FY2002 ANSS
Regional Implementation Plan
DRAFT
– 8/20/2001
1. Introduction
1.1
Region: Pacific Northwest
1.2
Regional Coordinator: Steve Malone, University of Washington,
(206) 685-3811 steve@geophys.washington.edu
1.3 Regional Geography: Washington,
Oregon, (Idaho ??)
As of 8/03/01 a request from the Idaho Bureau of
Disaster Services and the Idaho Geological Survey was received to have Idaho be
a part of the core members of the PNW region rather than the InterMountain West
(IMW) region. Up until then planning had not included Idaho as a core member
of PNW and so the following draft plan does not take this into account. For
the present time we are deferring including Idaho until after the August 17
deadline for this draft plan.
1.4
Regional Working Group:
John Nableck, Oregon State
University, (541) 737-2757, FAX (541) 737-2064, nabelekj@ucs.orst.edu
Alan Rohay, Battelle, (509)
376-6925, alan.rohay@pnl.gov
Jim Zollweg, Boise State University
(?), jzollweg@hotmail.com
Elliot Endo, U. S. Geological
Survey, (360) 993-8911, FAX (360) 993-8980, etendo@usgs.gov
Douglas Toomey, University of
Oregon, (541) 346-5576, FAX drt@newberry.uoregon.edu
Craig Weaver – U.S. Geological Survey,
(206) 553-0627, craig@geophys.washington.edu
1.5 Regional Advisory Committee:
C.B. Crouse, (Chairman) URS/Dames & Moore
Group,
Ken Campbell, EQE International,
George Crawford, Washington
Emergency
Marv Crumb,GeoSIG Ltd USA,
Mark Darienzo, Oregon Emergency
Management
Marc Eberhard, University of
Washington, CE
Robin Friedman, Seattle Public
Utilities
Mike Gallagher, Educational Service
District 123
Rosemary Gentry, Oregon Dept. Of
Paul Grant, PanGeo Inc
John Hooper, Skilling Ward Magnusson
Barkshire Inc
Steve Palmer, Washington DNR,
Geology
Roger Serra, Snohomish County
Julia Shaughnessy, Bonneville Power
Gennie Thompson, Bank of
Stephen Weiser, Idaho Disaster
Bill Wilkinson, Port of Seattle
Robert Zimmerman, Boeing
1.6
Regional issues:
The PNW is characterized
by several different needs for seismic monitoring including tectonic
earthquakes, tsunami information, volcanic activity and landslides. There are
two large urban areas (Seattle and vicinity and Portland and vicinity) and a
number of smaller urban areas. Field conditions vary considerably from urban
sites with reliable power and easy network access to remote, high mountain
stations with difficult telemetry options, no power, limited access and great
snow depths in winter (> 10m is possible). Seismic network operations
within the region are already fairly well coordinated with four different
institutions actively participating. Real time data exchange with all
neighboring regions (including Canada) is well established.
In preparing this draft
plan input was solicited from members of the regional working group and
reactions to an early draft were solicited from the regional advisory
committee. This plan is necessarily incomplete because of the lack of adequate
time for a complete review and feedback from all concerned.
1.7
Summary
The PNW region of the ANSS will include a primary regional operation center
in Seattle, WA and secondary ones in Vancouver, WA, Richland, WA, and Eugene,
OR. Interpretation centers will exist in Seattle, WA, Richland, WA, Vancouver,
WA and in a yet-to-be-determined site in Oregon. The number of seismic
stations will be on line with the numbers proposed in Circular 1188. This
amounts to about 140 broad band stations and 450 each free-field/reference and
structural strong motion sites. We also propose to continue operating about 40
simpler (rugged and low power) stations in remote locations. Current operation
personnel amount to about 18 FTEs and current financial support of operation is
about 70% from the USGS. We crudely estimate that the personnel needed for
installation and operation of the full ANSS deployment will require a staff
approximately double that of the current staff.
