Director: John Anderson

775-784-4975

Review prepared: April 17, 2000

The Seismological Laboratory has adopted the following mission statement:

Established as a separate research and public service division, the Nevada Seismological Laboratory has overall responsibility for instrumental studies of earthquakes in the Nevada region. The laboratory operates a statewide network of seismographic stations and investigates the sizes, frequencies of occurrence, and distribution of earthquakes in the region, and other problems related to seismic risk in Nevada. The laboratory disseminates information through the World Wide Web and regularly publishes research results. It serves as a repository of information and a resource for the public on matters related to earthquake activity and earthquake risks in Nevada and adjoining states. The laboratory also handles grant- and contract-supported research on seismic problems of national and international importance. The laboratory interacts closely with the UNR Department of Geological Sciences to prepare well-educated professionals for careers in seismology, and with the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology in its research and outreach efforts on natural hazards.

This section shows only the cost to the Nevada taxpayers. The source of funding is the appropriation to the University of Nevada. The Seismological Laboratory does not receive any other state funds.

There is no Federal or Nevada law that mandates the State of Nevada to operate a Seismological Laboratory.

The Seismological Laboratory was approved by the Nevada Board of Regents on February 15, 1974 as a separate research division of the University of Nevada. It is a statewide research laboratory, with its Director reporting to the Dean of the Mackay School of Mines. Our objectives, as approved by the Regents, are to:

The existence of the Seismological Laboratory creates the possibility of accessing significant Federal and other funds related to earthquake hazard characterization and mitigation that otherwise would not be available to the citizens of Nevada. Objectives 1 and 2 are achieved using a combination of Federal and state support, essentially because the appropriate Federal agency (U. S. Geological Survey) has been convinced that recording earthquakes in Nevada is a problem of national importance (Objective 6). The support from the state is evidence to the USGS that Nevada also considers the earthquake problem to be significant. The state support also assures that studies of earthquakes in Nevada will deal with Nevada priorities and not just Federal priorities.

It is important to recognize that funds from the state are essential to create the kind of stable position that can attract and retain the key people in the organization and meet the service mission of the Laboratory. A base of state funding allows the lab to retain outstanding scientists who in turn bring in millions of dollars of Federal research to the state. The state funding for the Seismological Laboratory for 1991-1999 was approximately $2.2 million. This made it possible for the Seismological Laboratory to attract approximately $13.5 million in Federal funds for the same time interval, or 6.1 non-state dollars for every 1 state dollar. (Final external funding totals for the year 2000 are not available yet.)

Figure 1 is a map showing the known earthquakes affecting Nevada, 1850-1999. This figure shows that there is an earthquake hazard in Nevada. Figure 2 shows the sequence of magnitudes over time, for earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or greater. Appendix 1 lists the 469 earthquakes that appear on Figure 2. For magnitudes below 6.0 the catalog is incomplete prior to the mid 1960’s, when the Seismological Laboratory developed. For magnitudes from 6.0-6.9, there are proportionally more events prior to the 1960’s, but it is likely that the catalog is incomplete. For magnitudes 7.0 and above, the catalog is complete since 1900, and may be complete as far back as 1860.

Nevada had magnitude 7.0 or larger earthquakes in 1915 (M_S=7.8), 1932 (M_S=7.2), and two in 1954 (M_S=7.3, 7.1). The large event in the 1800’s is the 1872 earthquake in California adjacent to Nevada; this earthquake was distinctly felt in much of Nevada. If we assume that the record is complete from 1860-2000 with 5 events of M>7, then the average rate is 5 events/140 years, or 1 event every 28 years on average.

Figure 3 shows a map of active faults in Nevada. The most important thing to notice about this map is that there are recognized active faults throughout Nevada, so no part of the state is completely safe. In general, the faults farther to the west tend to be more active, consistent with the seismicity map showing more earthquakes in the western part of the state. The activity rate in even the most active parts of Nevada is lower than in the major metropolitan regions around Los Angeles and San Francisco, California However, a large damaging earthquake could occur anyplace in Nevada, and would not be a scientific surprise.

