Members Present: Steve Bartlett (chair), Gary Christenson, Marv Halling, Peter McDonough, Boyd Wheeler, Les Youd

Members Absent: Bob Carey [provided input beforehand], Mark Mainridge, Dave Marble, Chris Pantelides, Larry Reaveley, Barry Welliver

Members Present from UUSS/ANSS Working Group: Walter Arabasz, Sue Nava, Kristine Pankow, Jim Pechmann, Terry Dye (all from University of Utah Seismograph Stations, UUSS)

1. Welcome (Steve Bartlett, Chair)
2. Review of minutes and planned actions from the last formal committee meeting on January 24, 2002
3. Information items:

3a. Earthquake ground-shaking information products; new NEHRP funding to the Utah Geological Survey for ground-shaking-related hazard mapping in Utah (Gary Christenson)
3b. ANSS updates: funding, FY2003 plans, status of ANSS structural instrumentation guidelines (Walter Arabasz)

4. Status report on FY2002 strong-motion installations in Utah; ShakeMaps (Sue Nava)
5. Discussion — selection and prioritization of 20 candidate sites for installing 15 additional ANSS strong-motion stations in the Wasatch Front area during FY2003
6. Other business (outreach and partnering)
7. Adjourn

Steve Bartlett opened the meeting at approximately 1:05 p.m. Walter Arabasz distributed a summary of planned action items from the committee's last meeting on January 24, 2002, and suggested they be revisited later in the meeting under other business.

Gary Christenson of the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) described new ground-shaking information products, all available through the UGS. These include:

• Earthquake Scenario & Probabilistic Ground Shaking Maps for the Salt Lake City, Utah, Metropolitan Area (report with CD ROM by Ivan Wong and others, 2002, UGS Misc. Publication 02-5)
• Deterministic Maximum Peak Bedrock Acceleration Maps for Utah (report with CD ROM by Marvin W. Halling and others, 2002, UGS Misc. Publication 02-11)
• Ground-Shaking Map for a Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake on the Wasatch Fault, Salt Lake City, Utah, Metropolitan Area (single map by Ivan Wong and others, 2002, UGS Public Information Series 76)
• Utah Earthquake Ground-Shaking Maps—Which One Do I Use? (brochure produced by the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, Geoscience Committee, January 2003)

Gary also described new funding to the UGS from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. The UGS will help the USGS build consensus and develop plans for the next generation of earthquake hazard maps in Utah, including (1) ground-shaking maps, (2) landslide-susceptibility maps, and (3) liquefaction hazard maps. The first step will be the organizing of working groups and workshops to determine what products users want, what products can be produced, and how to do it. The program model is based on one used in southern California. A kick-off workshop is planned for late February 2003.

Steve Bartlett remarked that he has been getting questions about differences in ground-motion levels near faults, variously based on the USGS 1996 National Seismic Hazard Maps, the recent 2002 version of the USGS maps, and the maps currently forming part of the International Building Code (IBC). Which maps should consultants use? If the intent is to meet building-code requirements, the maps in the IBC should be used.

Walter Arabasz reported that congressional appropriations for FY2003 are still pending, but level funding of $3.9 million for ANSS is expected. This will be the third straight year of funding at the $3.6 to $3.9-million level, and costs for maintenance and operation of instruments installed to date are limiting funds available for more new instruments. The President's FY2004 budget has been in the making for some time; no breakthrough for ANSS support is expected, but increased funding for ANSS reportedly is being considered by OMB for FY2005.

For FY2003, Utah expects to receive equipment and funding 15 new ANSS strong-motion stations, based on information from the USGS. Fortunately, the 65 ANSS stations already installed in Utah provide a basis for ongoing operational funding that stabilizes Utah's strong-motion program.

Walter gave Steve Bartlett a copy of a report from the Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) titled, "Proceedings, Invited Workshop on Strong-Motion Instrumentation of Buildings." Another available copy will be given to one of the committee's structural engineers who eventually assumes responsibility for systematically identifying candidate buildings in Utah for strong-motion instrumentation. The full report should eventually be available on COSMOS's Web site <www.cosmos-eq.org>. Under full ANSS funding, the report calls for instrumenting about ten buildings in Utah with 30-channel instrumentation.

Walter also distributed copies of a three-page document titled, "ANSS Structural Instrumentation Guidance: Conceptual Outline, December 7, 2002." The document is chielfy based on the COSMOS report referenced above and outlines: (1) objectives for ANSS structural instrumention, (2) criteria for identifying and qualifying structures for instrumentation, (3) procedure for identifying and qualifying structures to be proposed for instrumentation, and (4) procedure for selecting structures to be instrumented (involving a national-level ANSS Structural Review Committee). More attention to these issues as they affect Utah will be given in the future when funding prospects warrant it.

