American Geological Institute

Government Affairs Program


Review of the Global Seismographic Network

Prepared by Jenna Minicucci, Government Affairs Intern
July 23, 1997

Note: At the request of the Geological Society of America's Geology and Public Policy Committee, AGI is undertaking a series of federal agency and program reviews to assess their impact on the geosciences.

Introduction
The goal of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN) is to deploy several permanent seismic recording stations uniformly over the Earth's surface. The GSN, a state-of-the-art network of seismic instruments, serves three functions: basic research, earthquake monitoring, and nuclear test verification. Built through an interagency partnership, the GSN is largely coordinated through Incorporated Institutions for Seismology Research (IRIS). In addition to several international partners, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego work together with IRIS to operate and maintain the GSN stations.

Scientific merits of the network include improved earthquake monitoring, enhanced understanding of earthquake processes, and additional knowledge about the Earth's interior structure and processes. Researchers claim that state-of-the-art monitoring systems are critical to developing the techniques necessary to prepare for and recover from large earthquakes. The monitoring effort is also allowing scientists to create three-dimensional models of the inner Earth, shedding light on internal processes previously shrouded in uncertainty.

Recent appropriations decisions for Fiscal Year 1998 call into question the appropriate source of funding for the GSN, a network which benefits widely disparate agencies and serves varied purposes. While the House has recommended that the Department of Defense fund the GSN, the Senate has complied with budget requests from the USGS and appropriated a funding increase earmarked to go to the network. Network funding will be determined when the two bills go to conference in September. In comparison to many other government-funded scientific initiatives, the GSN stands up well. Serving multiple needs ranging from scientific research to national security and carrying a moderate price tag in an expensive town, the Global Seismographic Network represents quite a value to the American taxpayer.

With the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September of 1996, the Administration recognized that seismological networks already in place, the GSN included, would be capable of providing the backbone of a verification system. Expanding the functions of the GSN for national security purposes prompted some concern about maintaining the network's scientific functions at desired levels. The National Research Council released two reports after the signing of the CTBT which made several recommendations about the required capacity of the monitoring system and urged system operators to adopt an unclassified categorization, such that all data collected through the seismic network would be available to scientific research groups. The CTBT marks what is hoped to be an endpoint in international negotiations that began in the 1960's to control and eventually halt the quest for nuclear arms and continued arms development by nuclear-capable nations. Although the CTBT increased support for the maintenance of a sound, global seismic monitoring system, international cooperation in seismic monitoring in the form of earthquake reporting long predates concerns about nuclear tests.

The Network
The Global Seismographic Network was built through a partnership involving the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS). Oversight for the GSN comes largely from IRIS, a university research consortium based in Washington D.C. and dedicated to exploring the Earth's interior through the collection and distribution of seismographic data. Funding for IRIS is provided by the NSF, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), and the Cecil and Ida Green Foundation for the Earth Sciences. GSN stations are jointly administered in conjunction with IRIS by either the USGS or the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, at the University of California, San Diego. The network's two chief operations centers are the USGS-sponsored Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory and the Scripps-sponsored International Deployment of Accelerometers (IDA) project. The USGS holds the operational responsibility for 77 of a total 107 GSN stations currently in operation. Fully implemented, the network will consist of 150 stations, of which the USGS will have operational responsibility for 107. The predecessor network to the GSN, the World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN), was also operated largely by the USGS beginning in the 1960's. Most of the remaining GSN stations are operated by project IDA, a global network of broadband and very long period seismometers directed by the Scripps Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics.

The GSN is a state-of-the-art network of seismic instruments designed to provide data for both basic and applied research, from the study of the Earth's interior to improved hazard assessment to treaty verification. It is also critical for assessing and responding to foreign natural disasters that may directly affect the interests of the United States. Planning for the Global Seismographic Network first began in the early 1980's. It's precursor network, the WWSSN, was deployed and operated beginning in 1962. The GSN permits a rapid response to tectonic phenomena. The digital seismic data collected from the GSN stations are analyzed at USGS facilities in Albuquerque, NM and Golden, CO, allowing seismologists to report on the location, depth, magnitude, and source mechanism of large earthquakes anywhere on Earth within an hour or less of their occurrence. The long-term goal of the GSN is to achieve real-time collection of all data, an objective that will be greatly aided by emerging developments in the telecommunications industry, an expanding international Internet, and new satellite technology. It is expected that the Global Seismographic Network will reach full deployment in the next few years.

