G., Morman, S.A., and Cook, A., 2012, 

Environmental and medical geochemistry in urban disaster 

response and preparedness: Elements, v. 8, no. 6, p. 451–

457, accessed March 16, 2018, at https://doi.org/10.2113/

gselements.8.6.451.

Porter, K., Wein, A., Alpers, C., Baez, A., Barnard, P., 

Carter, J., Corsi, A., Costner, J., Cox, D., Das, T., 

Dettinger, M., Done, J., Eadie, C., Eymann, M., Ferris, J., 

Gunturi, P., Hughes, M., Jarrett, R., Johnson, L., 

Dam Le-Griffin, H., Mitchell, D., Morman, S., Neiman, P., 

Olsen, A., Perry, S., Plumlee, G., Ralph, M., Reynolds, D., 

Rose, A., Schaefer, K., Serakos, J., Siembieda, W., Stock, J., 

Strong, D., Wing, I.S., Tang, A., Thomas, P., Topping, K., 

and Wills, C., 2011, Overview of the ARkStorm scenario: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1312, 

183 p. plus appendixes, accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/.

Ross, S.L., Jones, L.M., Miller, Kevin, P., K.A., Wein, A., 

Wilson, R.I., Bahng, B., Barberopoulou, A., Borrero, J.C., 

Brosnan, D.M., Bwarie, J.T., Geist, E.L., Johnson, L.A., 

Kirby, S.H., Knight, W.R., Long, K., Lynett, P., 

Mortensen, C.E., Nicolsky, D.J., Perry, S.C., Plumlee, G.S., 

Real, C.R., Ryan, K., Suleimani, E., Thio, H., Titov, V.V., 

Whitmore, P.M., and Wood, N.J., 2013, SAFRR (Science 

Application for Risk Reduction) tsunami scenario—

Executive summary and introduction: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2013–1170–A, in Ross, S.L., and 

Jones, L.M., eds., The SAFRR (Science Application for 

Risk Reduction) tsunami scenario: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013–1170, 17 p., accessed December 29, 

2017, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1170/a/.

Sleeter, B.M., Wood, N.J., Soulard, C.E. and Wilson, T.S., 

2017, Projecting community changes in hazard exposure to 

support long-term risk reduction: A case study of tsunami 

hazards in the US Pacific Northwest: International Journal 

of Disaster Risk Reduction, v. 22, p.10-22. [Also available 

at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.015.]

Stock, G.M., and Collins, B.D., 2014, Reducing rockfall risk 

in Yosemite National Park: EOS—Earth and Space Science 

News, v. 95, no. 22, p. 261-263, accessed March 18, 2018 

at https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/upload/StockCollins-2014-EOS.pdf.

Stock, G.M., Luco, N., Collins, B.D., Harp, E.L., 

Reichenbach, P., and Frankel, K.L., 2014, Quantitative 

rock-fall hazard and risk assessment for Yosemite Valley, 

Yosemite National Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5129, 52 p., accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5129/.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.L., 

Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., 

Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and 

Schiller, A., 2003, A framework for vulnerability analysis in 

sustainability science: Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, v. 100, no. 14, p. 8,074–8,079.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a, U.S. Geological Survey 

Innovation Center web page, accessed December 29, 2017, 

at https://geography.wr.usgs.gov/InnovationCenter/about.

html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017b, U.S. Geological Survey 

Community for Data Integration web page, accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://www2.usgs.gov/cdi/about.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017c, U.S. Geological Survey 

Powell Center web page, accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://powellcenter.usgs.gov/aboutnnovationCenter/about.

html. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017d, U.S. Geological Survey Flood 

Inundation Mapping Program information sheet, accessed 

December 29, 2017, at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_

inundation/toolbox/files/FIMProgramFactSheetoptimized.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017e, Pre-and post-storm photo 

comparisons – New York web page, accessed December 29, 

2017, at https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/sandy/photocomparisons/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017f, U.S. Geological Survey Honor 

Awards Guide web page, accessed December 29, 2017, 

at https://www2.usgs.gov/humancapital/pc/documents/

USGSHonorAwardsGuide.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017g, Science Applications for 

Risk Reduction Preparedness Now web page, accessed 

December 22, 2017, at https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=UFBRs1Lbvyo.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017h, U.S. Geological Survey 

Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics (HERA) web 

page, accessed December 29, 2017, at https://www.usgs.

gov/apps/hera/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, Coastal Change Hazards Portal 

web page, accessed March 17, 2018, at http://marine.usgs.

gov/coastalchangehazardsportal/.

