Click for next page ( 46


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 45
APPENDIX B REGIONAL NETWORKS: QUESTIONNAIRES, RESPONDENTS, SUMMARY DATA BASE In order to conduct informed discussion on the problems facing regional network seismology in the United States, a reasonably complete data base was required. Our approach was to find as many networks as possible, through a concentrated investigative effort, and to survey the operators for factual data on their networks and for their opinions on a number of questions. Fifty-three more-or-less separate networks were found, distributed throughout the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, along with four relatively permanent networks operated in foreign countries by U.S. inves- tigators. Two of the networks included were recently shut down, and others soon may be, due to funding limitations. Network size ranged from 2 to 3l5 stations, with about half of them in the l0 to 40 station-size range. Exhibit B-l of this appendix gives the listing of the networks found, along with the approximate number of stations (some uncertainty creeps into this number due to joint operations, network overlaps, etc.), and an indication of those networks for which we received a questionnaire response. The 47 operating U.S. regional networks involve l63l separate stations, according to our figures. The questionnaire used is reproduced as Exhibit B-2. It was formulated with the intent that it be relatively easy to complete (only 2 to 3 weeks were available before the workshop), and that it allow alternative ways of providing the basic network data and operators' opinions. Forty-five responses, in varying detail, were received. We view this near-unanimous response as a unified recognition of a serious need to address the problems of regional networks. The following section summarizes the data and opinions supplied by the 45 respondents. 45

OCR for page 45
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE SUMMARY Sections I, V All but one respondent favored holding the workshop and thought that useful results were possible. Concern was expressed over the lack of wider representation from operators and over the overwhelming complexity of the problems. "Crucial questions" posed by respondents covered such matters as rising telemetry costs, the mixing of operational and research costs, need for stable policy and funding, precariousness of the northeast United States network support, wide variability of data quality, instrumentation improvements, coordination of hardware and software development, the unique role of Alaska in U.S. seismology, future of global and national networks, an assessment of the value of current network practices, and the growing usage of seismologists as technicians. Section II If we exclude the Washington and Caltech cooperative USGS networks (WC) and the l0 other USGS networks (Gl0), the remaining 33 regional networks (33) are operated by the organizations with the following average number of personnel and total budgets devoted to seismological studies: Senior research personnel 3.9 Graduate students 5.6 Technical staff 3.0 Total annual seismology budget $236,000 46

OCR for page 45
47 The $60,000 average total yearly support per senior research scientist holds for all non-USGS institutions. Section III Here again we must separate the population according to the HC, Gl0, and 33 groupings, with the following results: WC Gl0 33 Annual data acquisition plus processing costs per station $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 Ratio of acquisition costs to processing costs l.4 l.2 l.0 • All but three networks utilize telemetry. • Eleven networks operate on-line to dedicated computer systems. • For the (33) networks, operators estimate that an average 35 percent of their institutions' seismological programs (in terms of both cost and scientific output) are supported by the network. • Most of the networks are felt to be of indefinite lifetime, although several of the special-purpose networks were initially installed with definite 3- to 7-year expected durations. • The question on nonpaying users brought a wide response, with almost all networks involved routinely in providing data in some form to a variety of individual, industrial, and governmental users. Exhibit B-3 illustrates the diversity of users. Section IV A 60 percent majority opposed the idea of reducing their network size for fewer higher-quality stations. The national digital network was favored by 33 and opposed by 5 respondents, with a lack of strong feeling either way. Questions 23, 24, and 25 revealed a division of opinion between the Gl0 and 33 populations:

OCR for page 45
48 Gl0 3_3 Yes No Yes No Instrumentation adequate? 5 4 l0 l6 Need to standardize? 4 5 l9 6 Separate operations and research funding? 2 7 l9 5 A 70 percent majority felt that the present mix of funding agencies is satisfactory. "Major problems facing network operations" were perceived as follows: No. Responses Problems l8 Funding, in general, at stable and continuing level 5 Vagaries of agency policy toward regional networks 5 Rising telemetry costs 4 Funding to upgrade equipment l Generally poor data quality l How to cut operational costs

OCR for page 45
49 EXHIBIT B-l Compilation of regional networks surveyed for workshop. U.S. Regional Seismic Networks Questionnaire Northeastern Seismographic Networks Approximate No. Returned (and operators) of Stations Yes l. New England Network—Boston College 38 Yes 2. New York Network—LDGO 38 No 3. MIT Network—MIT 9 Yes 4. Fenn. State Network—Penn. State l6 No 5. Delaware Net—Delaware Geological Survey 3 Yes 6. SUNY at Stony Brook 2 Subtotal l06 Southeastern Seismographic Networks Yes 7. Virginia Network—VPI 3l Yes 8. Southern Appalachian Regional Network— Tennessee Earthquake Information Center (Memphis State) l8 Yes 9. South Carolina Seismic Program—University of South Carolina and USGS Charleston Net 38 Yes l0. Central Georgia Net (Wallace Dam)—Georgia Tech. 5 Yes ll. Northern Alabama Seismic Network—Alabama Geological Survey and Georgia Tech. l2 Yes l2. Georgia Tech. Networks—Georgia Tech. l5 Subtotal 1l9 Central United States Networks Yes l3. New Madrid Network—St. Louis University 70 Yes l4. Kansas Network—Kansas Geological Survey l9 No l5. Oklahoma Seismographic Network—Oklahoma Geological Survey l0 Yes l6. Ohio, Indiana, Michigan Network—University of Michigan l4 Yes l7. Central Minnesota Seismic Array—University of Minnesota 6 Yes l8. Nebraska Nemaha Ridge Seismic Net—Nebraska Geological Survey 4 Yes l9. Memphis Area Regional Seismographic Network— Tennessee Earthquake Information Center (Memphis State) JJ3 Subtotal l36 Intermountain Seismoqraphic Networks No 20. Montana Network—Montana Bureau of Mines 7 Yes Yellowstone Network—USGS (discontinued October l98l) No 2l. Southeastern Idaho Network—DOE and Bureau of Reclamation 8 Yes 22. Southern Intermountain Net—University of Utah 8l

