ANSS-MA
A Proposed Mid-America Region for the
Advanced National Seismic System
This plan has not yet been reviewed or sactioned by the ANSS-MA Regional Subcommittee nor by the National Steering Committee.
(Warning, this document is currently being edited; error and incompleteness may be present).
Executive Summary
This report provides a proposal to establish a Mid-America region for the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSS-MA). It is produced under the auspices of the Regional Subcommittee for the ANSS-MA and will undergo a three step review process: public comment, Mid-America Earthquake Center internal review, and approval by the ANSS National Steering Committee.
The ANSS is the most significant advancement in seismic monitoring since the advent of digital recording. Duplication of development and operations occurred between many regional networks. Under the ANSS scheme, the U.S. will be divided into several regions, each with its own management and operations structure reporting to a National committee. Funding will flow through this management structure but implementation of the ANSS will provide a means of sharing technical resources, will minimize duplication of effort, and will provide a means of standardization among the broad community of operators. The ANSS will also significantly enhance the quantity, quality, utility and uniformity of seismic information, and increase the number of users of the information.
Encompassing 28 states, the ANSS-MA is, by far, the largest geographic region. It includes the New Madrid, Southern Appalachian, Wabash, and Charleston seismic zones. To date, near-real-time data exchange and technical resource sharing is established between CERI at the University of Memphis, St Louis University, the University of South Carolina, Viriginia Tech, the University of Tennesse Knoxville and the U.S. National Seismic Network. We will continue to expand this cadre of cooperating networks to build a system that performs effectively for the entire region. Such a network of networks has the advantage of redundancy and local expertise. Each local network will be the authority on local information. Products such as rapid alerts and comprehensive catalogs will be produced at the regional scale. The regional system is not dependent on any single network--in the event of a damaging earthquake, we assume the local network to be temporarily inoperable but the regional system will function. Other operators and potential participants within the Mid-America region include: Army Corps of Engineers, the Delaware Geological Survey, Georgia Tech, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Princeton Earth Physics Project, the Universities of Michigan and Ohio, the University of Florida, the University of Kentucky, the University of Texas at El Paso, the Oklahoma Geological Survey, the University of Florida, and the Westinghouse Savannah River Company.
Introduction
As required by Public Law 105-47 the USGS undertook a review of the state of seismic monitoring in the US. Major seismic network operators and selected recipients of network products participated in this review. A report was drafted based on this review 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 review 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). Representatives of a dozen different seismological organizations outlined such a management plan and 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 regions as well as to provide broad coverage of the whole US and include global monitoring.
To this end, a Regional Subcommittee was formed to establish a Mid-America region. It includes representatives from the following communities: Mid-America Earthquake Center, Emergency Management, State Geologists, Transportation/Structural Engineering, Network Seismology, Seismological Research, Strong Motion Engineering, Education and Outreach, Seismic Safety Commisssions, Global Seismology, Industry Risk Management, Geotechnical Engineering, and Structural Instrumentation.
While the region is an area of relatively low seismic hazard, there is significant risk due to a population of 160 million people (U.S. Census 1999), an extensive built environment, lifelines connecting the eastern and western U.S., and several population centers near areas of elevated seismic hazard (Memphis, TN, St. Louis, MO, Chattanooga, TN, Knoxville, TN, Charleston, SC, and Evansville, IN).
A successful management plan needs to address a diverse community of data providers and a diverse community of end users. Direct applications include Earthquake Emergency Response, Seismic Hazard Assessment, Earthquake Engineering, Scientific Research, Public Information, and Education. The National Steering Committee has established a Technical Implementation Committee (TIC) charged with establishing standards and procedures each recognized region must meet. This proposal will be expanded into a management and implementation plan as the TIC completes its task.
Organizational Structure
The organizational structure is designed to conform with the preliminary findings of the National Steering Committee as well as to be sensitive to local and regional needs. A schematic of the proposed structure is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Top Level Organizational Structure illustrating the proposed management of the ANSS-MA Region. Products flow from left to right. End Users are in blue, products are green, Management is red, and data providers are gold.