Wald, D.J., Jaiswal, K.S., Marano, K.D., Bausch, D.B., and 

Hearne, M.G., 2010, PAGER—Rapid assessment of an 

earthquake’s impact: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

2010–3036, 4 p. Revised November, 2011. Accessed March 

17, 2018, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3036/.
50 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Washington Military Department, 2014, Mount Saint HelensMount Adams Volcanic Region Coordination Plan, accessed 

March 16, 2018, at https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_

mngr/file-132/mount-st.-helens—-mount-adams-volcanicregion-coordination-plan-october-2014.pdf. 

Weichselgartner, J., 2001, Disaster mitigation: the concept 

of vulnerability revisited: Disaster Prevention and 

Management—An International Journal, v. 10, no. 2, 

p. 85–95.

Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of practice—Learning, 

meaning, and identity: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 

Cambridge University Press, 336 p.

Williams, B.K., Wingard, G.L., Brewer, G., Cloern, 

J.E., Gelfenbaum, G., Jacobson, R.B., Kershner, J.L., 

McGuire, A.D., Nichols, J.D., Shapiro, C.D., van Riper C., 

III, and White, R.P., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey 

ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and 

application through collaboration: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1383–C, 43 p., accessed December 29, 2017, at 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383c/.

Wood, N., Ratliff, J., Schelling, J., and Weaver, C., 2014, 

Comparing population exposure to multiple Washington 

earthquake scenarios for prioritizing loss estimation studies: 

Applied Geography, v. 52, p. 191–203. 

Wood, N.J., Burton, C.G., and Cutter, S.L., 2010, Community 

variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related 

tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: Natural Hazards, 

v. 52, p. 369., accessed March 18, 2018, at http://doi.

org/10.1007/s11069-009-9376-1.

Wood, N.J., Jones, J., Spielman, S., and Schmidtlein, M.C., 

2015, Community clusters of tsunami vulnerability in 

the US Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, v. 112, no. 17, p. 5,354–5,359.
Glossary 51

Glossary

Key terms in risk reduction have a range of definitions and consensus on each term is difficult given the spectrum of 

disciplines and practitioners using them. This section provides working definitions for terms used in this report taken from the 

literature (for example, Dow, 1992; Cutter, 1996; Hewitt, 1997; Weichselgartner, 2001; Turner and others, 2003; Holmes and 

others, 2013; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014).

Adaptive capacity The ability of systems, institutions, 

humans, and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, 

to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to imminent 

threats.

Community of Practice A group of people who share a 

passion, expertise, or goal for something they do and learn 

how to do it better as they interact and share information 

regularly. This definition is modified from Wenger (1998). 

According to Lave (2014), “communities develop their 

practice through a variety of methods, including: problem 

solving, requests for information, seeking the experiences of 

others, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, discussing 

developments, visiting other members, mapping knowledge 

and identifying gaps.” 

Exposure The presence of people, livelihoods, species or 

ecosystems, environmental functions, services, infrastructure, 

or other assets (for example, economic, social, or cultural 

resources) in places that could be adversely affected. 

Exposure is related to hazard proximity and the environmental 

characteristics of the hazard, such as speed of onset, duration, 

and pre-onset cues.

Hazard A dangerous process, phenomenon, substance, 

activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or 

other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and 

services, social and economic disruption, or environmental 

damage. Acute or sudden-onset hazards are those events 

that occur on timescales of minutes to days (for example, 

earthquake, flood, tsunami, wildfire, hurricane), whereas 

chronic hazards occur on longer timescales (for example, 

seasonal coastal erosion, drought, sea level rise).