For a complete listing of the international partners of the Global Seismographic Network, consult Appendix A at the back of this report.

For a complete listing of the GSN stations currently under operation and planned for development, consult Appendix B at the back of this report. The most recent IRIS/IDA station additions include sites at Kodiak Island, Alaska; Hope Point, South Georgia Island; Cocos Islands, Australia; and Ar-Rayn, Saudi Arabia. IRIS/IDA stations currently under construction include: Kappang, Indonesia; Mbarara, Uganda; and Santiago Island, Republic of Cape Verde.

Scientific Merits
In addition to its national security benefits, the Global Seismographic Network also serves a number of important geoscience research initiatives. According to USGS Director Gordon Eaton, GSN data support research of global earthquake hazards, earthquake processes, and the active geologic processes that cause earthquakes, as well as the internal structure, composition, and dynamic processes of the Earth.

Earthquake Monitoring

The GSN is a research tool used for high-resolution studies of earthquake sources. Since it is capable of assessing the destructive potential of earthquakes, the GSN acts as an economic tool, reducing the impact of destructive quakes on U.S. citizens and investments by assessing seismic threats to economic and physical development. The global nature of the GSN is seen by the USGS scientific staff as vital to understanding earthquake processes that stem from global plate motions and for global tomographic studies of the Earth's three-dimensional structure. Right now, GSN data are deriving rapid analyses of source dimensions and types of faulting for projecting the likely effects and impact of large earthquakes. Models constructed with GSN data have allowed seismologists to locate earthquakes more accurately. The GSN also provides seismic detection capabilities for the Alaska Aleutian Chain as well as for U.S. territories in the Western Pacific, areas at significant risk for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunami.

Study of the Earth's Interior

The GSN is a research tool used for scientific exploration of the Earth's interior. Right now, GSN data are refining models of the Earth's velocity structure. IRIS maintains that global digital data "will allow us to obtain the information that, in conjunction with observations of the geoid, will provide fundamental constraints on geodynamics, mantle convection, and the driving mechanisms for plate motions." Continued data collection will aid in global mapping of the lithosphere and deeper lateral heterogeneities. IRIS plans to use the GSN as "a platform for other geophysical observations such as continuous GPS, geomagnetic field, barometric pressure, temperature, and potentially a variety of other environmental and geophysical parameters."

Other geophysical disciplines, including geodesy, geomagnetism, volcanology, gravity and the atmospheric sciences also have an interest in developing global observational networks. Essentially, geophysicists will be able to tap 5-10 gigabytes of new data accumulated each day with nearly all of it having applications to scientific research. According to Stephen Bratt, a seismologist at the U.S. Department of Defense, the GSN's "new continuous data will provide a wealth of information." In short, the data from the GSN serves many purposes and has multiple scientific and economic applications including disaster response management, earthquake hazards assessment, and earthquake and Earth structure research, in addition to its function in nuclear test ban verification.

The GSN also plays an important role in fulfilling some of the missions of the USGS and the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC). The primary mission of the NEIC is to provide information about earthquakes worldwide, as rapidly and accurately as possible. The NEIC relies on two primary sources of data for this purpose, the GSN and the U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN). Of these two sources, the GSN provides all data outside of the U.S. The GSN is also consistent with the USGS mission...to provide "the Nation with reliable, impartial information to describe and understand the Earth." The GSN is an invaluable resource for the geoscience, economic, and national security information it is capable of providing.

Recommendations of the National Research Council
The National Research Council has completed two reports containing their recommendations and viewpoints on the importance of geophysics research for strengthening efforts to monitor nuclear test ban compliance. The reports were released in 1995 and July of 1997. The 1995 report, Seismological Research Requirements for a Comprehensive Test-Ban Monitoring System, concluded that "a worldwide seismic monitoring capability is important to the security and foreign policy interests of the nation." The NRC identified specific research activities in the fields of seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide detection that will be needed if the U.S. is to effectively monitor treaty compliance. Among the seismology recommendations was the need to distinguish the waves produced by underground and underwater explosions from those produced by earthquakes, volcanoes, underground mining, and other sources of ground vibration. The extended band width of the GSN has important potential applications in discriminating explosions (high signals) from earthquakes (low signals). In addition, the NRC advocated that the monitoring system be unclassified. Largely in response to these recommendations, provisions have been made to ensure that the data are available to all research groups.