In the context of this hazard, we propose that the Nevada Seismological Laboratory contributes to the following Statewide Functional Goals:

Nevada needs to understand its earthquake hazard, and the Seismological Laboratory is the state agency charged with this effort. An unexpected earthquake, or unexpected results of earthquakes, can result in significant loss. A reliable local source of information on earthquakes in the state is good for all segments of the state: citizens, the press, and public officials have a local source of information where they can call, businesses that want to plan so that recovery from inevitable earthquakes will be quick and cost-effective, insurance companies that need information to help them set rates, or Federal agencies that need to draw upon local expertise for guidance in development of national seismic hazard products.

Table 5a. The state operating budget for the Seismological Laboratory for fiscal years 1991 to 2000

Table 5a shows the operating budget for the Seismological Laboratory for the fiscal years 1991 to 2000. The "State Operating Budget" is interpreted as the total funding provided by the Nevada taxpayers and administered by the State or any local jurisdictions. All of the state funds for operation of the Nevada Seismological Laboratory are allocated as part of the University of Nevada budget process.

Table 5b. Performance indicators for the Seismological Laboratory

The first goal for the Seismological Laboratory, as specified by the Regents, is to monitor earthquakes statewide. However, we have never received sufficient funds from the State to install and maintain a statewide network of seismometers. For that reason, the area covered by the network has been dependent on Federal funding priorities and on success by members of the Seismological Laboratory in competing for the Federal funds that are available. The stable funding from the state has been necessary for the Seismological Laboratory to maintain a critical mass of personnel who have, in turn, recognized that raising Federal funds for completion and maintenance of the seismic network is a part of their responsibility.

It is important to monitor and precisely locate small earthquakes because the existence and locations of small earthquakes are one of the important criteria for recognizing fault activity and the potential for larger earthquakes. With some uncertainties, the frequency of large earthquakes can be estimated from the frequency of small earthquakes. The mechanisms of small earthquakes help geophysicists understand the geological processes acting in a region. The nature of the ground motions during small to moderate sized earthquakes can be used to anticipate the characteristics of ground motions that should be expected from large earthquakes when they occur. Locations of small earthquakes can call attention to other geological phenomena such as geothermal activity or volcanic processes.

Caseload 1 looks at the area monitored at the magnitude 1.0-2.0 level, as this is most representative of the extent of the seismic network. For perspective, the area of Nevada is about 286,000 km². However, the Seismological Laboratory’s network extends into California to the west, generally to the crest of the Sierra Nevada, as Reno has much better access to those regions than seismic centers in the Los Angeles or San Francisco areas. Thus, complete coverage would be achieved with spatial coverage of 340,000 km².

Service to the population of Nevada is, appropriately, a theme underlying several of the objectives that were approved by the Regents. This is a difficult quantity to measure. The table shows an estimate of outreach-days of activities, and is a lower bound as it counts only the activities of the state-funded faculty and one other faculty member in the Seismological Laboratory whose job responsibilities explicitly include outreach. In the table, direct contacts with individuals or groups are weighted roughly by the amount of time required for the activity plus preparation time. Research publications are weighted at 10 days each and presentations at national meetings or workshops are weighted at 2-5 days each. We also assume each of the state-funded faculty spent 1 hour/week responding to questions from the public or the press, although that is likely a significant underestimate. In 1995, the Seismological Laboratory initiated its site on the world-wide web as a site with emphasis on providing information to the public, and the site quickly gained large numbers of visitors. We rate each "hit" on our web site as equivalent of 1 minute of outreach, causing the large increase in the number of outreach days in 1995. We separate the outreach into the categories : web site contacts and all other forms in the following table:

Many outreach activities are driven by local interest in earthquakes, which in turn are driven by local seismic activity or earthquakes in the news. Some of the variability, and perhaps the drop in interest in our web site in 1999, can be attributed to low seismicity in Nevada.

A third component of the responsibilities approved by the Board of Regents for the Seismological Laboratory is "to carry out research of national and international significance." Because such research needs to be funded by Federal sources in general, dollar total of contracts and grants that are received by the Seismological Laboratory faculty is an appropriate measure. It is important to emphasize that the existence of a stable core of funding from the state, within a university, has been critical for attracting and retaining faculty who are capable of raising Federal research funds.

Research using these funds has naturally been primarily focused on Nevada. A majority has always been for the operation of the seismic networks, in the western Great Basin and since 1992 in southern Nevada, focused on Yucca Mountain, for the Department of Energy. (The large funding in 1993-1995 included equipment support for modernizing the network around Yucca Mountain.) Indeed, our success in competing for Federal funds is the only reason we have been able to operate any network at all. Other research projects have focused on more advanced analysis of the Nevada data, for instance to understand specific earthquakes in detail or to investigate aspects of the hazard. A variable fraction of this external funding has been for generic studies or focused on regions outside of Nevada.