Mitch Withers has been designated as the ANSS-MA Regional Coordinator and reports to the ANSS Manager for ANSS issues. He is responsible for regional implementation of the ANSS and works closely with the Regional Committee and with the National Implementation Committee in developing plans, budgets, and implementation schedules. He serves as the chief regional spokesperson for the ANSS, leads regional development and, in cooperation with local operators, oversees network operations in the Mid-America region. He is the primary interface between the national managment level and ANSS-MA regional components.
Due to the large geographic area and the diverse community of operators the functionality at the local scale of the ANSS necessarily includes a large number of operators and data providers listed in Table 1. To date, considerable near-real-time data exchange and cooperation exist between CERI, SLU, USC, and VPI forming the functional core about which the ANSS-MA is being built.
| Acronym | Institution | General Sensor Type |
|---|---|---|
| ACE | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Strong Motion |
| CERI | University of Memphis, Center for Earthquake Research and Information | short-period, broadband, strong motion |
| DGS | Delaware Geological Survey | short-period, broadband |
| GIT | Georgia Tech | Short Period |
| LDEO | Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory | Strong Motion |
| NSMP | U.S. Geological Survey, National Strong Motion Program | Strong Motion |
| NSN | U.S. Geological Survey, National Seismic Network | broadband |
| PEPP | Princeton Earth Physics Project, Indiana University | broadband |
| SEIS | OhioSeis and MichSeis at University of Ohio and University of Michigan | short-period |
| SLU | St Louis University | short-period and broadband |
| UFL | University of Florida | short-period |
| UKY | University of Kentucky | short-period and strong motion |
| USC | University of South Carolina | short-period |
| UTK | University of Tennessee | short-period |
| VPI | Virginia Tech | short-period and broadband |
| WSRC | Westinghouse Savannah River Company | short-period and strong motion |
Table 1: Data Providers within the region which are potential ANSS-MA partners.
The ANSS-MA Regional Subcommittee listed in Table 2 oversees the Mid-America regional implementation of the ANSS and with the Regional Coordinator, develops plans, schedules, and instrumentation types and locations under guidelines from the National Implementation Committee. It works in close consultation with the Regional ANSS Coordinator and helps to develop private partners for the ANSS within the region. The organizations represented on this committee provide an effective mechanism for many end-users to provide feedback for areas or products that need to be improved, modified or added. The MAE Center has funded an FY2001 project to provide the resources necessary for this committee to produce a plan suitable for submission to the National Steering Committee (hence the obligation for this plan to undergo an internal MAE Center review).
| Discipline | Affiliation | Representative | Alternate | MAE Center and ANSS-MA Regional Coordinator | University of Memphis | Mitch Withers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | CUSEC | Jim Wilkinson | Jill Johnston |
| Geology | CUSEC State Geologists | Norm Hester | |
| Transportation/Structural Engeering | FHWA | Phillip Yen | Glenn Fulkerson |
| Network Seismology | Indiana University | Gary Pavlis | Mike Hamburger |
| Network Seismology | Virginia Tech | Martin Chapman | |
| Theoretical Seismology/Modeling and Advisory Committee Chair | St Louis University | Bob Herrmann | |
| Structural Engineering Research | EQE International | Nathan Gould | |
| Strong Motion Engineering | Army Corps of Engineers | Steve Williamson | |
| Education and Outreach | Purdue University | Larry Braile | |
| Seismic Safety Commissions | Kentucky Division of Emergency Management | Ron Padgett | |
| Global Seismology | University of South Carolina at Columbia | Tom Owens | |
| Industry Risk Management | Bank of America | Tom Roeseler | |
| Geotechnical Engineering | Georgia Tech | Glenn Rix | |
| Emergency Management | FEMA Region IV | Joe Rachel (unconfirmed) | |
| Structural Instrumentation | USGS | Mehmet Celebi |
Table 2: Members of the ANSS-MA Regional Subcommittee.
