Pacific Northwest ANSS Regional Planning Workshop
June 15-16, 2000 Seattle, Washington
Meeting Notes

An initial organizing workshop for the Pacific Northwest Region of the Advanced National Seismic System resulted in a significant step forward for seismic monitoring and information providing for the region. The two day workshop concentrated the first day on defining the main players in the region, both from a provider and from a user of information point of view. The thirty-five attendees first heard background information on the ANSS; what is taking place at the national level and also what is happening in other regions.

Results and action items from the first day included outlining the area covered and the major participants and a discussion of products of monitoring and the needs of the user community. Volunteers for an interim regional steering committee were solicited.

There are a number of reasons why the basic I-5 corridor from Bellingham to Eugene forms the key part of the region. Not only does it contain the vast majority of the population and infrastructure but also the earthquake hazards are the greatest, at least from Portland north. Other parts of the states of Washington and Oregon have lower populations at risk and lower hazards but must still be covered by the region. The issue of how far east the region should extend was discussed at some length. While in many respects the state of Idaho fits more naturally in the Inter-mountain region with a center in Salt Lake City, there were arguments made that the western part of Idaho has more natural economic and cultural ties to Oregon and Washington. The Boise State seismic network straddles the Idaho/Oregon boarder and so is not clearly in one or the other state. The consensus of the group seemed to be that the boundary between Inter-mountain and Pacific Northwest regions would need to be fuzzy in the Boise area and that network should be represented in some way in both regions. The ANSS concept makes diverse network arrangements transparent to the users.

Discussions developing the concept of a regional steering or oversight committee brought up issues as to its role in the whole system and how it should be populated. If it is primarily a planning or design group then it should have strong representation from the seismic network operators. If its role will be largely oversight then it should not have much representation (if any) from the operators. The result was that an interim committee will be formed with comprehensive representation; however, it may need to re-constitute itself in some way to provide an effective oversight function. Members for this committee were volunteers from those present with several others also suggested. Changes will likely be needed to make sure that there is a good balance.

Specific questions and points of view raised during the first day included:

• How will the ANSS and regional operators recognize and use "in kind" contributions to network services by local industry, government, etc?
• ANSS provides infrastructure, local users can enhance basic ANSS system, provide direction through the steering committee, and get what they need out of it.
• CREW is an important partnership in our region and has demonstrated how a diverse group of private and public organizations can work on common earthquake hazard problems. Can this model be extended to the whole region?
• Support for the ANSS must come from a broad base, not just the USGS and their contractors. How do we involve a large community to advocate support for the whole program, particularly in the Pacific Northwest?
• State-level "building blocks" help to engage existing political structures. FEMA Regions represent another kind of existing political bloc that could be considered.
• Regional definitions need to be transparent for many users. Many businesses have operations that cross regional boundaries. Information users need to be able to get authoritative information for customized areas, or about the whole country, in a seamless, standardized way.
• bu How do we operate on a regional basis while at the same time looking like a single national system?
• Several discussions regarding types of information to provide end users took place with the following specific comments:
• For some speed of information is more important than accuracy.
• State agencies need certain well established, specific products such as hypocenter, magnitude, ShakeMap, text press releases
• Local agencies need products that are easy to use and understand, and education about what is available now,
• A backup, off-site information source (e.g. Golden) should exist. Otherwise system overloads may prevent users from accessing information.
• Other products?? Damage estimates, effects on underground utilities, liquefaction potential, aftershock potential,....
• Everyone needs more than just WEB-pages, Faxes, e-mail, etc. Must have expert advice, i.e. bodies to answer questions and do follow-up. Just having data is not enough!
• Maps with human-friendly information (overlays of structures, geology and ground motion) are important.
• How can detailed site conditions be determined from monitoring?
• Engineers want corrected accelerograms and quick and convenient access to them. Data should be submitted to COSMOS within hours of an event. Engineers are still learning to use this data, and products will evolve over time.
• ANSS should provide time-critical info for public safety, data and information for long-term earthquake loss reduction, plus general information and expert services
• Neighboring states need prompt info so they can prepare to act as staging areas for relief and recovery efforts.
• The relationship of the ANSS with NEHRP was an issue, particularly as regards hazard research and general mitigation through education. NEHRP seems to provide for specific research objectives but not the long-term application of of research results to the real world.
• Emergency management community is concerned about both the information product but also the delivery methods. How do they get the information in time of stress on normal communication infrastructure. Also, they need education on what the information means and how to use if for their purposes.
• All information users need to have contacts, familiarity with local seismologists and geologists for helping to interpret information products.
• The sponsorship of the ANSS by the USGS provides it a high profile and an authority which local groups often don't have; however this can be a two-way street in which local groups with local expertise add authority to the USGS presence.
• Engineering expertise is essential. The oversight committees must include engineers.
• There is a variability between regions in what sort of products are most effective. For example, ShakeMap, as it exists now, may not be as useful to people in low to moderate seismic areas as it is in southern California.
• Need to define the engineering products in a standard way and make sure they are easily available to the local engineering community. COSMOS can help with this, but information types and presentation will evolve with time.
• How will the planned strong-motion instruments be extended to include structures. Assuming limited availability of ANSS instruments how will the choices of structures and how to do the actual siting be determined? Its very important to have structural engineers (perhaps those that designed a building) to help here.
• ANSS will have a component beyond that funded through the USGS. Its very important to consider the USGS contribution as providing the backbone or basic infrastructure. Much more, including instruments, telemetry and products will need to come from the larger local community.
• For permanent data archiving for research, how will that work? Can IRIS do it all? Strong-motion data should also be sent quickly and archived by an organization such as COSMOS who can provide the data to engineers in the form that they need.
• Can ShakeMap or something like it be used for rapid loss estimation. Who will do this work and how to make it available to all who need it?
• For many users, concerns include volcanos and tsunamis, not just earthquake shaking. Regional system must include information products about these as well? Should landslides also be included and does that take a significantly different approach?
• Utilities and transportation are major concerns of all. Thus possibly need much better integration of earthquake information with life-line infrastructure to make common information products for others.
• A number of different partnership relations were explored for the purpose of improving telemetry of basic data and the return of information to users. These included corporate networks (Internet, microwave, fiber, etc), and the possibility of instrumenting branch banks and power substations.
• There is a current concern that there is a strong partner-weak partner in the relation between Oregon and Washington. Without a significant network operating presence in Oregon it is difficult currently for information to be well coordinated and effective there. There is a need for local expertise in day to day operations in Oregon to better serve the local public.
• Be informed of the needs/resources of related big-science projects: RIDGE, NEPTUNE (cable to JDF ridge), CREST, VDAP, Hanford Astrophysics lab BB array (L shaped array, 4 km arm length), CTBT Blue Mountain Array, ??. Researchers are also info end-users.