Personnel in the Nevada Seismological Laboratory are as follows:

In summary, the Seismological Laboratory budget supports 1.8 faculty FTE. These are shared by three full-time university faculty, with the remainder of their funding coming from the Department of Geological Sciences (Anderson, Brune, Louie). The budget also supports one Seismic Engineer (Nicks), one Departmental Secretary (Love), and one Research Assistant (Abbott). There are no vacancies at this time.

External research funds currently support six PhD level faculty (Anooshehpoor, Biasi, Smith, Su, vonSeggern, Zeng), one MS level administrative faculty (dePolo), 4 classified staff (Abourto, Holzgrafe, Torrisi, Wilson), and several graduate students and undergraduate students.

In our budget requests for every biennium, the Seismological Laboratory has proposed that it is in the State of Nevada’s best interests to supplement the state-funded budget. The Seismological Laboratory finds that total dependence on Federal priorities for instrumental investigations within Nevada are not in the best interests of the State of Nevada or its citizens. For instance because of its lower hazard, Las Vegas is has not been a Federal priority for earthquake monitoring (explaining our lack of stations near Las Vegas), even though some seismicity does occur near there and a large earthquake is possible. In addition, we would like to establish an office in Las Vegas for outreach and to concentrate on the development of a seismic network there. On the other hand, we are currently optimistic that revised Federal priorities under the Advanced National Seismic System (described below) will allow us to achieve these objectives, and would recommend waiting to determine if that program will be supported by Congress.

None.

The nearest organizations that might be considered an alternate provider are the US Geological Survey and the University of California at Berkeley, which are able to locate large earthquakes in Nevada. This is fortunate, as the US Geological Survey is able to afford to have personnel on duty 24 hours a day, but the Seismological Laboratory is not funded or staffed for that purpose. Locations from these organizations generally utilize data obtained by the Seismological Laboratory, as we are now highly interconnected over the internet with other seismic networks. We are also able to locate California earthquakes and may become a backup for either the northern or southern California networks in the event that they need our help. Usually, however, the locations provided by USGS or Berkeley use only a few of the Seismological Laboratory stations, and are not as reliable as those obtained using our full network.

There is no other organization dedicated to analysis of earthquakes in Nevada or providing the kind of outreach with earthquake information provided by the Seismological Laboratory. In some cases, the Seismological Laboratory refers questions on active faulting to the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, as they employ geologists whose responsibility is to map and characterize active faults. Likewise, the NBMG refers questions on earthquakes, earthquake history, ground motions, and seismic risk to the Seismological Laboratory.

This section examines and expands upon the performance of the Seismological Laboratory systematically on the list of activities approved by the Regents.

Whenever an earthquake affects Nevada, the only reliable information about the source of the earthquake is obtained from instrumental recordings. Caseload 1, above, seeks to measure the size and capability of our network of seismic stations. The problem is more complex than it is made to appear in that section, and these paragraphs therefore elaborate to some extent. Equipment for the Nevada seismic network was obtained entirely with external funds.

Data from the instruments in a modern seismic network are sent by telemetry to a central seismic station. At present the Nevada seismic network data is collected and analyzed in Reno using a microwave network stretching along the southwestern border of Nevada from Reno to Las Vegas, with additional legs reaching into central Nevada. The extent of this microwave network is shown in Figure 4.

Seismic instrumentation can be classified into two different categories, "high gain" and "strong motion". High gain instruments are optimized to record and locate all earthquakes from the smallest detectable to large sizes, while strong motion instruments are optimized to obtain well calibrated records of only the strongest earthquakes (i.e. strong enough to be felt) for applications to engineering design. The traditional role of the seismic network such as the Seismological Laboratory is to operate high gain instruments, and that has been our traditional focus.

