Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards & Future CISN Infrastructure

1. Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards&Future CISN Infrastructure CISN-PMG Egill Hauksson, Caltech Presented to CISN Steering and Advisory Committees at UC Berkeley, 30 August 2006

2. Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards ANSS standards emphasize speed over Quality

3. Locations of southern California quarry blasts Horizontal error ~ 1km Depth error ~2.5 km Guoqing Lin et al. (2006)

4. SCEC Community Fault Model and Seismicity Distance to faults

5. Percentage of SCSN events versus the distance from the fault x100

6. Probability of detecting an M=1.8 with the SCSN configuration as of 01/2006 Detection threshold for the SCSN based on the phase data from 2001-2005

7. Meeting ANSS Performance Standards:Conclusions • In general the CISN meets ANSS performance standards • Speed of delivery • Quality of Products • - Uptime of instrumentation • NCEDC, SCEDC, and CISN-EDC allow us to meet the requirements of “data archiving and public distribution” • Future outlook is less bright if infrastructure is not improved

8. “We have only been around for a short time, and we have not measured everything…” Budget Change Request for CISN Prof. Hiroo Kanamori

9. Nature of Request: Full Funding of CISN • OES & other partners established CISN in 2001 • OES charged CISN with the responsibility of earthquake monitoring and real-time reporting in California • Funding for CISN comes from three main sources: Federal USGS, State OES, and CGS • OES has requested: • Products be based on the best science • Products be statewide in nature: coverage/calibration • Timely delivery of products • Robustness in both product generation and delivery • Development of new products • State, Federal, University, & Private Sector Partnerships for best use of resources

10. Background History • For almost a century the earthquake monitoring has been done separately in northern and southern California • Monitoring technology and products have developed mostly independently and parts of the state are underserved • The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused $40billion in damage and FEMA/OES provided funding for TriNet • TriNet greatly improved earthquake monitoring capabilities and ShakeMap was developed for southern California • OES, USGS, & partners decided to combine resources to form CISN in 2001 to extend these new technologies statewide • The Governors Office added a line item in Fy01/02 to the OES budget to fund CISN • State funding to CISN was cut in 2001 and 2002 from $6.6M/yr to $2.4M/yr, which only cover operations and maintenance of existing systems

11. State Level Considerations • OES increasingly relies on rapid delivery of accurate earthquake information for decision on: • Response, including search & rescue and deployment of mutual aid resources • Calculation of total impact using HAZUS & requesting federal resources • Long term mitigation plans based on an accurate catalog • CEA, Caltrans, OSHPOD, DSA, and others • Rely on an accurate records of what earthquakes occurred and their impacts in response and recovery • CISN products are also used in CEA insurance models • CISN is viewed as a model earthquake monitoring operation across the nation • ANSS seeks to extend CISN technology to other states

12. Fault/Rupture model used in the USGS/CGS 2002 hazards maps(Ned Field, USGS 2006)1) Are ruptures confined to fault segments?2) Can ruptures involve more than one fault?

13. Justification • To ensure accurate CISN statewide reporting instrumentation needed for regions without coverage • To maintain current monitoring capabilities aging instrumentation & data processing equipment must be replaced • To improve robustness: software, telemetry, and product generation and other aspects of CISN need to be modernized & tested using modern risk approaches • Rapid estimation of the total impact of the earthquake requires accurate and correctly spatially sampled data • Modern infrastructure such as CEA, BART, Caltrans, trains, airports, utilities, biotechnology labs. etc. need products based on the best science, which in some cases may deliver information before the shaking arrives

14. Analysis of All Feasible Alternatives • Continue with current staffing and monitoring capabilities • Does not address the problem • Given the existing staffing and workload demands, the CISN is not able to make acceptable and rapid progress • Instrumentation is aging and rate of failures is increasing • Statewide coverage will gradually become spotty and products will be only rough estimates, and weaken the State’s public safety capacity • Lessons lost for next generation earthquake engineering design • Redirect current resources • Staff already working at full capacity, and instrumentation may wait for several weeks before staff is available for repair work • Because damaging earthquakes can occur any time, daily operations and maintenance are the highest priority • Augment CISN with additional staff and resources to procure instrumentation and develop other needed capabilities • This would cost $10.0M annually in additional state funding • State OES could possibly leverage additional federal funding from USGS/ANSS and FEMA • The new funding would allow needed statewide coverage, instrumentation upgrades, needed implementation of robustness, and user training

15. CISN Instrumentation Plan: 2005-2010

16. CISN Infrastructure Goals: Maintain and improve earthquake monitoring • To reach the CISN goal of 480 broadband and strong motion stations: • We need to add 27/yr stations for 10 years • We need to upgrade 20/yr stations, presuming 10 year equipment life • Current status: • Adding ~2 stations per year • Upgrading ~1 station per year

17. CISN Infrastructure Goals: Improve ShakeMap coverage • To reach the CISN goal of 2260 strong motion stations: • We need to add 60stations/yr for 10 years • We need to upgrade 113 stations/yr, presuming 20 year equipment life • Current status: • Adding ~ 5 stations/yr • Upgrading ~ 5 stations/yr • Data acquisition, processing, and product distribution infrastructure & robustness

18. Timetable • CISN requests additional funding starting in FY07/08 • This additional funding will be used for capacity building for the next decade • New/upgraded BB instrumentation: 27/yr & 20/yr • New/upgraded SM stations: 60/yr & 110/yr • 5 year projects: • Improve reliability of products for M7.8 earthquakes • Improve robustness to ensure that CISN will provide all products for M7.8 quake & report on aftershocks • Speed product delivery -- to provide warnings • User training and engineering utilization

19. Recommendation • Alternative #3, provide funding for CISN capacity building • A balanced approach that allows all aspects of CISN infrastructure to be improved • Enhancement of the CISN outreach programs, to train first responders and others in applying the CISN products in earthquake response • Enhanced use of CISN products in earthquake engineering of infrastructure and long term mitigation

20. CISN only needs this much? “Government's first duty and highest obligation is public safety”

21. Draft CISN Infrastructure Budget • Earthquake monitoring 2.40M/yr • ShakeMap coverage 2.30M/yr • Improve robustness 1.50M/yr • Improve product reliability 0.50M/yr • New products & delivery 1.00M/yr • Outreach: first responders 0.75M/yr • Earthquake engineering utilization 0.75M/yr • OES- overhead 0.80M/yr • TOTAL Project Request to OES 10.0M/yr