Loss Death, injury, and health impacts to human populations; 

damage to or destruction of homes, businesses, livestock, 

critical infrastructure, and other property; disruption or 

cessation of livelihoods, cultural or social structures, activities, 

and customs, economic exchange, and critical services; and 

environmental degradation.

Mitigation Action, including education, that eliminates or 

reduces the potential effects of a hazard.

Resilience The ability to prepare for and adapt to changing 

conditions and to withstand and recover rapidly from 

disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand 

and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally 

occurring threats or incidents.

Risk The potential for consequences where something 

of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, 

recognizing the diversity of values. Risk sometimes is 

represented quantitatively as probability of occurrence of 

hazardous events multiplied by the impacts if these events 

occur. Risk results from the interaction of hazards and a 

vulnerable asset or system. Risk can be further broken down 

into various sub-categories, including the following three 

entries.

Risk assessment The qualitative and (or) quantitative 

scientific estimation of risks.

Risk management Plans, actions, or policies to reduce the 

likelihood and (or) consequences of risks or to respond to 

consequences.

Risk perception The subjective judgment that people make 

about the characteristics and severity of a risk. 

Sensitivity The personal or situational conditions that 

influence the degree to which an individual, group, system, 

or species may be affected by a hazard. For example, 

demography and socioeconomic status have been found to 

influence the sensitivity of an individual to hazards, whereas 

construction type and practices influence the sensitivity of 

buildings to certain hazards (for example, earthquakes and 

floods).

Vulnerability The combination of physical, social, cultural, 

economic, historical, and political components that influence 

the degree to which an individual, community, or system 

is susceptible to damaging effects of a hazard. Although 

definitions and applications of the term, vulnerability, vary, 

common elements within the hazards literature include 

concepts of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
Appendix 1. Executive Summary from the 2015 “Translating USGS Science to 

Risk Products” Workshop

During November 3–4, 2015, the “Translating USGS 

Science to Risk Products Workshop” convened 38 scientists 

from across several USGS mission areas and science centers 

to advance the element of “risk translation” in the Hazards 

Science Strategy (Holmes and others, 2013). This element 

aims to ensure that hazards information gets the broadest and 

most effective use by communities at risk. The workshop 

aimed to identify priorities for translating USGS science 

to risk products and to develop a draft framework for an 

implementation plan.

Over the course of 2 days, participants explored 

definitions; analyzed case studies; identified strengths, 

weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; and brainstormed ways 

to develop capacity for risk translation. Discussions showed 

that risk translation has different interpretations and is more 

than risk communication. It can involve a broad spectrum 

of activities, including risk analysis research, stakeholder 

engagement, product evaluation, and collaboration across 

traditional disciplinary, institutional, and jurisdictional 

boundaries. Successful outcomes can advance risk reduction, 

increase stakeholder engagement and expectations, and lead to 

additional support for underpinning research and monitoring 

networks.

Analyzing case studies proved to be a valuable way 

to learn from one another about the process of translating 

science to risk products. Despite seemingly diverse situations, 

examples from different centers and hazards revealed 

commonalities and values, including strong partnerships, local 

connections, agile development, and unanticipated spinoff 

projects. In some cases, changes in technology revolutionized 

product development; in others, products were spurred by 

specific hazard events. Some centers and programs have had 

more experience than others in the area of risk translation; 

documenting best practices, sharing resources, and finding 

more regular means to interact across centers and hazards 

would enable future growth and innovation. 

To address future needs and opportunities, the following 

are included in a list of priorities: clarifying the USGS role in 

risk relative to other federal agencies, forging stronger ties to 

the social science community, and elevating the importance 

of risk translation internally. Exploring the role of technology 

and visualization as well as establishing a better understanding 

of USGS product audiences hold promise for future work. 

Institutional barriers, such as contracting external expertise, 

ensuring research scientists are rewarded for work in risk 

translation, and keeping up with stakeholder expectations, are 

challenges that should be addressed in the implementation 

plan.

