“Options for Political Activism to Get Increased Funding”

1. “Options for Political Activism to Get Increased Funding” John G. Anderson Director, Nevada Seismological Laboratory Presentation to ANSS Intermountain West Strategic Planning Meeting August 14, 2006 Salt Lake City, Utah

2. Outline • Background • Nevada proposal • Consensus request proposal

3. Background • Some thoughts I had for SESAC in September, 2004.

4. 20: 12.9% 5: 28.5% 32: 8.9% 1: 66.3% 4: 29.6% 3: 30.6% 12: 20.1% 2: 40.0% Population growth rate, 1990-2000 US Census Bureau Annualized Earthquake Loss Ratio at the County Level Source: nationalatlas.gov, FEMA366, US Census Bureau

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.

6. Scientific Issues • Monitor the hazard • ANSS (USGS) & other networks • Describe the hazard • Seismic hazard analysis • Understand the hazard • Basin and Range Earthquake Center

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.

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.

9. Describe the Hazard • National Seismic Hazard Maps: Exceptionally valuable! • As USGS already recognizes, need to continue improve.

10. Source: Pancha et al (BSSA 2006)

11. Nevada Priorities • 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

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

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”.

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

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.”

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

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?

19. Alternative Approach • Described to me yesterday by Walter Arabasz, attributed to Bill Leith • “Working within the system” • “Consensus Request” approach

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.

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.

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.

23. Question for Us • What would the IMW states like to do? • Earmark approach • Consensus statement approach • Both • Other