1. Walter Arabasz Regional Coordinator Aug. 14, 2006 Goals & Desirable Outcomes of Meeting

2. Stated Purpose of Meeting To begin outlining a strategic plan for unified seismic monitoring in IMW To foster cooperation and greater technical coordination among IMW networks [and states] To plan and coordinate political activism

3. Some “Drivers” Region-wide IMW strategic plan long overdue USGS: What’s needed in IMW to meet ANSS performance standards? Priorities for next 3 yrs (incl. 3-yr co-ops)? Timing of USArray in IMW and opportunity for pursuing some kind of plan for retaining some of the temporary broadband stations

4. Map 19 USArray — Temporary BB Stations Already “Rolling” Across the IMW Region

5. Desirable Outcomes of Mtg 1.Understanding of “mutual self interests” and agreement to cooperate A region-wide strategic plan has to be underpinned, eventually, by a formalized agreement to cooperate. Consider MOA for CISN...

6. From CISN MOA “CISN institutions will build upon their existing facilities to cooperatively improve seismic instrumentation, its spatial distribution throughout the state, its effectiveness in meeting public needs... This agreement is based on the value the organizations place on their own institutions receiving appropriate credit, and their understanding that the long-term health of an organization depends on the recognition of its value to the community and state.”

7. Desirable Outcomes of Mtg 2.Outline of a 5-yr Strategic Plan and path forward for writing the plan Consensus on basic goals, what’s needed to meet ANSS performance standards, and priorities

8. Desirable Outcomes of Mtg 3.Plan for political activism to get added resources for IMW region (esp. RE retention of some USArray stations) Bill Leith: How many are needed to meet ANSS performance standards? Ideal would be a consensus IMW statement of need that USGS and NSF could discuss and take to OMB to advocate for FY2008 budget.

9. IMW “Needs” A quick review…

10. ANSS-IMW Region Population* AZ5.9 million CO4.7 million UT2.5 million NV2.4 million NM1.9 million ID1.4 million MT0.9 million WY0.5 million 20.2 *U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 estimates CA = 36.1 M WA = 6.3 M OR = 3.6 M

11. IMW Region... Large (~3 times larger than CA+WA+OR) Large (~3 times larger than CA+WA+OR) Fastest growing region in the Nation Fastest growing region in the Nation Has concentrated EQ risk in scattered metropolitan areas, in part due to large federal landholdings (83% NV, 65% UT, 62% ID, 50% WY, 45% AZ, 36% CO, 34% NM, 28% MT) Has concentrated EQ risk in scattered metropolitan areas, in part due to large federal landholdings (83% NV, 65% UT, 62% ID, 50% WY, 45% AZ, 36% CO, 34% NM, 28% MT) Has compelling needs for improved seismic monitoring associated with (a) dramatic population growth in metropolitan areas at moderate to high seismic risk and (b) large gaps in regional coverage of seismically active areas Has compelling needs for improved seismic monitoring associated with (a) dramatic population growth in metropolitan areas at moderate to high seismic risk and (b) large gaps in regional coverage of seismically active areas

12. 545 stations (283 SM, 59 BB) 167 UU 130 UNR 104 NSMP MT WY CO NM AZ NV ID UT StationNumbers

13. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): 1. Most important IMW need for regional seismic monitoring is a strategic regionwide plan for dealing with EQ geography, uniform recording, and response Patchquilt of seismic networks—both stably funded and unstably-funded

14. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): 2. Need to help “have not” networks [and states] in IMW HOW? Convene long-overdue mtg between ANSS mgrs, IMW network operators, and IMW RAC “Mutual-aid agreements among nets & NEIC, especially where network staffing is very small Provide improved software for efficient earthquake analysis Assist with critically-needed technical support (more)

15. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): HOW? (cont’d) Address ways to provide critical info—both via Web and via personal contacts—to information outlets and/or to key persons in “have not” states to ensure that they can reliably inform governors, high-level decision-makers, and local media during earthquake situations

16. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): HOW? (cont’d) Explore avenues for funding—including ways that unified political activism among IMW states can gain support for improved network monitoring in seismically active states that are disadvantaged under ANSS

17. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): 3. Need for availability of portable instruments to augment inadequate network coverage (with sensible “business rules” to govern when instruments will be deployed and what logistic and financial support may be available)

18. IMW Needs — RAC (Nov. 2005): 4. Need to capture strong-motion data for large normal-faulting Eqs, even if it means instrumenting areas with low population density