Participants agreed that USGS accomplishments in risk 

translation should be shared and celebrated; these stories can 

provide useful examples for others to use while messaging 

the importance and value of this work within and outside the 

Bureau. Creating mechanisms to enable USGS scientists and 

stakeholders to cross institutional and disciplinary boundaries 

would support future efforts in developing risk assessments. 

Participants identified a need for an institutional structure 

that addresses issues such as funding, workforce planning, 

and contracting related to risk translation. Organization 

options may include a central “matchmaker,” hub, or a 

decentralized-but-connected network of risk translation 

specialists to coordinate resources. Additionally, fellowships 

or detail opportunities would facilitate cross-fertilization 

and new connections. Pilot activities that convene experts 

and stakeholders from multiple areas may be a useful way to 

highlight flagship products and break down silos of expertise.

At the end of the workshop, participants generated a list 

of implementation plan key elements and next steps. These 

ideas, combined with results from the workshop discussions 

documented in this report, will be the foundation for the 

implementation plan. The critical next step will be for these 

ideas to be incorporated in an actionable plan that serves the 

goal of infusing risk translation in USGS culture to advance its 

natural hazards mission.

52 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications
Appendix 2. Risk Science in USGS Science Strategies and Planning Documents

Many USGS science strategies and planning documents 

have identified different components of risk research and 

applications as a critical component of USGS work and 

professional outputs, as exemplified by the following strategy 

documents:

• The U.S. Geological Survey Climate and Land 

Use Change Science Strategy—A Framework for 

Understanding and Responding to Global Change 

(Burkett and others, 2013). The authors note that 

the USGS plays an important role in helping partners 

and stakeholders understand the consequences of 

a changing climate. The science strategy proposes 

various products to “help society anticipate and adapt 

to global change” (p. 3). These products include 

predictive models (for example, models of coastal 

retreat), decision-support products (for example, 

water planning and management under land-use, 

water-use, and climate change), validated maps (for 

example, rates of regional, national, and global landuse and land-cover change), regional and national 

scenarios (for example, sea level rise scenarios for U.S. 

coastlines), summarized data (for example, observed 

and projected climate change and land-use impacts 

on water supply quantities), and the “translation of 

research results for application in a management 

context” (p. 7).

• The U.S. Geological Survey Core Science Systems 

Strategy—Characterizing, Synthesizing, and 

Understanding the Critical Zone through a 

Modular Science Framework (Bristol and others, 

2013). This strategy emphasizes the use of USGS 

data to help partners manage and assess hazards. For 

example, “New techniques of merging hydrologic 

information with Hazus social and economic data from 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

allows for unique scenarios of impacts based upon 

each incremental reading of the USGS streamgage—

allowing emergency managers to know what the 

potential impacts could be before the first raindrop 

falls” (p. 26). The science strategy also suggests 

developing research and methods for a “comprehensive 

virtual observatory containing relevant observations of 

physical and biological phenomena important to USGS 

research, including plant and animal species occurrence 

and human structures of importance to hazards 

characterization and risk assessment” (p. 30). The 

strategy highlights how USGS science can identify and 

potentially map risk, using Valley Fever as an example. 

• The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Science 

Strategy—Advancing Discovery and Application 

through Collaboration (Williams and others, 2013).

The authors note how USGS science can be used in 

risk assessment. For example, the USGS assesses 

habitats that may be at risk of invasion by exotic 

species such as Asian carp, and develops information 

on control strategies to share with partners (p. 13). 

Furthermore, stressing the importance of modelling 

and forecasting in the risk space, the science strategy 

states, “Observations and research, together with 

models and forecasts, help scientists and managers 

understand environmental variability, explain 

vulnerabilities and risk, and evaluate management 

options” (p. 29). Actions proposed in this report also 

highlight USGS science in providing information on 

risk. For example, the report highlights the capacity 

of the USGS to provide information on vegetation 

and fuels across a landscape, thereby forming a better 

understanding of wildfire risk to people and property 

(p. 33). Another proposed action focuses on developing 

new tools and methods to manage “at-risk” species 

using environmental toxicology, epidemiology, genetic, 

and genomic techniques. 