The interface between the regional and national levels (Figure 2) is accomplished by two means: through a close working relationship between the ANSS manager and the regional coordinators, and through the National Implemenation Committee.
Figure 2: ANSS organization diagram at the national level. The ANSS is managed nationally and implemented regionally and locally.
The National Implementation Committee consists of the ANSS Manager and Regional Coordinators. It develops the national ANSS implementation plan, in consultation with Regional Committees and reports planning recommendations to the National Steering Committee. It may commission functional committees, as needed, to address particular implementation issues.
The ANSS Manager has overall responsibility for implementation of the ANSS. A full time job of a USGS employee with appropriate staff, the ANSS Manager directs regional coordinators and functional implementation teams. He/she works in consultation with the National Steering Committee. The ANSS Manager works with the National Implementation Committee to develop plans, and budget for out years and is the chief spokesperson for ANSS at the national level.
The National Steering Committee provides overall direction of ANSS and sets priorities for urban, regional, and national upgrades and installations. It also critiques and approves the regional management and implementation plan for various funding scenarios. It oversees the work of the ANSS Manager and approves and revises, as necessary, the planning recommendations of the National Implementation Committee. It Reports to the Director of the USGS and works in close consultation with the ANSS Manager.
Working Groups may be commissioned by the ANSS-MA Regional Subcommittee and charged with addressing specific implementation issues such as siting standards, instrumentation specifications, etc. To date the need for two such groups has been identified. The siting working group is tasked to provide a prioritized list of potential sites particularly for strong motion stations. Lead by Jim Beavers, the members of the working group include Glenn Rix, Norm Hester, Martin Chapman, and Mehmet Celebi. The Operations working group is charged with developing plans for long term operations of the regional monitoring.
A strong Outreach and Education program under the leadership of a regional O&E coordinator will be maintained. This will include hosting a useful web-site, providing speakers to regional and local events, and providing the necessary resources and mechanisms for the end users to remain informed. Some end users (e.g. emergency managers) may interface directly with data providers and local experts. The E&O arm of the ANSS-MA provides an effective means for end-users not represented by the Regional Subcommittee to provide feedback for areas or products that need to be improved, modified or added.
Areal Extent
Considerable discussion took place among the ANSS-MA regional committee and interested parties regarding the the areal extent of the region illustrated in Figure 3. A region was successfully defined and approved by the regional committee and includes 28 states and the District of Columbia. It is understood that operational boundaries between regions must be fuzzy but administrative borders should be well defined.
Figure 3 Proposed ANSS Administrative borders for the conterminous United States.
The region contains states with vested interests in existing organizations such as the Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC), the Central U.S. Earthquake Constortium (CUSEC), and the CUSEC State Geologists. Existing near-real-time data exchange and cooperation among seismic networks was also considered (Figure 4). While it is tempting to define the region based on physiographic and tectonic provinces, it is important, particularly for the Emergency Management community, to have regions follow state borders. Thus even though west Texas is better associated with the Inter-Mountain West Region (ANSS-IM) and east Texas with the ANSS-MA, we have included the entire state within Mid-America assuming that west Texas will have close operational ties to ANSS-IM. Even though there are no operating regional networks within the north central states, this area is geologically closely related to other states within the region. This combined with USNSN coverage of the area (the USNSN and NSMP are critical partners in successful operation and implemention of the ANSS-MA) led us to include these states within the ANSS-MA. Due to a long history of cooperation and membership of the Delaware Geological Survey in the Southeast Seismic Network, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia were included.
Figure 4 Current near-real-time data exchange within the ANSS-MA. Triangles are shortperiod, square are broadband. Red is CERI, Blue is SLU, Green is USC, Lt Blue is VPI, Yellow is UTK, Black is UKY, and brown is USNSN. Orange squares are both SLU and CERI broadbands. Red lines are current internet-based real-time exchange. Not shown are connections between CERI, SLU, USC, VPI and Golden.