For FY 2002 we propose to install only 6 additional strong motion
instruments, four of which will be in the Portland area, the remaining two to
be placed where ever there seems to be a current need. Other instruments
provided by cooperating agencies may also be installed. We also plan to
improve the siting of some of our existing strong motion instruments. Because
of time constraints some of these were not placed in the most ideal locations
and many need to be upgraded for backup batteries. Besides routine maintenance
of existing instruments we also need to do some minimum site characterization
of these existing sites and improve the use of the data from them. We propose
to install either one or two broad band regional stations in this next year
depending on availability of new ANSS instrumentation. The only additional
personnel needed is part of a person for clerical tasks in Seattle and some
additional time of the technician located in Eugene, OR to assist with the
installation and maintenance of instruments in southern and centralOregon.
2. ANSS Instrumentation Request Needs
2.1 National
The existing NSN sites in Washington and Oregon provide a good basis for
the NSN backbone. The GSN station, COR has a long history and thus should
probably be kept even though it is not an ideal site based on local noise and
site conditions. The proposed new sites (list and map submitted recently) are
a reasonable selection. For station, GFOR coordination with the NCSN should be
considered because of new BB sites they plan to install there soon. For central
and eastern Oregon it might be useful to investigate the old Blue Mountain
Observatory site (Boise State may have something installed there now).
2.2 Regional
2.2.1 Number and Location: Figure 1
shows the current PNSN (solid triangles) and tentative proposed ANSS stations
(squares) for regional and NSN stations. The color/symbols indicate the type
of station. Many of the proposed regional quality stations are at sites
currently occupied by short-period, analog instruments. In many cases the
replacement station will need to be resited because of either digital telemetry
or power problems at the exact site. We would try to keep roughly the same
distribution which is based on many years experience with this network
configuration. Note that we also show as pluses some low-power, simpler
stations for use in very remote sites where additional monitoring is needed but
does not need to have the wide band-width of a high powered broad-band station.
We feel that 140 high-quality, broad-band stations within the region and data
shared from an additional 20 stations from neighboring regions will provide
adequate monitoring of the region along with about 30-40 simpler, low-quality
stations. These stations would probably continue to be the current analog
short-period stations until a suitable replacement were available (or
broad-band stations could be simple enough and low-power enough to use
anywhere).
2.2.2 Deployment Schedule:
Digital telemetry availability is a controlling factor in the deployment
schedule for regional stations. Since most of our current short-period
stations are located at sites where digital telemetry infrastructure does not
yet exist (nor power in most cases) we may need to relocate many of these
stations rather than just upgrading them. We plan to build on the techniques
currently being used for digital telemetry, which includes leased phone-lines,
and microwave channels with leased-line modems and direct Internet connections.
Where such facilities are not available we plan to use frame-relay, possibly
with spread-spectrum radios for short hops from telephone facilities to station
sites. Most of these technologies require some advanced logistical and siting
efforts long before actual installation can be done. Thus, we plan to install
only a few trial regional sites during the first year or two and concentrate on
siting efforts for subsequent years. By doing proto-type installations with
great care at several different types of sites we plan to learn the most
efficient and effective way to do the majority of sites in subsequent years. A
rough estimate of how many sites will be installed in each of the five years is
given in Table 1 (based on numbers from national implementation plan document).
Estimated
personnel needs for deployment are based on our experience of the past few
years installing CREST stations and proto-type ANSS strong-motion stations.
Site selection takes a considerable amount of time since it requires balancing
a number of selection criteria and dealing with a variety of land managers.
From experience we have discovered that if extra time is taken to obtain a good
site by sound seismological principles and noise tests and then make sure it
ha8/8/01s easy, low-cost (or free) telemetry, good power and site security,
that its operational costs for the future will be low. Investment up front
pays off in the future with a more reliable low-cost station. Experience
indicates that an installation crew of three people can install regional sites
at an average rate of one per week not including site selection and permitting.
Some sites, particularly those in very remote locations, may take more time
but others take less. We anticipate personnel will be flexible enough to do
both regional and strong-motion sites as well as follow-on maintenance. A
rough estimate of total personnel needs is summarized for all aspects at the
end of the document.
2.2.3 Cooperators The PNSN already has a record of being a jointly
operated network with participation and support from several groups. In particular
the State of Washington (via the University of Washington) provides some
facilities and personnel. Battelle Northwest Labs (contractor for the US
Department of Energy) provides support for most of the station maintenance and
operations in eastern Washington. Bonneville Power Administration provides
siting and telemetry for many strong-motion sites now and broadband sites at
several of their facilities have been permitted and will be installed soon.
The USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory assists with monitoring of Cascade
volcanos and general logistical support. Union Pacific Railways provides a
small financial contribution to our operations. We expect these cooperative
arrangements to continue as part of the ANSS plan. We also are developing
additional cooperative arrangements with other entities such as the City of
Seattle and Puget Sound Energy.
2.3 Urban (ground)
2.3.1 Reference and
free-field stations: Figure 2 shows maps
of the current and planned reference/free-field sites in the greater Seattle
and Portland areas. As of fall, 2001 there are 58 strong motions stations that
can be considered the first part of or a prototype ANSS deployment.
Approximate distribution for the additional 450 stations called for in the ANSS
plan is shown as different symbols. The exact location of these stations has
not been determined since the siting process has not yet begun for them. We
will continuously review the proposed sites with the ANSS regional advisory
committee and adjust the distribution as needed.
2.3.2 Deployment schedule: The deployment schedule we plan for the
strong-motion stations will follow somewhat the same plan as for the regional
stations. Although we now have considerable experience installing these types
of instruments we anticipate a new package will be available, built to ANSS
specifications that may require some changes in installation plans. Because we
now have a good distribution of reference/free-field stations in the Puget
Sound area we plan to reduce the number of new installations there in the next
year or two but add a few more in the Portland area. We will use this next
year to improve some of the current stations which were hurriedly installed, to
do site selection work for future stations and also to concentrate on obtaining
site characterization information for the current stations. In two years, when
a new strong-motion instrument is ready and tested we would plan to start the
major installation phase for the remainder of the ANSS instruments.
2.3.3 Deployment support: The staff we have been using for strong-motion
instrument installation will be adequate for the next year’s work,
including maintenance of existing sites (see below). Additional personnel will
be needed when the major installation phase begins. See summary of staff given
below.
2.3.4 Cooperators : Similar to the regional stations, there are some
cooperating institutions for which we are developing relationships specifically
for strong-motion instrumentation. These include the following: the Boeing Aircraft
Company, Seattle City (water, power, emergency response), State Department of
Transportation, Bonneville Power Administration. While only the latter is
fully on board (providing sites and telemetry at no cost), we are in active
negotiations for both financial as well as “in-kind” support from
the others and have possibilities to work with other organizations as well.
This is an on-going and continuous process.
2.4 Urban (structures)
The PNSN operation group has no experience with instrumenting structures
and thus we are not prepared to provide much in the way of detailed plans for
this phase of the ANSS. A critical need for us in the near future would be a
staff member with experience instrumenting structures. We also anticipate
significant direction from the national Technical Integration Plan to assist us
with our local plans. We have received interest from some organizations such
as the State Department of Transportation for assistance with instrumenting
their structures but we have not been able to pursue these enquiries
sufficiently without a staff person dedicated to it.
2.5 Operations and Maintenance
2.5.1 Operation
Centers : The operation and maintenance
for the PNSN currently is run from four different centers:
1.
Seattle, WA (UW & USGS personnel),
2.
Richland, WA (Battelle Northwest personnel),
3.
Vancouver, WA (USGS-CVO & UW personnel),
4.
Eugene, OR (UO personnel).
This geographic distribution of centers works quite well placing field
staff fairly close to stations and communication hubs that they service. We
anticipate that this same, or a slightly expanded set of centers would be
appropriate for the PNW region of the ANSS. We propose that the primary center
for routine operation will continue to be at the UW. Here the authoritative routine
analysis and rapid data products will be produced and the other routine centers
will assist as needed. Other centers will be involved with station and network
operation including maintenance, calibration, and data quality control. These
centers may also provide interpretation and development services for events
within their areas of expertise. Because all current stations in eastern
Washington are now serviced and financed by Battelle Northwest in support of
the US Department of Energy monitoring of the Hanford Reservation, some more
formal arrangement might need to be made to insure all monitoring needs
consistent with the ANSS are covered.
2.5.2 Personnel: Table 2 lists the routine operational personnel
currently involved in the PNSN (all centers) divided into several categories.
Many individuals share different responsibilities in this table. We anticipate
that this level of staffing is close to our needs for the operation of the
‘transition’ PNSN->ANSS’ of the next year (FY2002).