High gain instruments can in turn be classified into at least two separate types. The first is the older type of instruments, which can be described as "analog" instruments. In a sense, the label "analog" now applies more to the telemetry than to anything else: the signal is transmitted the way voice is carried over the telephone. The newer instruments can be described as "digital" in that the signal is transmitted in a manner analogous to the way a computer sends data over the telephone through a modem. Figure 5 shows a comparison of seismograms obtained for the same earthquake in California, some with older analog and some with newer digital instruments. It is clear that the data from a digital instrument is much higher quality, and can address many more scientific objectives. Digital equipment can detect smaller earthquakes and thus more earthquakes. Earthquakes can be located more precisely, and the sizes of the earthquakes can be determined more rigorously and consistently.

In 1991, the Nevada seismic network was almost entirely analog. The extent of the network has always predominantly been controlled by Federal funding priorities. (It is fair to say that the Nevada Seismological Laboratory has earned sufficient respect through the high quality of its personnel that it has been able to influence Federal priorities to some extent.) In 1991, the network was primarily focused on a limited region from Mammoth Lakes north to about the latitude of Reno, and from Lake Tahoe on the west to the "Central Nevada Seismic Belt", the source of the magnitude 7 earthquakes in 1954, on the east (Figure 6). Our list of station locations in 1991 contains 86 stations, ten of which incorporated early versions of digital telemetry (but not to modern standards). Within the best sections of the network, earthquakes could be detected to magnitudes of about 2.0.

In early 2000, our network was about 50% state-of-the-art digital equipment. The network extended south to the Nevada test site, and the extension of the microwave network to southern Nevada allowed us to install two state-of-the-art digital stations outside of Las Vegas (Figure 7). (A third digital station outside of Las Vegas had been awaiting a land-use permit from the Bureau of Land Management for over a year.)

The Nevada seismic network has been extended gradually since its inception. Our state-funded engineer has provided the continuity and expertise to develop this network without significant operating funds from Nevada. The philosophy has been to pursue Federal funds wherever Federal priorities might be in the area, and link the stations into our microwave network. When the Federal priorities have changed, the instruments are generally released to the university, and due to the low telemetry costs using the microwave network, we have generally been able to keep the equipment operating and justified obtaining operating costs from other programs.

In addition, the Seismological Laboratory has recently been adding strong motion instruments to its network. Utilizing funds from FEMA, in 1999 we installed 5 strong motion instruments in the Reno-Carson region, and were awaiting delivery of 4 instruments for installation in Las Vegas.

A Federal initiative is underway in early 2000 that is expected to result in a significant upgrade and likely completion of the Nevada seismic network. This plan, called the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), was proposed by the Council of National Seismic Systems, of which Nevada is a member. The ANSS would upgrade seismic networks throughout the US to digital equipment, dramatically increase the number of strong motion instruments, and increase operating budgets to achieve realistic levels of earthquake monitoring effort. The ANSS had been authorized by the House of Representatives in 1999 by bill HR1184 by a bipartisan majority of 414-3-16. Senate action was anticipated in 2000. (Senate action was delayed as it required action by a committee chaired by Senator McCain, who in late 1999 and early 2000 was involved in a presidential campaign.) Even without authorization, early appropriations have been made to the ANSS. In Federal FY2000, the Administration requested, and Congress approved, $1.6 million to begin installation of ANSS with sites in San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. For Federal FY2001, the Administration requested $4.2 million to continue installation of ANSS with upgraded equipment in Nevada, Alaska, Memphis, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. This demonstrated Administration support also for the ANSS. The plans assume that the Seismological Laboratory will be the lead agency in Nevada. Our expectation is that ANSS will have the following effects: increase the density of our seismic network around Las Vegas (which is currently outside of the area where our coverage is complete at the magnitude 1-2 level) and maybe provide a statewide telemetry network and coarse seismic network, upgrade many existing stations to modern standards, install 300 strong motion instruments in the state, mainly in Reno and Las Vegas, and fund the Seismological Laboratory to establish near-real-time capability of locating and reporting earthquake locations and expected effects.

This is intimately related to item number 1, as the data from a seismic network is of no use unless it is analyzed. Basic analysis includes locating earthquakes and estimating magnitudes. This analysis has been partially supported by Federal funds, but has also made use of the research assistant provided by the state funding. The importance of this work is highly visible whenever an earthquake occurs and the Seismological Laboratory is called upon to inform reporters and the public about the earthquake location, active faults, and other basic data. The majority of this interaction is released over telephone calls and interviews with television crews. We do not have records about the numbers of interviews that have been provided in this way. After significant earthquakes, the Seismological Laboratory also prepares a "press release" which is distributed by email and fax to interested parties on our mailing list. The following table summarizes the numbers of press releases of this nature by year:

Year	Number of press releases
1991
1992
1993
1994	6
1995	10
1996	2
1997	8
1998	8
1999	8
2000	Not available

The Seismological Laboratory is moving towards having automated analysis of the earthquake locations and automated posting of locations on the world wide web. However, these automated locations always require checking by a seismologist before they can be considered reliable.