2nd Day, June 16, 2000

For the second day of the workshop the topics covered were more specific to operational issues and how the networks themselves would be organized. Each current network outlined their operations and how they do or could fit into the ANSS regional plan.

• National Strong Motion Program (Bill Joyner) - There are about 30 NSMP digital strong motion instruments in the PNW with six more to be installed in the near future. About 20 of these are near-real time with dial-up access from Menlo Park. Some may be close to other sources of telemetry such that they could go directly into the UW earthworm system. It is yet to be determined how to do that. The NSMP can process several hundred waveforms within a few days in the event of a large earthquake. Automatic processing is coming in a year or so. Baseline shifts of K2 data from the Hector Mine event were mentioned and the need to test these instruments which still has not been done to their satisfaction. NSMP can assist with installation issues, particularly those near or in structures since it takes a lot of in-house expertise or experience to do such installations. Questions were raised about strong motion data availability and how the NSMP could fit into the regional ANSS program. The NSMP provides very standard "processing" of data and uniform presentation and archiving for engineering use. If data is submitted to COSMOS, the USGS National Strong Motion Program can process the data for posting to the web. Time-line would be to process data within a few days. Western Canada Network, Gary Rogers - While Canadian networks can not be a basic part of the ANSS, cooperation between them and US networks, particularly in the Washington-British Columbia area is very desirable. Canadian networks have been digital for quite some time and strong motion instruments are included in their networks. Sharing location and pick-file data has been underway for many years and trading of waveform data will be possible in the future since they will have a earthworm node as part of their center. There is a new Canadian program called POLARIS which is analogous to USArray in the US which is likely to be funded during the next year. There is also the possibility of a greatly expanded strong motion network in the greater Vancouver area.
• Eastern Washington Seismic Network (Al Rohay) - Battelle Richland Labs maintains the eastern Washington portion of the PNSN under DOE support and operates a more Hanford specific portion of it for local hazard and safety issues. They operate an earthworm system with the near future possibility of easy data exchange between them and UW. It is not anticipated that there will be any major changes in operational procedures, data access, or other constraints in their continuing cooperation with a PNW region of the ANSS. Battelle group can handle some local outreach type questions, but not on a very rapid, 7/24 basis. They expect to provide data to a center and help with response functions.
• University of Oregon operations. (Doug Toomey - UofO began deploying broad-band seismographs in 1991 with grant funds and operational support came from the state of Oregon at ever decreasing levels. UO began helping with the maintenance of the southern part of the PNSN through a UW subcontract in 1994 which was taken over directly by the USGS in 1997. Currently UO provides technical maintenance for both short-period and broad-band stations, but is not actively involved in the data processing or analysis. There is a feeling of dis-investment at the scientific level because they are not in the day-to-day analysis of the resulting data. They do provide and would be interested in being more involved as local scientific resources but this implies more active, on-going involvement and support for relevant science studies.
• Oregon State University. (John Nabelek) - OSU has been more involved with the routine analysis of providing moment tensor solutions for larger earthquakes for the region (larger than the proposed PNW). This system ran fairly well for several years until the graduate students operating it graduated a year ago. This illustrates the need to have regular staff involved in this type of operational aspect. This effort was a mix of research and operations to get the system going and calibrated and provided both quality control information about station operations as well as a good complete catalog. The system is being restarted using earthworm data access techniques and should be in full operation again soon.
• Cascade Volcano Observatory. (Elliot Endo) - CVO operates an earthworm system which is used for development and support of the "Volcano Disaster Assistance Team" (VDAP) efforts. They have good DOI Internet connectivity and provide lots of outreach and educational materials and information in several different ways. There participation and cooperation with a PNW part of the ANSS is likely but how that would develop is not obvious at this point. Changes in personnel make it unclear how their seismic network operation will evolve.
• Montana Bureau of Mines (Mike Stickney) - Montana has recently had a very productive period of networking their stations together using earthworm and have started sharing data with neighboring networks including UofW. There is new interest in strong motion monitoring at some dams and perhaps in some mining districts. This network is totally state supported but has received some equipment and help from the USGS for certain upgrades. This provides a good example of USGS and other groups combining to "leverage" support in special areas.
• Boise State Network. (Jim Zollweg) - Idaho has no less than 7 different organizations operating networks or locating earthquakes. Boise State Network is only one of those, but one with close ties to the PNW area. It straddles the Idaho-Oregon border and many of the users of network data have connections with the Seattle/Portland area. A re-established Blue Mountain Observatory is being supported for CTBT research with 7 broad-band stations. The rest of the network is a standard short-period network recording on a PC. No immediate plans exist to use an earthworm system.