Both NRC reports emphasized that networks already in existence were not to be taken over for strictly national security functions. Rather, the development of the International Seismic Monitoring System "should augment, not reduce, the capabilities of the U.S. scientific community." For this reason, the NRC has consistently advised that the "U.S. should formulate and support a policy for open distribution of CTBT data so that the data can contribute to important activities in fields of scientific research, including understanding global climate change and reducing hazards from earthquakes." Thus, the NRC recognizes the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship, aiding efforts to secure both national security and quality seismological data. The 1995 report summarized, "the key element is to ensure that the U.S. nuclear monitoring effort and the existing data archival and distribution capabilities are integrated for the mutual benefit of all seismological applications serving the nation."

A Complicated Budgetary Situation
A report of the National Research Council (NRC) released in July 1997 concerning the importance of geophysics research in efforts to monitor treaty compliance noted that updating our monitoring system to achieve the level of compliance we wish to attain "will require a substantial increase in funding compared to current levels." Once the potential value of the GSN to CTBT monitoring was recognized, considerable monetary allocation followed. In response to Congressional and Executive branch requests, IRIS accelerated the installation of the GSN beginning in 1994 along with treaty negotiations. IRIS expanded the GSN with special Congressional funding so that it would contribute not only to scientific endeavors but also to the monitoring of a comprehensive test ban. Also, the NSF has enhanced its support of IRIS for a five-year period which began in 1996 for its role in the CTBT monitoring system.

Although funding was at first relatively easy to come by, the concern now is the appropriate source of funding for the GSN, not just the funding level appropriated. At a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee to examine the USGS budget request for FY 1998, USGS Director Gordon P. Eaton submitted testimony. Eaton testified that the requested USGS budget increase of $6.5 million over the FY 1997 appropriation included an increase of $3 million to expand and "upgrade the GSN to service the requirements of the CTBT and for research purposes." Eaton commented that while the Department of Defense (DOD) supported the capitalization and installation phases of the network, the USGS would be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of the majority of the network as well as for analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of the collected data. This request for a transfer of network support and the funds necessary to do so came largely out of a report released two years ago by the President's National Science and Technology Council recommending that funding for the network should come directly from the NSF and the USGS. The report reasoned that "as the only Federal agency with both the scientific expertise and technological experience to manage a global seismic monitoring program and make informed data interpretations, the USGS should fund its share of the GSN operations." The Administration continues to urge that "the agency most directly responsible for network operation should budget for support of that network to ensure the integrity and continuity of scientific and technical activities." In the past, the National Security Appropriations bill provided funding to both the NSF and USGS through the Department of Defense.

For FY 1998, the NSF requested $4 million for its portion of the network that supports university-based research through the IRIS consortium. USGS requested a $3 million increase to cover its responsibility ($3.8 million total). According to USGS officials, the breakdown for that budget request would be as follows: 65% to fund network support, 30% for data management, and 5% for field maintenance. In assessing the potential of a USGS contribution, it is important to note the distinction between a Congressional grant of a budget add-on versus a requirement to slim down existing USGS programs in order to fund the GSN. It is not clear that there is a consensus among the geoscience community as to the scientific value of the GSN such that there would be widespread approval for a funding transfer from other programs within the agency, for example the geologic mapping and continental surveying functions of the USGS.

While the NSF request was granted, the $3 million requested by the USGS was not, the House Subcommittee opting to continue with DOD funding of the network. The Committee report stated, "the current funding arrangement that will continue for the forseeable future, is designed to meet both the needs of DOD for data that can be used in monitoring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well as the scientific research produced by the Survey..." The problem is that DOD appropriators have not indicated that GSN funding will continue under their auspices, and there is little support within the DOD for continued funding of the USGS share of the GSN. The Department of Defense already spends tens of millions per year on seismic verification and shares the data from its seismic networks with the other agencies and academic community. The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, however, did include the $3 million increase for the GSN in their bill, which was reported out of the Full Committee on July 22, 1997. As the appropriations process now stands, the final outcome for the USGS budget request will be decided when the Interior Appropriations bills of the Senate and the House are taken up in conference, scheduled for early September when Congress returns from the August recess.