Values in parenthesis indicate where a slightly different staff level is
appropriate. This table only includes operational staff, not personnel
involved with doing basic research using the data. Additional staff will be
needed for the ANSS. These staff would install and mainta all of the new
facilities. In the installation phase many of these could be involved with
installation rather than maintenance and transition between installation and
maintenance as the system was completed. We estimate that the ANSS will take a
staffing level of approximately double the current one. Also, because of the
difficult winter weather conditions and inaccessibility to many sites in the
northwest we would propose to share field maintenance personnel with a more
southerly region such that staff would work in the south during winter and in
the northwest during the summer in some mutually agreeable combination.
3.0 ANSS Information Center(s)
In many respects the
most important work of the ANSS is done at the interpretation centers. Here
the earthquake data and information products are interpreted for the use of all
end users from emergency managers and the press to research scientists.
Currently the UW serves as the only major coordinated interpretation center in
the Pacific Northwest. This situation does not serve the region well.
Interpretation is best done by those close to the recipients; those most
familiar with their interests and the local seismo-tectonics. Thus
interpretation of earthquakes in Oregon for Oregonians would best be done at
Oregon institutions. The same applies to eastern Washington.
We propose
that there be four ANSS supported authoritative interpretation centers for the
PNW, one at UW where the primary regional operation center will be, one in
Richland, WA , one in ???, Oregon, and one at CVO. The center in Oregon has
yet to be determined but will be at either the Univ. of Oregon in Eugene,
Oregon State Univ. in Corvalis or at the Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) in Portland (or a combination of these).. Each of
these centers will provide the authoritative interpretation for their region.
CVO will act as the authoritative center for volcanic activity throughout the
region. Of course there can be other interpretation centers as well as these
since any and all seismic data and information will be available to anyone with
sufficient interest and capability.
|
|
|
|
Table 1 - Station
Deployment Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assumes full ANSS funding
in Year 2 (2003)
|
|
|
|
|
Existing
|
Year 1 *
|
Year 2
|
Year 3
|
Year 4
|
Year 5
|
Totals by
|
|
|
|
|
(real-time)
|
|
|
|
|
Regions
|
|
Regional / National BB
Stations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Washington
|
7
|
3
|
1
|
10
|
10
|
12
|
43
|
|
|
Cascades & Eastern WA
|
7
|
1
|
1
|
8
|
10
|
12
|
39
|
|
|
Western Oregon
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
8
|
8
|
10
|
34
|
|
|
Eastern Oregon
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
10
|
25
|
|
|
Border regions (BC,CA..)
|
5
|
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
19
|
|
|
|
TOTAL per year
|
24
|
9
|
5
|
34
|
40
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
Total cumulative
|
24
|
33
|
38
|
72
|
112
|
160
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Reference & Free
Field
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seattle area
|
36
|
0
|
20
|
30
|
35
|
35
|
156
|
|
|
Portland area
|
6
|
4
|
30
|
25
|
20
|
20
|
105
|
|
|
Other Western WA
|
13
|
2
|
5
|
25
|
25
|
35
|
105
|
|
|
Other Western Oregon
|
5
|
0
|
5
|
20
|
20
|
10
|
60
|
|
|
Eastern WA
|
4
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
10
|
15
|
38
|
|
|
Eastern OR
|
2
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
10
|
10
|
31
|
|
|
|
TOTAL per year
|
66
|
6
|
66
|
112
|
120
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
Total cumulative
|
66
|
72
|
138
|
250
|
370
|
495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Year 1 (2002) includes
only 1 BB and 8 SM sites for ANSS.
|
|
|
|
|
The others are for CREST
and other projects
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 PERSONNEL
|
|
|
|
Table- 2 Current PNW Seismic Network Operation Personnel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions
|
|
Management
|
|
Scientists
|
|
Staff
|
|
Technicians
|
|
Clerical
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Univ. of Washington
|
0.7
|
|
1.2
|
|
3.5
|
|
5.0
|
|
0.2
|
[0.5]
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
US Geological Survey
|
0.5
|
|
0.5
|
|
1.0
|
|
1.0
|
|
0.2
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Battelle Northwest Labs
|
0.2
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richland, WA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Oregon State Univ. (??)
|
0.1
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corvalis, OR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Univ. of Oregon
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
[0.8]
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene, OR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
USGS-CVO
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|