ANSS INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGION
Organizational Workshop

Marriott University Park Hotel
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 19-20, 2000

Workshop Summary

by
John G. Anderson
Walter J. Arabasz

Participants:

Jon Ake, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver

John Anderson, University of Nevada, Reno

Walter Arabasz, University of Utah

Doug Bausch, Northern Arizona University

Harley Benz, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver

Bob Carey, Utah Div. of Comprehensive Emergency Mgt.

Gary Christenson, Utah Geological Survey

Cliff Frohlich, University of Texas, Austin

Mark Lovell, Ricks College, Idaho

Sue Nava, University of Utah

Suzette Jackson Payne, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab

Jim Pechmann, University of Utah

Anne Sheehan, University of Colorado, Boulder

Ken Smith, University of Nevada, Reno

Bob Smith, University of Utah

Mike Stickney, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Charles Watson, Advanced Geological Exploration, Inc./Seismo-Watch, Reno, Nevada

Note: Both Rick Aster of New Mexico Tech and Leigh House of Los Alamos National Lab, who were unable to attend,
provided written input that was distributed to participants at the workshop.

Purpose:

The workshop was convened to address the need for seismic network operators and others in the Intermountain West to self-organize as part of the process of developing a management structure for an Advanced National Seismic System. A strategic decision was made to gather as many of the network operators in the Intermountain West region as possible, relying on them in turn to organize other stakeholders, including emergency managers, engineers, and other ANSS end users in their own state and/or subregion. (See Organizing an "Intermountain West" Region as Part of an Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), May 25, 2000.)

Workshop Agenda: (click here to view)

Workshop Goals:

The goals of the workshop stemmed directly from the "marching orders" explicit in the ANSS national management plan:

"Once a region defines its geographic boundaries, identifies participants, and develops a regional implementation plan, this plan will be submitted to the National Implementation Committee for endorsement."

We recognized that it wasn't necessary to come up with a final implementation plan at this workshop, but we wanted to shape as much of the plan as possible to signal our intentions to the Interim ANSS National Committee, scheduled to meet in July. With this in mind, the workshop goals were:

1. Consensus on proposed geographic boundaries for an ANSS Intermountain West Region (IMW Region)--and, if desirable, the makeup of subregions
2. Consensus or at least guidelines for creating a management structure for the IMW Region
3. A statement on how ANSS should coordinate with special-purpose and/or non-USGS-funded networks in the IMW Region to their mutual benefit
4. Resolutions to the Interim ANSS National Committee conveying the sense of the meeting
5. Recommendations to other potential participants in the IMW Region
6. An action plan for where we go from here

Outcome of the Workshop:

Workshop Goal 1
Consensus on proposed geographic boundaries for an ANSS Intermountain West Region (IMW Region)--and, if desirable, the makeup of subregions

The final makeup and boundaries of the IMW Region were not determined completely, but there was consensus that the boundaries would follow state borders. At the close of the workshop, the expectation was that the region would include the following states (from north to south): Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The tentative configuration of the IMW Region is similar to a scenario proposed by Walter Arabasz (Figure 1, right-hand side), which allows some states to have a primary membership in one region and an affiliate membership in an adjoining region (see ANSS Regions, Fuzzy Boundaries, and State Jurisdictions).

Representatives from some states--notably Texas, Nevada, and Idaho--were not able to leave the meeting definitely committed to primary membership in the IMW Region, although at least affiliate membership was likely. There was some discussion about whether it might be advantageous for North Dakota and South Dakota to be part of the IMW Region, since the easternmost expression of the Rocky Mountains is in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

The group consensus was not to divide the IMW Region systematically into geographic subregions, despite the large extent of the Intermountain West. Rather, the preferred solution for accommodating local stakeholder/steering groups--particularly for states with mature earthquake programs--was to allow and encourage the formation of such local committees and to ensure their representation on the regionwide oversight committee (discussed below). Utah, Nevada, and Colorado each have active state earthquake programs and are likely to form such local steering committees.

Workshop Goal 2
Consensus or at least guidelines for creating a management structure for the IMW Region

We started our discussion with the management structure outlined by the ANSS Interim National Committee (Figure 2) as a given condition. For that reason, we viewed our task for the IMW Region as determining the composition of (1) the Regional (Oversight) Subcommittee and (2) the corresponding Working Group, with its Regional Coordinator.

We saw the Regional Subcommittee as primarily concerned with policy and planning issues. We refer to it as an "Oversight" committee, taking our cue from the description that this committee "Oversees the regional implementation of ANSS" (see ANSS Web site under "ANSS Management and Implementation."). On the implementation side, we envisioned the Regional Working Group, with a Coordinator, as the group responsible to "get it done" (Figure 3). The Regional Coordinator is on the implementation side of the organization chart but needs to be directly familiar with the considerations of the Regional (Oversight) Committee.

Uncertainty about how ANSS funding decisions will be made at the regional level made it difficult for the workshop participants to deliberate fully how the oversight and implementation groups should be composed. It isn't clear how funding decisions will appropriately be made by either of the two groups, so this problem remains a challenging one left for further guidance from the national committee. Once such guidance becomes available, participants in the IMW Region may want to reconsider the regional management structure described below.