General discussions of cooperation by network operators:

• Continuity of support essential, can't carry on operations using grad students only.
• Oregon State funding for strong motion is for instruments only, not for operations.
• The Oregon "Department of Geology and Mineral Industries" (DOGAMI)'s role is outreach and political but they (and other Oregon institutions) need to have some way to stay up-to-date on a regular basis with things that are going on in the region so they can provide better and more timely information.
• In some cases minor technician consulting would be very efficient and effective for bringing networks up to a high level of operation.
• UW currently does 24-7 emergency response, other networks do not have the interests nor staff to do this but a backup to UW is needed.
• USGS is not expected to fund all of network operations but can provide needed baseline stability in many cases.
• There is a need for a better collaborative effort between groups. This would be useful to cover for each other and to direct inquiries to the most appropriate source.
• There is still some confusion about the ANSS and its relationship to doing research on earthquake hazards. It was emphasized that ANSS is a part of NEHERP but it is not clear in everyones mind what the implications of this are on basic research versus just data collecting and public information. Comments included:
• There must be resources provided to enable regional operators to produce products arising from monitoring.
• Basic research is not ANSS role, however ANSS is more than just monitoring.
• There is a fuzzy boundary here since new information products require research so ANSS structure must not be opaque to research possibilities.
• No operator should provide technical assistance only which separates research possibilities from the operational too far.
• The region is diverse enough with both different types of hazards and constituents that it must have fairly decentralized operations.
• It may be desirable to decentralized from the UW dominant system now and place more operational functions in Oregon or at other centers.
• Decentralization must not result in a fractionated, unaccountable system. There must be a clear chain of responsibility and it must be pretty transparent to the outside user.

Discussions about the management of the PNW region were lively but productive. Taking direction from the National Steering Committee's "Concept Diagram" the definition and tasks of the "Regional Subcommittee" and the "Regional Coordinator-Working Group" were discussed. It was not clear what was really meant by these terms and thus ideas about the make-up, responsibilities, and way or proceeding was discussed with some of the following points being made:

• The steering committee for the region must be broadly based; its exact size is not so important since its work can be done by sub-parts. One obvious subcommittee is that of the network operators.
• Tasks of "steering" or "planning" and "oversight" must be clearly separated.
• The formulation of the management at this time must remain flexible and may need to be reformed more than once in the short term.
• Getting representation for the steering committee from a broad base is important but equally so is to get people who will really participate.
• Having a small group as the "regional Coordinator" such as for California did not seem to be appropriate here. That is a single person as regional coordinator seemed to be fine for now.
• Examples from other organizations were presented such as getting commitments from the leaders for a fixed, short (2-3 years) period at which time new leadership would be chosen.

An advisory committee for the Pacific Northwest was chosen by selecting volunteers from the participants present with several others being suggested. Steve Malone volunteered to be the interim regional coordinator but indicated that he would want to be replaced as soon as things got underway and a proper mechanism for establishing this position was developed. More specific details of the role of the steering committee and the regional coordinator would need to wait on further direction from the national level. Tentative members for the initial regional steering committee are listed. Malone will set up a mailing list and WEB page for the region and post the notes of this meeting as soon as possible. A report back to the whole group will follow the national steering committee meeting in Colorado in July.

This is file /SEIS/ANSS/workshop1.rep.html   modified 2/7/2001- If you see any problems or have comments about these pages send e-mail: bill@ess.washington.edu