OCR for page 45
50 Questionnaire Returned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Intermountain Seismoqraphic Networks Approximate No. of Stations 23. Northern New Mexico Net—Los Alamos 24 24. West Texas Network—University of Texas, El Paso 6 Albuquerque Network—USGS (discontinued October l98l) 25. Socorro Network—USGS . l2 26. San Juan Basin Network—USGS 5 27. Southern Nevada Network—USGS 53 28. Nevada Network—University of Nevada, Reno 40 29. Southeast Utah Network—Woodward-Clyde 2_1 Subtotal 259 Alaskan Networks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 30. Southern Alaska Network—USGS 53 3l. Shumagin Islands—Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory 35 32. Adak Network—CIRES l5 33. Unilaska, Dutch Harbor Array—Lament Doherty Geological Observatory (one half will close summer l982) 7 34. Central Alaska Network—University of Alaska l2 35. Western Alaska Network (Seward Peninsula) (will close summer l982) l8 36. Kodiak, Cook Inlet Network (will close summer l982) 3J. Subtotal l73 West Coast Networks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mo Yes Yes No Yes Washington Network—University of Washington l32 Oregon Network—State University of Oregon 6 Cascade Network—USGS 48 Berkeley Network—University of California, Berkeley l8 Central and Northern California Network—USGS 3l5 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Network—USGS Subtotal Southern California Network—Caltech Southern California Network—USGS Los Angeles Basin Network—University of Southern California ANZA Network—University of California, San Diego California Department of Water Resources 34 ) ) l56 ) 43 17 20 12. 838 com- bined network Selected Other Networks Yes Yes Yes Yes Caribbean Network—Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory 25 Resnor Network—University of California, San Diego l4 Nurek Reservation, USSR—LOGO 6 Toktogal Reservation, USSR—LDGO 6

OCR for page 45
5l 45 Responses East Coast 225 stations Central United States l36 Intermoiintain 259 Alaska l73 West Coast 838 Total l63l stations in United States

OCR for page 45
52 EXHIBIT B-2 Operator's questionnaire: local/regional seismographic network. I. The Workshop: 1. Do you favor its being held? (Y) (N) If no, why? 2. Are you comfortable with the proposed workshop agenda and plan? (Y) (N) If not, suggest modifications: II. Your Institution: 3. Personnel involved in all seismological studies: Number a. Senior Research Scientists: b. Graduate Students: c. Technical Staff: 4. Approximate total annual budget: $ III. Your Network: (Include station map and complete this section for each clearly separate network.) 5. Number of Stations and Types: a. SP (Z only) b. SP (3-component) c. Broadband/LP d. (Other) e. Total No. Data Channels 6. Data Transmission: a. No. stations telemetered b. Approximate total line miles c. Percent radio telemetered d. No. stations recorded locally e. Percent also telemetered Data Acquisition/Recording: a. No. stations & channels on-line to computer b. No. stations & channels recorded analog mag tape c. No. stations & channels recorded digital mag tape d. No. stations & channels event recorded only e. No. stations & channels analog recorded only 8. Data Acquisition Costs (yearly): $ Full-time staff a. Telemetry costs b. Out-station maintenance c. Central station maintenance 9. Data Processing and Analysis Costs (yearly): a. Dedicated full-time equivalent staff b. Personnel costs ^__ c. Supplies and expenses costs ___ 10. Purpose of network as originally installed:

OCR for page 45
53 l1. Is purpose still same? (Y) (N) If no, how changed? l2. Funding sources/annual support: l3. Has there initially a general agreement on the expected duration of operation? (Y) (N) l4. If yes on l3: a. How many years? b. Basis for this lifetime: l5. If no on l3: a. Do you have a proposed duration to accomplish present purpose? b. If so, what? c. What fraction of the net, if any, should remain indefinitely? d. Explain b. and/or c.: l6. Dissemination of Results: a. Do you generate a regular bulletin? (Y) (N) b. Do you generate seismicity maps? (Y) (N) (from network—not historical) If yes, send recent sample. c. Have research papers been published in open literature using network? (Y) (N) If yes, send list of papers l979 to present. d. What is your opinion as to the major scientific or engineering result(s) of your network operation and what do you hope to learn from its continued operation? (Use additional sheets as necessary.) l7. Are there other (non-paying) users or agencies relying on your network data? (Y) (N) If yes, describe their usage and try to estimate the cost of this service.