Others are also rallying to the support of the GSN. On July 28, 1997, the House Science Committee issued a statement regarding H.R. 2249 , legislation to fund the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for 1998 and 1999. Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has "recognized the need for sustained research, planning, and education efforts to mitigate the disastrous effects of earthquakes." H.R. 2249 authorizes funding for the four NEHRP agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the USGS, the NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, the bill provides $3.8 million each year to the USGS for operation of the GSN. The bill was reported out of the Full Science Committee on July 29, 1997.

At the USGS budget request hearing, Eaton also testified that "seeking new appropriations to support USGS involvement in the GSN is the highest priority new funding need within the geologic hazards, resources, and processes budget activity." The GSN annual cost is likely to decrease in coming years as station construction and start-up costs are traded for upkeep and management costs.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
On September 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), effectively extending a test ban signed by President Kennedy in 1963. Clinton triumphantly characterized the treaty signing as "the longest sought, hardest fought prize in arms control history." The CTBT added underground testing to atmospheric, outer space, and underwater testing, the activities initially prohibited by the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. The CTBT is viewed by many as a means to diminish and eventually eliminate nuclear arms wars, since testing is recognized as the means for developing more advanced nuclear weapons, and thus fueling regional arms races.

Negotiations for a comprehensive treaty opened at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in January of 1994 and continued through the year. These proceedings formed the basis for negotiations in 1995 and 1996. 158 countries voted yes to prohibiting all nuclear explosions worldwide. There were three opposition votes (including Libya and Bhutan) and five abstentions (North Korea did not participate in treaty discussions and negotiations). The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty prohibits any testing involving a nuclear explosion, regardless of the test's purpose, location, or size. It also calls for the creation of an International Monitoring System (IMS) consisting of a primary and auxiliary seismic network, a radionuclide monitoring network, a hydroacoustic network, an infrasound network, and on-site inspections. The seismic network is to consist of 50 primary stations and 120 auxiliary stations. The primary monitors are called Air Force Technical Application Center (AFTAC) arrays. The GSN stations are part of the secondary network, used to refine the parameters (location, depth, magnitude) of the events detected by the primary network as requested. Therefore, only some GSN stations will be used in test monitoring. Between the time that the U.S. began negotiations on the CTBT in January of 1994 to the signing of the treaty in September of 1996, the IRIS consortium completed the installation of 44 GSN stations to support the treaty's international verification regime. With its considerable seismological connections and lack of military affiliation, IRIS also encouraged countries to contribute GSN stations to the development of the IMS. Over 50 of the IRIS GSN stations are now part of the IMS system. The total monitoring network (including the hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclide components) will consist of 321 stations that will collect and transmit data to an International Data Center in Vienna, Austria. With the combination of all four monitoring networks, researchers should be able to pinpoint the location of a test within an 18 kilometer radius.

The treaty signing is only a first step in the struggle for nuclear disarmament. In order to enter into force, the treaty must be ratified by all 44 countries considered nuclear capable. India in particular is a concern; the country has already vowed never to sign. But, if the treaty has not entered into force after three years, those countries which have ratified it can meet to discuss methods for accelerating the ratification process. Out of the 44 countries considered nuclear capable, India, Pakistan, and North Korea still had not signed the treaty as of April 1997. As of February 18, 1997, only two nations had ratified the treaty. Although the U.S. was the first nation to sign the treaty of 140 nations that have, the White House has not yet sent the CTBT to the Senate for ratification. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) is leading an effort in the House of Representatives urging the President to send the CTBT to the Senate and declare a moratorium on tests until the treaty takes effect. Also, 45 House Democrats signed a letter urging President Clinton to cancel a series of subcritical experiments planned for the Nevada test site.