Sue Nava presented a status report on Utah's Wasatch Front strong-motion network, beginning with ShakeMaps (automated ground-shaking maps) that the network produced for two recent earthquakes—a magnitude 3.6 shock on January 2, 2003 (beneath Pineview Reservoir and northeast of Ogden) and a magnitude 3.7 shock on July 28, 2002 (south of Bear Lake and northwest of Randolph). The ShakeMaps can be viewed on the UUSS Website at www.seis.utah.edu/shake/.

Sue gave an overview of all strong-motion stations in the Wasatch Front network installed to date, with locations shown on both regional and local maps available on the UUSS Website at www.seis.utah.edu/urban/index.shtml. A total of 20 new stations were added to the network in FY2002. She also provided a handout (see Table 1) showing the "Results of FY2002 Strong-Motion Installations." For each of the 20 stations, the table lists the station code, the location proposed by the advisory committee, the final location, and the justification for siting the instrument at that location.

This part of the meeting involved extensive discussion aimed at selecting at least 20 candidate sites for installing 15 additional ANSS strong-motion stations in the Wasatch Front area during FY2003. Input from Bob Carey provided beforehand to Steve Bartlett was duly considered.

The outcome of the discussions is summarized in Table 2, in which the location and justification are listed for 15 candidate sites as well as for 8 lower-priority alternate sites. The 23 numbered sites are shown in map view in Figure 1.

At the outset, the committee affirmed that the criteria for site selection would continue to be (1) geographic distribution (particularly in uninstrumented areas of rapid development), (2) sampling of different geological site-response units, and (3) proximity to important lifelines and urban infrastructure. There was consensus that geographic distribution is the most important criterion at this time.

Peter McDonough moved that seven alternate sites identified but not instrumented in FY2002 be adopted for FY2003. The motion was seconded and approved. However, during later discussion one of these sites near Kennecott's Bingham Canyon Mine on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley was again reduced to alternate status (Table 1, No. A7). Another FY2002 alternate site near the interchange of Interstate 15 and the Bangerter Highway in the Salt Lake Valley was eventually discarded because there were no suitable sites realistically closer than a nearby existing station.

The issue of near-real-time access to data from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) strong-motion stations in Utah was raised and discussed. Efforts to date to get the necessary data exchange from the USBR have not been successful. Les Youd volunteered to speak with Bruce Barrett, an engineer in the Bureau's Provo Regional Office to identify an appropriate USBR person in Utah who might be willing to come to a meeting of the committee (or to meeting with the UUSS/ANSS working group) to become familiar with Utah's strong-motion network and discuss data access issues. (Les will also explore whether the Bureau has a good free-field site near Pineview Dam.)

The UUSS/ANSS working group asked committee members about preferred forms and formats for strong-motion data. Marv Halling said that practicing engineers are used to the data format used by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Researchers would want original records. Halling routinely gets strong-motion data from the CDMG, PEER, and MCEER data centers. Les Youd added that it's useful to be able to get response spectra for 5-percent damping in the period range 0.1–2.0 sec; 0.2 sec is of particular interest to engineers because 0.2-sec response spectral values are important for IBC building-code applications.

Walter distributed copies of a document written by William U. Savage of the USGS in Menlo Park, California, titled "Private and Public Strong-Motion Partnerships." The document provides an example of the type of approach being used by the USGS in northern California and explains mutual benefits to both private-sector decision-makers and to ANSS. An underlying premise of the California approach is the expectation that "the partners will purchase, install, and maintain strong motion instrumentation and provide a telecommunication link to the USGS (most likely through an Internet connection)." Walter said he was reluctant to aggressively pursue a partnering program in Utah until the future of ANSS was better known (depending on congressional funding).

Examples of potential partnering are included in the minutes of the committee's January 24, 2002 meeting. As noted in those minutes, Bob Carey suggested approaching the managers of the Tooele Chemical Weapons Disposal Facility; Les Youd expressed his willingness to approach the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (relating to Pineview Dam); Gary Christenson offered to talk to the Kennecott representative on the UGS's advisory board about the possibility of putting strong-motion instruments near the Bingham Canyon Mine; Les Youd and Mark Mainridge offered to approach officials of the LDS Church; and Mark Mainridge suggested approaching water districts. At that time, Barry Welliver suggested the need to extend "marketing" activities to a wider audience.

Steve Bartlett said he would talk with Barry Welliver about the ideas for partnering that Barry expressed at the last meeting and perhaps form a subcommittee.

Meeting adjourned at approximately 4:00 p.m.