• The U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals 

Science Strategy—A Resource Lifecycle Approach 

(Ferrero and others, 2013). The authors cite the 

National Resource Council (2007), remarking 

that a “comprehensive understanding of the 

interactions among energy and mineral resources and 

environmental and biological receptors can help...

citizens to be informed about risks and benefits 

associated with resource extraction” (p. 15). The 

science strategy notes that creating geologically 

based environmental models can assist in identifying 

the potential environmental risks and data gaps of 

conventional and emerging critical energy and mineral 

commodities. The strategy also stresses the importance 

of USGS understanding of the availability of energy 

and mineral materials at global and national scales to 

“inform decisions about risks associated with import 

dependence and possible actions to mitigate supply 

risk (p. 28; National Research Council, 2012).

• The U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Health 

Science Strategy—Providing Environmental 

Health Science for a Changing World (Bright and 

others, 2013). The authors state that although it does 

not have a directly mandated public health mission, 

the USGS Environmental Health Mission does 

Appendix 2 53
Appendix 2 54

contribute directly to the work of partner agencies that 

are responsible for human and domesticated animal 

health. The science strategy describes their science 

as “useful for defining human exposure to zoonotic 

and vector-borne diseases, parasites, harmful earth 

materials, synthetic chemicals and substances, and 

biogenic contaminants” (p. 10) and provides the 

products of their research to decision makers at all 

levels of government (p. 11). The science strategy 

does not highlight as many “risk products” as some 

of the other strategies reviewed here, but emphasizes 

the importance of developing baseline data, and 

characterizing the aspects of different environmental 

health hazards (for example, characterization of 

transmission pathways) as informing decision 

making on these topics. The strategy emphasizes the 

importance of “[p]romptly gather[ing] and releas[ing] 

preliminary data and interpretations to emergency 

responders, disaster planners, and other decision 

makers in a timely and useful context” (p. 32). The 

science strategy identifies the following as important 

means to communicate, manage for, and mitigate risks 

associated with environmental health: development 

and implementation of real-time monitoring and 

surveillance techniques that can use early-warning of 

rapid-onset threats (for example, threats to drinking 

water biosecurity; p. 18); risk analysis and statistical/

epidemiological techniques to target surveillance 

systems/mitigation activities to geographic areas and 

populations with the highest likelihood of disease 

emergence; development of models and approaches 

to forecast emerging environmental health threats (for 

example, infectious disease), contaminant occurrence 

and distribution, and identification of vulnerable 

settings, ecosystems, and species; development of 

messaging about health threats in consultation with 

risk communication specialists; and, use of social 

media and local media to deliver time-sensitive, or 

high-visibility findings (p. 35).

• The U.S. Geological Survey Water Science 

Strategy—Observing, Understanding, Predicting, 

and Delivering Water Science to the Nation 

(Evenson and others, 2013). The authors note that 

the USGS Water Mission Area plays a critical role 

in helping stakeholders understand and act upon 

information pertaining to water-related hazards. The 

science strategy identifies the following as important 

means to communicate, manage for, and mitigate 

risks associated with these hazards: software and 

computer programs developed to assist in predictions 

of flood inundation, hydrology, and water chemistry; 

validated maps (for example, flood-inundation 

mapping); geospatial products developed to identify 

potential hydrological hazards to a community; 

web-based tools (for example, WaterWatch and 

StreamSTATS); alert/warning systems (for example, 

WaterAlert); observation systems for detecting and 

tracking conditions leading to both water-related 

emergencies and long-term hazards such as droughts; 

and USGS rapid deployment teams that interface 

with local responders. The strategy also emphasizes 

the importance of basic data products that can be 

used in emergency management or planning efforts 

such as analyzing vulnerabilities in water supply 

systems, ensuring that streamgage data meet flood 

forecasting and warning requirements (NOAA and 

State), and producing information and analyses 

that help communities understand their exposure 

to extreme hydrologic events (for example, debris 

flows, coastal erosion, drought, and flooding). The 

strategy recommends using communication methods 

such as social media and local news networks to 

inform citizens during water-hazard events. The 

science strategy stresses the importance of producing 

information and tools that are “usable for planning, 

response, recovery, and mitigation in regards to 

hydrologic hazards” (p. 34).