Ironically, a Comprehensive Test Ban was first put forward in 1954 by the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, after the UK joined the United States and the Soviet Union in conducting nuclear tests. The ban's initial purpose was to end the race to acquire nuclear arms. The United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom settled on a partial test ban treaty in 1963, which banned explosions in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. During the 1960's, negotiations between the USSR and the US resulted in agreements limiting the size of an underground nuclear explosion to 150 kilotons. The 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the 1976 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty set the same limit for weapons tests and "peaceful nuclear explosions" respectively. "Peaceful nuclear explosions" are tests conducted for research purposes, for excavating harbors and highways, or for oil and mineral exploration, and presented a sticking point during treaty negotiations. Initially, China refused to sign the comprehensive treaty unless it provided for continued "peaceful" explosions (Note: The treaty would by no means have been comprehensive with this stipulation). France and China continued atmospheric testing until 1974 and 1980 respectively. With the convening of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in 1994, however, a mandate was granted to negotiate a multilateral comprehensive test ban treaty supported unanimously by 156 States in the UN General Assembly.


Appendix A: International Partners

GEOSCOPE Program, University of Paris, France
MEDiterranean NETwork (MEDNET), Istituto Nazionale de Geofisica, Italy
POSEIDON Program, Japan
GEOFOrschungs Netz (GEOFON), Germany
Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstaffe (Geological Survey), Germany
Alfred Wegner Institute for Polar Research, Germany
University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Instituto Geografico Nacional, Spain
Mexican National Seismic Network, Mexico
State Seismological Bureau, China
The Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences
The Institute of Seismology of the Turkmen Academy of Sciences
The National Survey for Seismic Protection, Armenia
The Institute of Seismology of the Kyrghyz Academy of Sciences
The National Nuclear Center of Kazakhstan
The Academy of Sciences of Tadjikistan
The King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia
The Geological Survey of Canada