A fundamental source of information on earthquake activity can be considered the Nevada seismic catalog. This is compiled after the analysis of all events recorded by the seismic network. The catalog is, since 1995, accessible on the world wide web (http://www.seismo.unr.edu/Catalog/catalog-search.html). The catalog search is accessed from the main web page, via the link to "Earthquakes in Nevada and Around the World". The figures of Nevada earthquakes (Figure 1a,b) are obtained directly from our web site, without further editing, from searching this catalog. The following table gives the yearly event count from our networks

Year	Number of earthquakes
1991	3383
1992	5019
1993	7060
1994	5141
1995	2692
1996	4057
1997	4987
1998	4036
1999	4928
2000	Not available

In addition to the internet, the Seismological Laboratory faculty publish papers on earthquakes in Nevada. Publications are completed or in press for all of the most significant earthquake sequences since 1990. The following is a partial list of papers dealing specifically with characteristics of earthquakes and ground motions in Nevada:

The Seismological Laboratory is a repository for seismograms from Nevada going back to 1915. Our seismogram library is a repository for scholars throughout the world seeking information on historical earthquakes.

Our faculty are highly knowledgeable and highly respected for their knowledge about earthquake activity in Nevada. An example of the importance of this to Nevada can be identified in the development of the current national seismic hazard map by the U. S. Geological Survey. In a series of meetings in 1996, the USGS developed the input to this hazard map. Seismological Laboratory personnel were deeply involved in the revision and improvement of that input. The resulting map is now a part of the 2000 International Building Code. Without the input from Nevada personnel, the map for this part of the western US would have been quite different. The next revision to the national hazard map is now being planned, with workshops to develop input expected for late 2000 or early 2001.

The numbers of scientific papers would be one measure of the extent of this outreach. The following table gives the numbers of scientific papers authored or co-authored by state-funded faculty in the Seismological Laboratory in major research journals:

Year	Number of papers
1991	18
1992	8
1993	13
1994	19
1995	16
1996	17
1997	16
1998	19
1999	15
2000	not available

The Seismological Laboratory outreach program has been described briefly above as Caseload 2, and the tables in Section 4 provide an approximate evaluation of the extent of this outreach.

Some other aspects of outreach deserve comment. One is education of students in any of the earth science programs at the MSM. Because of the joint appointments of the faculty, students are able to get involved in research projects, for the benefit of their education, and there is a formalized structure that allows the Seismological Laboratory faculty to transfer their knowledge to students. The financial support students receive as employees of the Seismological Laboratory aids their recruitment to UNR. As part of their responsibilities to the Department of Geological Sciences, the three faculty in the Seismological Laboratory have taught the following classes:

Course Number	Course Name
GEOL 100	Geology: Principles and Applications
GEOL 101-102	General Geology
GEOL 453	Geophysical Applications
GEOL 455	Geophysics and Geodynamics
GEOL 456	Plate Tectonic Theory
GE 479	Earthquake Engineering
GEOL 490	Elementary Seismology
GEOL 492	Environmental Exploration Geophysics
GEOL 701v	Advanced Geology Seismology
GEOL 702v	Advanced Geology Seismology
GEOL 705	Inverse Problems for Earth Scientists
GEOL 706	Geophysical Series and Processing
GEOL 756	Earthquake Source Physics
GEOL 757	Seismic Imaging
GEOL 758	Seismic Instrumentation and Data Analysis
GEOL 774	Advanced Seismology 1
GEOL 775	Advanced Seismology 2

Because this review is focused on the Seismological Laboratory, we did not develop statistics on the number of courses taught, but can state that the teaching load has equaled or exceeded the level of teaching required of all other faculty when that adjusted for the proportion of each appointment in the Geological Sciences Department.