OCR for page 45
54 l8. What percentage of your institution's seismology program (exclude teaching) does this network support? a. In terms of total cost: b. In terms of scientific output: IV. Some of your opinions: l9. Can you see any merit in reducing your network size for fewer higher- quality stations? (Y) (N) Explain (Y) or (N): 20. A national digital network: a. Do you see value in it? (Y) (N) Comments: b. Would you assign your best upgraded station(s) to such a network? (Y) (N) Explain no: 21. What do you see as the major problem facing your network operation? 22. Your ideas on a practical solution to this problem: 23. In general, do you think your instrumentation is adequate? (Y) (N) If no, explain: 24. Do you see any need for an effort to standardize network instrumentation throughout the country? Explain. 25. Do you feel network operational and analysis costs should be funded separately from basic research? (Y) (N) Why? 26. Do you think that there are too many (or too few) agencies responsible for local/regional network operations and/or national and global networks?

OCR for page 45
55 27. Where do you think policy-making responsibility should rest for setting directions and priorities for new developments in network seismology? V. The Workshop (again): 28. Do you think it can produce a useful analysis and recommendations? (If) (N) If no, why? 29. Finally, please list your 2 or 3 "crucial questions" you would like the committee to be certain to address: b. Many thanks for your time.

OCR for page 45
56 EXHIBIT B-3 Example users of regional network data. Earthquake data, as recorded by a regional seismic network, are usually made available to the public in the form of network bulletins, catalogs, and maps. These data, together with the original seismograms, are used, usually by the collecting institution, as the basis for fundamental research on the nature and distribution of regional earthquakes. Results of such research are published in scientific journals and reported at scien- tific meetings. This research is usually of a quite directed nature, if funded by the agency or institution sponsoring the network and is more fundamental if funded by the National Science Foundation or similar agencies. It is not often realized the extent to which some of these data are used by other than the sponsoring agency and the scientists of the collecting institution. It is not possible to list all of the users of all of the network data. It is instructive, though, to discuss a few specific cases where such information is reported. As a first case let us consider the well-known l90-station Caltech network (as currently augmented by a number of USGS stations). Network operators routinely cooperate with each other and with the National Earthquake Information Service (NEIS). In the case of the combined Southern California Network, data from the following networks are used in routine locations: USGS Southern California USGS Nevada Network (selected stations) USGS Walker Pass Network Caltech Network (telemetered stations only) California Department of Water Resources University of California, Berkeley University of Southern California University of Nevada Also, telemetered signals are sent out from the Caltech net to the following groups: California Department of Water Resources (and then to NEIS, Golden) University of California, San Diego University of California, Riverside

OCR for page 45
57 California State University, Fullerton Naval Weapons Center, China Lake Pasadena City College Groups on Caltech's routine emergency call list (called 34 times last year) include: California Office of Emergency Services California Department of Water Resources California Division of Mines and Geology U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey, Seismic Engineering Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Power Commission National Earthquake Information Service (USGS) American Red Cross Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Pacific Tsunami Warning Network Los Angeles County Emergency Information Bureau Companies and agencies that financially support the Seismological Laboratory as members of the Caltech Earthquake Research Affiliates, because of their interest in southern California earthquake problems, include: Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad C. F. Braun and Company Dames and Moore, Inc. Factory Mutual Engineering ERTEC, Inc. International Business Machines, Inc. Kinemetrics, Inc. Exxon Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Lockheed California Company Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Southern Pacific Company Standard Oil Company of California Union Pacific Railroad Company Union Oil Company of California Woodward-Clyde Consultants Bank of America

OCR for page 45
58 Bulletins are sent monthly to 250 interested parties— particularly to engineering and geotechnical consulting firms. The 8l-station Utah network, in the Intermountain Region, lists their chief, nonpaying users as follows: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey (for geological hazard studies) Mining, utilities, construction, petroleum exploration, and miscellaneous engineering consulting companies (for specific site-evaluation studies) State and county government offices (for planning and emergency services) USGS/NEIS (for regional earthquake recording) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (dam safety) U.S. Forest Service (geological hazard studies) U.S. Soil Conservation Service (dam safety) U.S. Army (geological hazards) Lamont-Ooherty Geological Observatory, in the East, reports that their network operators spend approximately l0 percent of their time in providing data to engineers and private consultants who require information about hazards, plus the news media and private citizens who regularly contact them for information on earthquake hazards with the desire to be educated about earthquakes in general. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University lists: Virginia State Office of Emergency and Energy Services (for planning) Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office The Virginia Chamber of Commerce (for industrial siting studies) These few examples demonstrate that the users of regional seismic data are many and varied, including other networks and the NEIS; a plethora of federal, state, and local agencies for planning and emergency services; major utility companies; engineering and geotechnical consulting firms; petroleum exploration companies; and many other public and private groups interested in seismicity and earthquake hazards.