• The Geography for a Changing World – A Science 

Strategy for the Geographic Research of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2005–2015 (McMahon and 

others, 2005). The authors emphasize the importance 

of the risk science space. The circular recognizes 

that discipline-specific research that, for example, 

assesses flood frequency or volcanic activity is “often 

not blended to develop an integrated perspective 

on important societal concerns” (p. 7). Thus, the 

circular stresses, it should be a fundamental goal 

of land-change science to help the public, resource 

managers, and decision makers understand the social 

and economic consequences of land change at multiple 

spatial and temporal scales (p. 15–16). Two of the nine 

goals in the circular specifically touch on risk research 

and applications. Strategic Action 3.3 suggests that 

USGS scientists should “conduct research leading to 

improved capabilities to assess wildfire conditions, 

predict wildfire potential, prioritize treatment areas, 

and monitor effectiveness of fire treatments to support 

risk reduction efforts in the urban-natural landscape 

54 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications
interface” (p. 16). Goal 4 suggests that USGS seek to 

“improve the scientific basis for vulnerability and risk 

assessment, mitigation, response, and recovery related 

to the human and environmental dynamics of land 

change” (p. 18). In this part of the circular, the authors 

note that, although USGS has a long and distinguished 

history in hazard assessment research, it has conducted 

far less research “to describe and understand 

the potential for loss or damage” in terms of 

vulnerability—exposure to hazards combined with the 

sensitivity/resilience of the human-environment system 

(p. 18–19). The circular emphasizes that the success 

of “vulnerability and resilience science” is dependent 

on linking science and decision making (p. 19) and 

calls for a national set of vulnerability assessment 

tools for researchers and practitioners (p. 20). This 

vulnerability research would incorporate new methods 

for communicating uncertainty in communications 

about hazards to decision makers and the public. The 

circular envisions that such research would consider 

exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to hazards 

at multiple scales to help protect public safety, societal 

assets, and environmental resources. The circular also 

suggests the development of a national monitoring 

program to identify at-risk areas to prioritize additional 

USGS hazard and vulnerability assessment research 

and the risk reduction efforts of local and national 

partners. The report also suggests the development 

and application of methods to assess the efficacy of 

proposed scenarios for hazard mitigation strategies 

and risk assessment. Additionally, the circular 

directs USGS scientists to “focus on techniques for 

distinguishing high-probability/low-consequence 

events from low-probability/high-consequence events 

for public policy decision making (Cutter and others, 

2003)” (p. 21). The development of a “national toolbox 

of metrics, indicators, models, and decision-support 

systems that characterizes the environmental, social, 

and economic consequences of land change” also is 

suggested (p. 24). 

• Grand challenges for integrated USGS science—A 

workshop report (Jenni and others, 2017). The 

authors of this workshop report identified “social risk 

from existing and emerging threats” as one of four 

overarching “grand challenges” for integrated USGS 

science. The authors summarize the vision for this 

grand challenge as, “the USGS will prepare the Nation 

to cope with and reduce the risks of existing and 

emerging threats associated with the Earth system. We 

will provide directly relevant integrated science that 

management entities can use in planning and response. 

This science will leverage existing technologies, 

data, and models; new science and technology; 

and community participation and co-creation of 

knowledge.” (p. 8). The authors explore obstacles 

that need to be overcome to pursue this challenge, 

including insufficient social science and information 

science expertise and the need for updated product 

delivery mechanisms. The report includes specific 

ideas for projects to implement this grand challenge at 

a bureau-wide scale.

