Draft FY03 Implementation Plans for the Mid-America Region of the Advanced National Seismic System
Based on discussions from the ANSS-MA RAC meeting held in Memphis on July 9-10, 2002 and guidance from the NIC the ANSS-MA wishes to propose the implementation goals contained within this document. General background and motivation are provided in the FY02 Implementation Plan.
Important caveat related to this plan.Based on discussion at the December, 2002 meeting of the NIC fiscal realities at 10% of authorized levels only allow for implemention of the urban strongmotion portion of this plan. Refer to the NIC minutes when they are available on the ANSS website.
Summary
We wish to continue our efforts of a installing new urban strongmotion
instrumentation in a targeted metropolitan area as well as continue
with lower level efforts in previous targeted areas as well as smaller
though still significant cities. At level funding, this implies
no more than 20 urban sm sites for the region. In addition to this,
we wish to propose several national efforts.
Urban Strongmotion
| St Louis, MO | 5 |
| Knox/Chatt., TN | 3 |
| Evansville, IN | 2 |
| Charleston, SC | 2 |
| Cape G., MO | 2 |
| OK City, OK | 2 |
| El Paso, TX | 2 |
| Louisville, KY | 2 |
Continue progress on USNSN Backbone
Structure
Instrument 1 low-rise, 30-channel, URM building
Infrastructure
Roving tech support
"Roving" computer support
Justification
Urban Strongmotion
Several scenarios of various levels of effort for urban instrumentation were discussed in the RAC meeting. While there was support for at least 28 new stations or more, the consensus was that St Louis should be the FY03 focus. We also wish to provide some level of instrumentation in several other significant metropolitan areas with zones of elevated hazard to provide at least a bench mark as well as broad regional coverage. The philosophy being that it is highly uncertain where valuable data will be gathered from the next magnitude five earthquake. While it is desirable to continue efforts in Memphis, given past efforts, as of FY02 there are 11 stations providing a reasonably comprehensive suite of soil types and expected responses. This does not imply that Memphis is no longer a priority, but rather that in a level funding environment, other uninstrumented cities are greater priority.
The two stations proposed for Cape Girardeau will not only cover two significantly different soil types but will act as reference sites for expected instrumentation of US 74 bridge over the Mississippi River.
Broadband (System Level Expenditure)
While it is highly desirable to install new regional broadband instrumentation, given level funding, the consensus of the committee was that the greatest priority was broad regional coverage provided by the USNSN backbone. It is the intent of the ANSS-MA RAC, particularly through the Association of State Geologists, to provide as much assistance to the USNSN as possible for siting and permitting. No specific priorities were discussed--all proposed USNSN stations within the region are important. Thus priorities should be those for which partnerships can be formed in finding and permitting good sites.
Structure (System Level Expenditure)
Given the ubiquitousness of low-rise URM buildings throughout the region and particularly within the Memphis metropolitan area, instrumenting this style of structure is a high priority. It is likely that most other regions of moderate hazard have similar priorities. Thus the ANSS-MA recommends that a representative structure of this type be located and instrumented as soon as possible. The structural instrumentation subcommittee of the ANSS-MA RAC has a preliminary list of candidates that are likely to be permitted.
O&M
These are O&M recommendations over and above routine O&M necessary to maintain existing systems.
Permanent regional networks within the ANSS-MA has made significant strides over the past several years in modernizing and increasing connectivity and cooperation as well as in the number of operational stations. This has been performed without appreciable increases in technical staff. As this effort continues the need for additional technical support will only increase. Further, non-NEHRP funded networks provide good targets of opportunity to participate in the ANSS but are unable to do so without some, at least temporary, technical assistance. We propose that a national "roving" seismic network engineer to meet this need. In many cases, technical staff do exist but other competing funding priorities limit their availability for seismic network assistance. Thus one possible implementation would be funding for all or part of a technician that moves from region to region each year. Specifically, the Texas broadband network could be completed in FY03 if this resource were available. This would be an outstanding developmental partnership. In out years other networks such as the Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, and the South Carolina Seismic Network would be able to participate more fully with this assistance.
A similar situation exists for computer support. However, because most computer assistance can be provided remotely, we propose a centrally based earthworm system administrator and implementer to provide operational and expansion assistance to all regions. As the number of earthworm nodes grows, existing ANSS-MA earthworm expertise is reaching the limit of what assistance can be provided to ANSS-MA partners.