Interim Central U.S. Regional Subcommittee
for the
Advanced National Seismic System
April 18, 2000, Memphis, TN
May 31, 2000: First Meeting of the Interim Regional Subcommittee
Points of Interest in this Document:
Attendees: Harley Benz, Arch Johnston, Mitch Withers, Jim Beavers, Bob Herrmann, Norm Hester, John Keifer, Joan Gomberg, Gary Patterson, Buddy Schweig, Chris Cramer, Jim Wilkinson, and Haydar Al-Shukri.
As required by Public Law 105-47 the USGS undertook a review of the state of seismic monitoring in the US. A workshop was held in Colorado in the summer of 1998. Major seismic network operators and selected recipients of network products participated in this review. A report was drafted based on this workshop and published in USGS Circular 1188, "An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States." In addition to a review of the current monitoring status, this report provides recommendations for the modernization of seismic networks and their infrastructure.
In the reauthorization act for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), Congress responded to the receipt of the report by requiring the USGS to provide them with a management and implementation plan for an "Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System" (ANSS). At a one-day meeting in New Mexico this past February, representatives of a dozen different seismological organizations outlined such a management plan. An over-riding theme of this plan is that seismic monitoring of the US should be implemented within regions representing the major physiographic and tectonic parts of the country. No more than six to ten regions or groups should be so defined, one of which is a national group to provide linkages between the actual regions as well as to provide broad coverage of the whole US and include global monitoring.
(Background language after Malone, UW, Seattle).
Harley Benz gave a brief introduction to the ANSS and the current status. Current OMB budget figures allow for 10 strong motion urban monitoring stations for the region. There is an emphatic desire to have regions self-organize and avoid a strong federal overprint on the management and implementation. The next 3-year regional network funding cycle will have an RFP shortly. While we will be converting to the ANSS management plan, the system is unready to perform this function for FY 2001. Hence proposals will be submitted under the old system with the liklihood that they will be replaced by the ANSS management structure after the first year. For regional ANSS implementation, this is an opportunity to take a fresh look at what is required to monitor seismicity within the central U.S. from a variety of perspectives: structural engineering, engineering research, hazards, seimological, emergency response, geotechnical, outreach, etc. Traditional methods and networks may not necessarily be the best avenue for this monitoring, though logistically form a practical framework to get started.
The basic management structure for the ANSS illustrated below was proposed at the
Interim National Committee meeting in February. The ANSS will be a line item
within the USGS NEHRP program budget. The ANSS Manager will be a full time
USGS employee. Regional Coordinators will be full time staff not necessarily
USGS employees.
Further details on the current ANSS status are available.
The next meeting of the Interim National Committee will be held on July 14, 2000 at an as yet to be determined venue.
A written implementation plan for the region is required by January, 2000.
CUSEC,
MAEC,
and currently (as of November, 1999)
real-time connected networks
form a natural association of states to include
in the region. These include Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Further,
most of Texas, North Dakota, and South Dakota, have similar geology
and low seismicity but high consequence issues. While it is arguable
whether these states should be part of the region, the similarities
tend to include them. West Texas is better associated with New Mexico
and other Inter-Mountain states, but given the political and reporting
desirability of forming boundaries along state lines it is likely
better to include all of Texas with necessarily overlapping logistical
cooperation. Given the proximity and similarities of West Virginia
with Virginia and Kentucky, it was also included. Due to the association
of the District of Columbia and Baltimore with the Northeast urban
corridor, it is better to have these areas managed by the Northeast
region. Primarily for these reasons the group came to a consesus
to propose to the community that the above mentioned states be included
within the implementation and management of the central U.S. regional subcommittee.
The Interim Regional Subcommittee is intended to provide broadbrush direction and planning and to provide issues for further study. Working groups will be established as needed to formulate plans in more detail. The Interim Regional Subcommittee currently interfaces with the Interim National Committee via the MAEC representive on the National Committee with the understanding that future interaction will be accomplished via the to be named Regional Coordinator.
While it is prudent to delay formation of Working Groups until after the first meeting of the Interim Regional Subcommittee, it is necessary to begin planning for potential FY2001 instrumentation. Thus a consesus was obtained to establish two working groups:
Following the example of the Interim National Committee, the Interim Regional Subcommittee must represent all users of seismic information within the region. The broad use categories identified were for emergency response, engineering, education, and basic and applied research. In addition, the Interim Regional Subcommittee must be sufficiently small to enhance productivity. Fourteen discplines were targeted for representation on the Interim CUS Regional Subcommittee and candidates for each were proposed (names in bold have confirmed acceptance of participation):
The proposed central region of the ANSS benefits from currently existing organizations that address the earthquake problem throughout the broad region: CUSEC, CUSEC State Geologists, and the MAE Center.
Mitch will contact each of the subcommittee candidates. The first meeting will be held in St. Louis in conjunction with the annual EERI Meeting (May 31-June 3, 2000) at 1pm on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at the Adams Mark Hotel, Director's Row #25. A preliminary agenda is available.
Norm Hester or Gary Patterson will present current status of the Interim CUS Regional Subcommittee for comment at the Meeting of CUSEC State Geologists in St. Louis on June 18-19, 2000
Norm Hester or Glenn Rix will present current status of the Interim CUS Regional Subcommittee for comment at the AASHTO meeting on Bridges and Structures in Charleston, June 4-8, 2000.
This summary will be provided to as broad a community as possible for comment. Mitch will post announcements on the web and on various list servers (e.g. anss, eq-haz-central, ssa, cosmos, mae, cusec)
Other Information from the April 18 Meeting
Need to record up to 2 g. Record locally, export continuously to data centers, and archive rapidly.
Target Project Impact cities for initial deployment of urban stations?
Subcommittee members select their own alternates.
Arch should provide cover/intro to community prior to posting on the web.
Letter writing campaign was great success. More from end-users could help.
Current 84 sensor installation in Seattle, Salt Lake City, and San Fransisco is being closely monitored by GIPRA. Need to unequivocally demonstrate effective use of resources in order to ensure continued support.
Many sm sensors currently operating in the region particularly by NSMP, LDEO, and Army Corps of Engineers. How accessible are these data?
Standards?
National service contracts?
Need to provide input or incorporate HAZUS.
Shake maps should not drive siting. May be more appropriate for CUS region to use broadband sensors from the far field to model source, attenuation and create shake map that way.
K2/episensor packages are currently being acquired but only through FY2001 pending the next generation system.
Continuous data archives should be provided to IRIS as soon as possible. Do they really want everything? What about event archives?
Need to maintain local interests and points of expertise.
MAEC is considering project, SG-11, to lead planning and implementation process and provide travel and meeting resources. Withers is current PI with to be named Co-PI(s).