We envisioned the Regional (Oversight) Subcommittee as having two important elements (Figure 4). The major element consists of about 15 motivated and experienced individuals representing a wide range of end-users of ANSS. In addition, state-level stakeholder/steering committees will each have one representative on this Regional Subcommittee. If one considers the scaling of national, regional, and urban seismic monitoring, it becomes evident that ANSS emphasis on urban strong-motion monitoring naturally raises the need for strong local stakeholder involvement, distinct from the involvement of end users on the regionwide oversight subcommittee. Some states in the region have steering committees already being established to guide ANSS implementation within the state jurisdiction (Utah, Nevada).

A list of suggested categories of participants for the Regional (Oversight) Subcommittee is presented in Figure 5. Many of the categories are basic ones for all ANSS regions, but others reflect particular aspects of the Intermountain West. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) has a major stake in seismic hazards at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and at the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. Federal land agencies and Indian Nations have major stakes in large landholdings in the Intermountain West. Regional lifelines, banking, insurance, tourism, and mining are important stakeholder interests in the private sector. At our meeting we deliberately refrained from selecting individuals to fill the generic slots on the Regional Subcommittee, chiefly because we were predominantly network seismologists who had gathered as a first step in self-organizing the IMW Region.

Turning attention to the Implementation Working Group, we decided that it should consist of the representatives listed in Figure 6. The workshop participants made a fundamental decision: we agreed to create a solid partnership among network operators in the IMW Region, hence an emphasis on equal representation on the Working Group from each state in the IMW Region as well as important representation from Yellowstone National Park, the National Strong Motion Program, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (which operates seismic networks in Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado). We envision the Working Group functioning in a collegial way to advocate the needs of all parts of the IMW Region. We were uncertain how the Regional Coordinator was intended to be selected, so we simply left the position as a generic one.

Among its early tasks, the Working Group will need to make recommendations on how broadband seismographs should be distributed throughout the IMW Region and about the desirable configuration and integration of seismic networks throughout the region.

Workshop Goal 3
A statement on how ANSS should coordinate with special-purpose and/or non-USGS-funded networks in the IMW Region to their mutual benefit

• ANSS aims to provide a framework in which special-purpose networks can be more successful in achieving their goals.
• ANSS must emphasize the value of special-purpose networks and not undermine their role.
• ANSS will generate cooperation on achieving a definitive earthquake catalog.
• ANSS provides a framework within which data from stations meeting standards can be archived and shared.
• ANSS cannot upgrade all stations to modern broadband standards, but selected stations may be upgraded to achieve regional coverage goals. (ANSS will not upgrade all stations in current USGS-supported nets either.)
• ANSS will set instrumental standards and encourage all other nets to meet those standards.

Workshop Goal 4
Resolutions to the Interim ANSS National Committee conveying the sense of the meeting

1. We encourage region boundaries to follow state boundaries.
• Key unit for emergency management
• Key role in political process
• Will tend to encourage vital local coalitions within each state
2. Because of the need for fuzzy boundaries between ANSS regions, we recommend that regions include both core and affiliate states, with the latter enfranchised in the management structure.
3. We advocate that NEHRP agencies augment their research programs to realize the full value of new data and products from ANSS.
4. We advocate an Intermountain West Region as a named and separate element of the USGS external research program.
5. We strongly support and call attention to the following statement in the ANSS plan (USGS Circular 1188, p. 24) insofar as professional staffing is required:

"An important part of the plan for an Advanced National Seismic System is to provide resources to enable regional seismic networks to

• Create useful and important region-specific information products (for example, maps, data bases, reports, publications, Web sites) directly arising from seismic monitoring.
• Serve as local/regional information outlets and repositories of expertise, especially for expert assistance to public policymakers, safety officials, planning and regulatory agencies, local businesses, news media, and the general public.
• Ensure the long-term availability of seismological expertise through the education and training of the Nation's professional seismologists."

Workshop Goal 5
Recommendations to other potential participants in the IMW Region

These are implicit in the described outcomes (above) for the other goals.

Workshop Goal 6
An action plan for where we go from here

• John Anderson and Walt Arabasz will prepare a summary of the meeting, post it on the Web, and forward copies to appropriate people.
• All (non-federal participants) are encouraged to engage in political advocacy of ANSS and Earthscope.
• Nevada and Utah need continuing local input on their urban networks, including formation of state stakeholder/steering committees. This is also needed for Albuquerque and Boise, but with lesser urgency.
• All need to identify qualified persons as potential participants in the Regional (Oversight) Subcommittee.
• Undecided states need to decide which region will have their primary affiliation.
• All states need to select their representative for the Implementation Working Group and continue the ANSS organizing process, including preplanning for implementation.

---

Return to ANSS Intermountain West Region Home

University of Utah Seismograph Stations  «»   135 South 1460 East, Room 705 WBB Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0111  «»   Phone 801-581-6274  «»  Fax 801-585-5585 E-mail UUSS!