It is appropriate to expand on the nature of the outreach that deals with the general public. Part of this is cyclical, depending on the amount of attention that earthquakes are attracting in the Nevada news. Earthquakes in Nevada that are felt in one of the two major population centers are the most important mechanism of initiating inquiries to members of the Seismological Laboratory. Thus, for instance, 1994 had the Double Spring Flat earthquake (M=6) south of Gardnerville and felt throughout the Reno-Carson urban corridor. In response to that, we received large numbers of requests to make presentations to civic groups. Our impression is that the number of requests was lower in 1999 as earthquake news was been more focused on other regions of the world and Nevada had the second quietest years of the decade. We believe that the Seismological Laboratory has been effective in responding to all of the requests from citizens of Nevada, and our goal is to continue to be responsive in that way.

We initiate a significant part of our outreach. The table below identifies our more significant outreach activities:

Contract and grant research has been described above as Caseload 3. For the past decade, every dollar of state support has yielded $6.1 dollars of external support. Understanding the seismic activity in Nevada is established as a research problem of national importance, as evidenced by the research funds described above which support the seismic network and associated research on Nevada problems, and that is expected to continue. Federal priorities are likely to place a greater emphasis on Nevada for the short-term future. The National Science Foundation is planning a large facility called Earthscope (a telescope into the planet) which may have a significant component in Nevada. Faculty in the Seismological Laboratory are part of the development process and anticipate that this facility can advance our priorities of monitoring earthquakes and characterizing hazards across the state in addition to our opportunities to carry out a wide range of research. A future direction for fully understanding seismic hazards is to also monitor ground deformation using the Global Positioning System (GPS). We already bring some GPS data into Reno using our microwave network, and under earthscope that may increase significantly. Earthscope is expected to include a significant GPS component, which should give control over the deformation which in turn is directly related to earthquake rates.

The organizational structure approved by the Regents for the three faculty who are funded in part through the Seismological Laboratory demonstrates wisdom. The joint appointment in the Seismological Laboratory and in the Department of Geological Sciences results in contact with students, increases the opportunities for qualified students to participate in the exciting research that is currently going on, and promotes training of qualified students for careers in seismology and geophysics in general. The teaching responsibilities also assure that the latest seismological information makes its way into the classroom. It is important for us to be among the teaching faculty of the university. For instance the NBMG faculty, because they are not formally involved with students, have greater difficulties winning competitive Federal research funds.

The Seismological Laboratory has not been the recipient of large numbers of questions of this nature. Such requests, if any, would be expected to come through the Dean of the Mackay School of Mines. The Director of the Seismological Laboratory reports to the Dean, and works closely to identify if there are significant ways for the Seismological Laboratory to contribute to the smooth operations of the Mackay School of Mines. Personnel in the Seismological Laboratory have been active in many types of service to MSM. A systematic enumeration of these will not be undertaken. Two examples would be the contribution of our computer expertise to improvements throughout the rest of MSM, and our personnel taking leadership in discussions of the academic future of MSM.

The Director also is in close contact with the Director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, who also reports to the Dean of the Mackay School of Mines. The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology is well-organized for publication and distribution of maps and reports, which has resulted is several joint publications for the benefit of the public.

1. Detailed description of all revenue. Funding from the State of Nevada as is described above. Revenue from Federal research grants should not be counted here. It is important to recognize that the funds from the state are essential to provide a stable position that can attract and retain the key people in the organization. It would be impossible to either attract or retain outstanding scientists capable of maintaining the level of research funding described above if they were themselves required to be on "soft" external research dollars. It is important for us to be within the teaching faculty of the university. Even the NBMG, because their faculty are not formally involved with students, have difficulty winning competitive Federal research funds.

2. Vacant positions. There are no vacant positions at this time.

3. Caseload ratios. There is no budgeted caseload ratio and it is impossible to define an actual caseload ratio. This question may make sense for a department like Motor Vehicles, where caseload can be measured in terms of numbers of licenses issued, but for our department it is not applicable.

4. Out of state travel. All travel by Seismological Laboratory personnel is paid by Federal research funds.

5. In state travel. All travel by Seismological Laboratory personnel is paid by Federal research funds.

6. Training expenses. Training occurs only when the department’s Management Assistant undergoes a change of persons. In this case, because of the nature of the office, most training is on-the-job, and no specific funds are drawn from the Seismological Laboratory budget for this purpose.

7. Justification for continuing operating expenses. Operating funds are minimal. Out of about $10,000, in FY2000 all but $1000 were returned to the University for "salary savings".