Transcript wja M8:30 Intro

Goals & Desirable
Outcomes of Meeting
Walter Arabasz
Regional Coordinator
Aug. 14, 2006
Stated Purpose of Meeting

To begin outlining a strategic plan for
unified seismic monitoring in IMW

To foster cooperation and greater technical
coordination among IMW networks [and
states]

To plan and coordinate political activism
Some “Drivers”

Region-wide IMW strategic plan long
overdue

USGS: What’s needed in IMW to meet
ANSS performance standards? Priorities
for next 3 yrs (incl. 3-yr co-ops)?

Timing of USArray in IMW and opportunity
for pursuing some kind of plan for
retaining some of the temporary
broadband stations
Map 19
USArray —
Temporary
BB Stations
Already
“Rolling”
Across the
IMW Region
Desirable Outcomes of Mtg
1. Understanding of “mutual self
interests” and agreement to cooperate
A region-wide strategic plan has to be
underpinned, eventually, by a
formalized agreement to cooperate.
Consider MOA for CISN . . .
From CISN MOA
“CISN institutions will build upon their existing
facilities to cooperatively improve seismic
instrumentation, its spatial distribution throughout
the state, its effectiveness in meeting public needs . . .
This agreement is based on the value the
organizations place on their own institutions receiving
appropriate credit, and their understanding that the
long-term health of an organization depends on the
recognition of its value to the community and state.”
Desirable Outcomes of Mtg
2. Outline of a 5-yr Strategic Plan and path
forward for writing the plan
Consensus on basic goals, what’s
needed to meet ANSS performance
standards, and priorities
Desirable Outcomes of Mtg
3. Plan for political activism to get added
resources for IMW region (esp. RE
retention of some USArray stations)
Bill Leith: How many are needed to meet
ANSS performance standards? Ideal would be
a consensus IMW statement of need that
USGS and NSF could discuss and take to OMB
to advocate for FY2008 budget.
IMW “Needs”
A quick review…
ANSS-IMW Region
Population*
WA = 6.3 M
OR = 3.6 M
CA = 36.1 M
AZ
CO
5.9 million
4.7 million
UT
NV
NM
2.5 million
2.4 million
1.9 million
ID
MT
1.4 million
0.9 million
WY
0.5 million
20.2
*U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 estimates
IMW Region...

Large (~3 times larger than CA+WA+OR)

Fastest growing region in the Nation

Has concentrated EQ risk in scattered metropolitan areas, in
part due to large federal landholdings (83% NV, 65% UT, 62% ID,
50% WY, 45% AZ, 36% CO, 34% NM, 28% MT)

Has compelling needs for improved seismic monitoring
associated with (a) dramatic population growth in metropolitan
areas at moderate to high seismic risk and (b) large gaps in
regional coverage of seismically active areas
545 stations
(283 SM, 59 BB)
MT
167 UU
130 UNR
104 NSMP
ID
WY
UT
CO
NV
NM
AZ
Station
Numbers
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
Patchquilt of seismic networks—both
stably funded and unstably-funded
1.
Most important IMW need for regional
seismic monitoring is a strategic regionwide
plan for dealing with EQ geography, uniform
recording, and response
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
2.
•
•
•
•
Need to help “have not” networks [and states] in IMW
HOW?
Convene long-overdue mtg between ANSS mgrs, IMW
network operators, and IMW RAC
“Mutual-aid agreements among nets & NEIC, especially
where network staffing is very small
Provide improved software for efficient earthquake
analysis
Assist with critically-needed technical support
(more)
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
HOW? (cont’d)
•
Address ways to provide critical info—both via
Web and via personal contacts—to information
outlets and/or to key persons in “have not”
states to ensure that they can reliably inform
governors, high-level decision-makers, and
local media during earthquake situations
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
HOW? (cont’d)
•
Explore avenues for funding—including ways
that unified political activism among IMW
states can gain support for improved network
monitoring in seismically active states that are
disadvantaged under ANSS
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
3.
Need for availability of portable instruments to
augment inadequate network coverage (with
sensible “business rules” to govern when
instruments will be deployed and what logistic
and financial support may be available)
IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005):
4.
Need to capture strong-motion data for large
normal-faulting Eqs, even if it means
instrumenting areas with low population
density