Appendix 2 55
56 Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications

Appendix 3. Examples of USGS Efforts in Risk Research and Applications

Table 3-1 shows a wide range of efforts and should not be considered an exhaustive inventory. Some of these products are 

applicable to multiple efforts in risk research and applications. We recommend the development and maintenance of such an 

online inventory of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) efforts to further USGS risk research and applications by leveraging best 

practices, identifying new opportunities and applications, and connecting USGS researchers and external partners.

Table 3-1. Examples of USGS Work in Risk Research and Applications.

Risk research and applications type Example products

Hazard Assessments: Unconditional (that is, 

independent of any single scenario or 

observation)

The Coastal Change Hazards Portal provides assessments of long- and short-term rates and 

probabilities of shoreline change due to the effects of long-term sea level rise.

Volcano hazard assessments summarize the types and likelihood of future hazardous phenomena 

expected to occur at a specific volcano or volcanic region.

The National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project develops short- and long-term forecasts of 

potentially damaging earthquake ground shaking.

Hazard Assessments: Conditional (that is, 

takes into account current observations, 

forecasts, or scenario assumptions)

Debris-flow hazard assessments related to the aftermath of recent fires.

Flood-inundation maps are based on a selected stream condition or historical information.

The Flood Event Viewer shows streamgage levels and flood zones during flooding events.

Earthquake hazard scenarios based on a particular magnitude, location, and fault-rupture 

geometries.

The Sediment-bound Contaminant Resiliency and Response (SCoRR) strategy defines baseline 

and post-event sediment-bound environmental health stressors resulting from sea level rise 

and storm-derived disturbances.

Forecasts and warnings Alert notification for volcano activity.

Earthquake early warning.

ShakeCast automates the delivery of ShakeMap estimated shaking levels at user-specific 

facilities.

WaterAlert provides streamflow and flood-stage messages when certain parameters exceed userdefinable thresholds.

SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes) is a tool for the 

regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data, including contaminant sources and 

factors influencing terrestrial and aquatic transport. 

Hydrodynamic and sediment modeling supported response efforts related to the Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill.

Vulnerability assessments Community clusters of vulnerability to tsunami hazards associated with Cascadia subduction 

zone earthquakes based on population exposure, demography, and evacuation potential.

The Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics (HERA) application provides community-level 

estimates of coastal- hazard exposure based on sea level and storm scenarios.

Earthquake shaking hazard estimates and population-exposure changes in the conterminous 

United States

Community-level exposure reports for tsunami, volcano, and coastal-hazard scenarios
Appendix 3 57

Table 3-1. Examples of USGS Work in Risk Research and Applications.—Continued

Risk research and applications type Example products

Risk assessments Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) reports summarize a wide range of societal 

impacts related to plausible earthquake, atmospheric storm, and tsunami scenarios.

Building-related earthquake loss estimates, as determined by estimated annualized earthquake 

losses for the United States

The Seismic Risk Web Application calculates the risk of earthquake damage to one or many 

structures based on fragility curves.

A probabilistic assessment of rockfall runout and consequent casualties in Yosemite Valley.

Risk communication Guidelines for developing successful science products for risk communication, based on the 

social science literature.

Laymen flood poster to explain 100-year flood concepts.

Overview of risk reduction alternatives for volcanic lahar hazards.

Decision support systems U.S. Seismic Design maps allow users to retrieve seismic design parameter values for the design 

of buildings and bridges at sites in the U.S. and its Territories.

Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst is a geographic information system (GIS) tool that provides users 

with the ability to model pedestrian evacuation potential out of hazard zones, as well as test 

the impact of vertical-evacuation alternatives.

Post-event assessments The Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system provides users 

with a quick assessment of earthquake intensity and population exposure.

Fault afterslip forecast for use by residents impacted by fault rupture from the 2014 South Napa 

earthquake.

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Office of Associate Director, Natural Hazards

U.S. Geological Survey

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

https://www.usgs.gov/science/mission-areas/natural-hazards
 Ludwig and others—Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications—Circular 1444

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1444