Data Management and Operations
The ANSS-MA must operate in such a way as to:
A very general flow diagram is equally applicable to management, technical support, data and product flow, and implementation.
Tier 1 systems are referred to as Data Concentrator Nodes and may be unstaffed. Data from individual stations are telemetered to these sites which perform functions that include storing continuous revolving buffers, triggered data streams, and tcp exchange with other nodes. These nodes are connected to tier 2 or 3 nodes and may be connected directly to other regions. Current Tier 1 systems are in operation at Cape Girardeau, MO (SLU), New Madrid, MO (CERI), Lennox, TN (CERI), Marked Tree, AR (CERI), Hickory, NC (CERI), and Charleston, SC (USC).
Tier 2 systems are referred to as Local Nodes. Their primary role in the ANSS-MA is to provide local tech support for station (Tier 1) maintenance and local and regional scientific expertise. The local expert provides points of contact with local media and other interested parties, and fosters local partnerships. Regional and Local Nodes may determine jointly that some tasks will be carried out at the Local Node. These nodes are connected to tier 3 systems and may be connected directly to other regions. Current Tier 2 systems are in operation at Blackburg, VA (VPI), and Columbia, SC (USC).
Tier 3 systems are referred to as Regional Processing Nodes and are staffed. They perform all the required functions for the ANSS-MA region including automated alarms, comprehensive catalogs and archives, seed submission, public interfaces, reviewed product generation, etc. These nodes are connected directly to other regions. While the National Region is capable of performing the functions of a Regional Processing Node if a tier 3 system is rendered inoperable, it is prudent to operate at least two Regional Processing Nodes located such that both are not likely to be adversely affected by a single damaging earthquake. SLU currently performs some and CERI performs many of the tasks required by a Tier 3 system.
Data Flow
We will follow the recommendations of the ANSS Network Architecture and Interconnection Subcommittee.
Rapid Information
Rapid information products include automated alerts, near-real-time waveforms, and shake maps. Exchange and production (Figure 5) revolve around a multi-tier processing center approach. There are currently 3 tiers: data concentrator, local processing center, and regional processing center. This provides a valuable level of redundancy, encourages points of local expertise, and provides a uniform mechanism of exchange with other regions.
Reviewed Products
Reviewed Products are generated and distributed by Tier 3 systems in consultation with local experts.
Archived Products
Primary Archiving is performed at both the national and regional scales. Regional Processing Nodes are responsible for submitting appropriate archives to a recognized Data Management Facility. Additionally, tier 3 nodes host archives for the region.
Technical Support
Technical support is also provided using the tier model employed by the data management. Regional Centers are expected to provide all technical support necessary to ensure reliable operation of all tier 1 and 2 systems. This includes individual station support, data acquistion, data processing, software, etc. It is also the responsibilty of the regional centers to assure other nodes meet ANSS standards. Where multiple regional centers exist it may be prudent to specialize in some cases. For example, multiple database administrators or software engineers may not be justified so the dba might be hosted by one center and the engineer by the other. On rare occasions, it may be necessary for regional centers to request technical support for the national center or another region.
Local nodes have local technical support responsible for the reliable operation of the tier 2 system with the understanding that regional centers will provide occasional technical support.
Data concentrator nodes have no tech support. They are maintained by either a local or regional center.
Routine station maintenance will be geographically divided into six maintenance areas as shown in Figure X. Seismic Network engineers will be based to minimize travel and maximize uptime. These areas are unrelated to data exchange, analysis, etc and are for deployment of local technical support only.
ANSS station deployment.
A total of 12 new urban strongmotion monitoring systems
were installed in FY2001. Details of this installation
are available on the ANSS-MA strongmotion
web page.
There was a strong desire to instrument urban
areas, but given the relatively small number of stations
it was considered important to deploy in such a way as
to maiximize the probability of recording earthquake signals.
Scientific and engineering goals include improved understanding
of attenuation within the region, of the site response of
various settings, and the response of the Mississippi embayment.
Plans for FY02 are available in the FY02
Implementation Plan.