Post on 21-Feb-2016
description
transcript
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 1
“Options for Political Activism to Get Increased Funding”
John G. AndersonDirector, Nevada Seismological Laboratory
Presentation to ANSS Intermountain West Strategic Planning Meeting
August 14, 2006Salt Lake City, Utah
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 2
Outline
• Background• Nevada proposal• Consensus request
proposal
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 3
Background
• Some thoughts I had for SESAC in September, 2004.
1: 66.3%
2: 40.0% 12: 20.1%
4: 29.6%3: 30.6%
32: 8.9%5: 28.5%
20: 12.9%
Population growth rate, 1990-2000US Census Bureau
Annualized Earthquake Loss Ratio at the County Level
Source: nationalatlas.gov, FEMA366, US Census Bureau
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 5
Conclusions on hazard and risk
• The risk in this region is small compared to California.
• Individual households or businesses in the Basin and Range states face risks comparable to or greater than those affecting many residents of California.– The resident of Reno faces a higher hazard than the
resident of San Diego.• The population is growing fast.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 6
Scientific Issues
• Monitor the hazard – ANSS (USGS) & other networks
• Describe the hazard– Seismic hazard analysis
• Understand the hazard– Basin and Range Earthquake Center
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 7
Monitoring• Thought: USGS (ANSS) is not the only agency
supporting seismic monitoring in the region. – DOE (might spend more)– NSF: not only Earthscope– Other federal agencies
• We appreciate USGS for it’s commitment and long-term perspective, while other agencies are focused on specific problems and can be unreliable.
• Encourage USGS to develop ANSS in a way that is consistent with long term planning for network operators, in the context of the multiple sources of funding.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 8
ANSS portable arrays
• Site response at long periods in urban areas: temporary (& a few permanent) deployment of broadband seismometers.
• Aftershocks. – By monitoring aftershocks with strong motion
instruments, we increase our chance of recording a rare “characteristic earthquake” sized event.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 9
Describe the Hazard• National Seismic
Hazard Maps: Exceptionally valuable!
• As USGS already recognizes, need to continue improve.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 10
Source: Pancha et al (BSSA 2006)
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 11
• Characterize faults, emphasize near urban areas• Velocity structure • Create “Community models” for both• Ground motion prediction• Source physics• Improve and test seismic hazard estimates.• Scenarios to communicate results
Nevada Priorities
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 12
Understand the hazard
• Needed: Basin and Range Earthquake Center– Model after Southern California Earthquake
Center– Goal: accelerate progress to quantitative
description of the hazard– Promote Earthscope goals.
• Proposal to NSF / Earthscope for a Great Basin center CVM/CFM
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 13
Summary
• The funding problem is larger than “just ANSS”. – ANSS does not increase funding to study the
data.• In solutions to the funding problem, we
should not necessarily constrain our efforts to ANSS “narrowly defined”.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 14
“Nevada Approach”
• Initial/Primary advocate Jonathan Price, Nevada State Geologist, member of SESAC.
• Impressed with Teton add-on as a possible approach to funding.
• Proposes a non-traditional earmark in which:– Year 1 funds are added for Nevada (Nevada
congressional delegation has bragging rights)– Year 2 and after, these increase the base budget of
USGS, and benefit the entire program.• More than ANSS
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 15
Comments on the Nevada Approach
• Full ANSS funding hasn’t come, and doesn’t look likely.
• “Plan B seems to be evolving on the premise that since all of the ANSS areas listed in Circular 1188 are worthwhile, the order of completion is secondary to solving the financial issue.”
• “It is my belief that the most promising way to increase ANSS funding in a meaningful way is to convince individual Congress persons to put their money on the line for those who can re-elect them.”
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 16
Details of the Nevada proposal
• ANSS stations• Capture USArray stations before they are
pulled out• Telemetry under UNR control to bring the
data in.• GPS stations colocated with some seismic
stations.• $1 Million for External Grants Program
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 17
Capturing USArray Stations• If USGS got $5.3 Million just for this as a
permanent increase to their budget, then what could be done?
Year Captured Maintained
1: FFY 2008 90 0
2 64 90
…
10 300
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 18
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 19
Alternative Approach
• Described to me yesterday by Walter Arabasz, attributed to Bill Leith
• “Working within the system”• “Consensus Request” approach
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 20
IMW Consensus Request
• First determine how many USArray Stations need to be captured in order to meet ANSS performance standards.
• IMW region requests USGS to capture those stations
• Build strong benefit/cost model (convincing to OMB)
• USGS and NSF will work together and with seismic networks to find most cost effective approach.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 21
Consensus Statement (elements)• USArray provides a unique opportunity to expand
seismic monitoring in the intermountain states.• The time to take advantage of this opportunity is
limited.• If we capture ___ USArray stations, it will enable
the intermountain states to achieve the following objectives:– 1.– 2. …
• We request USGS and NSF to work together to determine the most cost-effective way to achieve these objectives.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 22
Consensus Statement (continued)
• Capturing the USArray stations only achieves a fraction of the earthquake studies needs for the intermountain region.
• ANSS needs to be funded fully in order to provide sufficient strong motion stations to meet the objectives of Circular 1188.
• Portable stations are needed to increase the probability of recovering the first strong motion records of a M>7 earthquake of the type that is typical of this region.
• Portable stations are also needed to characterize the effects of the geological basins that underlie all of the major cities in this region, and to achieve the benefits of seismic monitoring described by the NAS panel.
• A significant increase in funding for the IMW external program is needed so that the data will be used to promptly translate the benefits of the data to the engineering community.
IMW Strategic PlanningAugust 14, 2006 23
Question for Us
• What would the IMW states like to do?– Earmark approach– Consensus statement approach– Both– Other