Appendix B: GSN Stations

Name Country Network Status
North America
Flin Flon Manitoba, Canada IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Alert N.W.T., Canada IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Las Juntas de Abangares Costa Rica IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Sondre Stromfjord Greenland IRIS/USGS (GSN)/
GEOFON
Existing
Isla Socorro Isla Socorro, Mexico MNSN/
IRIS/USGS (GSN)
Proposed
Tepich Yucatan, Mexico MNSN/
IRIS/USGS (GSN)
Existing
San Juan Puerto Rico IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Adak Island Alaska, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
College Outpost Alaska, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) Closed
College Geophysical Observatory Alaska, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Kodiak Island Alaska, USA IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Tucson Arizona, USA UA/IRIS (GSN)/
USNSN
Existing
Columbia California, USA BDSN/IRIS (GSN)/
USNSN
Existing
Pasadena California, USA TERRAscope/IRIS
(GSN)
Existing
Pinon Flat California, USA IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Disney Wilderness Reserve Florida, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Harvard Massachusetts, USA Harvard/IRIS
(GSN) / USNSN
Existing
Cathedral Caves Missouri, USA SLU/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Albuquerque New Mexico, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Corvallis Oregon, USA OSU/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Standing Stone Pennsylvania, USA PSU/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Hockley Texas, USA UTA/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Wyandotte Cave Indiana, USA SLU/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
Waverly Tennessee, USA SLU/IRIS (GSN) /
USNSN
Existing
South America
Tornquist Argentina IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Riachuelo Brazil IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Pitinga Brazil IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Western Brazil IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Limon Verde Chile IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
GEOFON
Existing
Las Campanas Chile Carnegie/IRIS (GSN) Planned
Bogota Colombia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Nana Peru IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Santo Domingo Venezuela IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Atlantic Ocean
Ascension Ascension Island IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Cha de Marcela Azores IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Bermuda Bermuda IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Taburiente Canary Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
IGN-Spain
Existing
East Falkland Island Falkland Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Borgames Iceland IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
St. Helena St. Helena Island IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
South Georgia South Georgia Island IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Santiago Island Cape Verde Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Trindade Trindade Island, Brazil IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Tristan da Cunha Tristan da Cunha IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Europe
Kevo Finland IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Black Forest Observatory Germany BFO/IRIS (GSN) Existing
Graefenberg Array Germany IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
BGR
Existing
Ny-Alesund Spitsbergen, Norway IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
GEOFON/AWI
Existing
Kongsberg Norway IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
San Pablo Spain IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Lovozero Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Obninsk Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Toledo Spain IRIS/USGS (GSN) Closed
Eskdalemuir Scotland, UK IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Kiev Ukraine IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Africa
Abu Simbel Egypt IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Siwa Egypt IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
MEDNET
On Hold
Addis Ababa Ethiopia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Furi Ethiopia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Bambay Gabon IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Nairobi Kenya IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
GEOFON
Closed
Kilima Mbogo Kenya IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
GEOFON
Existing
Kowa Mali IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Tsumeb Namibia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Jos Nigeria IRIS/IDA (GSN) On Hold
Sutherland South Africa IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Mbarara Uganda IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Lusaka Zambia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Indian Ocean
Diego Garcia Chagos Archipelago IRIS/IDA (GSN) Proposed
West Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Mahe Seychelles Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Asia
Garni Armenia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Baijiatuan (Beijing) China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN/ARPA
Existing
Enshi China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Planned
Hailar China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN/ARPA
Existing
Kunming China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Lhasa China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Mudanjiang China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Sheshan China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Urumqi China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Xi'an China IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
NCDSN
Existing
Kodaikanal India IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
New Delhi India IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Shillong India IRIS/USGS (GSN) On Hold
Sulawesi Indonesia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Erimo Japan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Matsushiro Japan IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Borovoye Kazakhstan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Kurchatov Kazakhstan IRIs/IDA (GSN) Existing
Makanchi Kazakhstan Lamont/IRIS/USGS
(GSN)
Existing
Ala-Archa Kyrghyzstan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Bhannes Lebanon IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
MEDNET
On Hold
Ulaan Baatar Mongolia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Wadi Sarin Oman IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Nilore Pakistan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Quetta Pakistan IRIS/USGS (GSN) On Hold
Davao Philippines IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Arti Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Kislovodsk Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Magadan Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Norilsk Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Novosibirsk Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Closed
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Bilibino Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Talaya Russia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Tiksi Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Yakutsk Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Russia IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
POSEIDON
Existing
Ab'ha Saudi Arabia IRIS/IDA (GSN) On Hold
Ar Rayn Saudi Arabia IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Bukit Timah Dairy Farm Singapore Singapore/IRIS (GSN) Planned
Inchon South Korea IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Seoul South Korea IRIS/USGS (GSN) Closed
Garm Tadjikistan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Closed
Gissar Tadjikistan IRIS/IDA (GSN) On Hold
Taipei Taiwan IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Chiang Mai Thailand IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Ankara Turkey IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Alibek Turkmenistan IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Australia
Tennant Creek Northern territory IRIS/IDA (GSN)Existing
Charters Towers Queensland IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Hobart Tasmania IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Marble Bar Western Australia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Narrogin Western Australia IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Pacific Ocean
Rarotonga Cook Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Rapa Nui Easter Island, Chile IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island Galapagos Islands, Ecuador IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Monasavu Viti Levu, Fiji IRIS/IDA (GSN) Existing
Pitcairn Pitcairn Island IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Existing
Pohakuloa Hawaii, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Planned
Kipapa Hawaii, USA IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Hawaii-2 Observatory Northeast Pacific IRIS (GSN) Planned
Johnston Atoll Johnston Atoll IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Raoul Island Kermadec Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Planned
Kiritimati Kiribati IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Proposed
Tarawa Kiribati IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Proposed
Kanton Kiribati IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Proposed
Macquarie Island Macquarie Island IRIS/USGS (GSN) Proposed
Guam Marianas Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Nukuhiva Marquesas Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) /
STA
Proposed
Kwajalein Atoll Marshall Islands IRIS/IDA (GSN) Planned
Midway Midway Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Planned
South Karori New Zealand IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Port Moresby Papua New Guinea IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
GEOFON/POSEIDON
Existing
Afiamalu Samoa Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Honiara Solomon Islands IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Funafuti Tuvalu IRIS/USGS (GSN) /
STA
Proposed
Wake Wake Island IRIS/USGS (GSN) Planned
Antarctica
Casey Antactica IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
Palmer Station, Palmer Peninsula Antarctica IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing
South Pole Antarctica IRIS/USGS (GSN) Existing

Web Resources
The IRIS homepage
The IRIS GSN homepage
The IRIS/IDA Operations Center in La Jolla, CA
The Council for a Livable World Education Fund

Sources:


Please send any comments or requests for information to the AGI Government Affairs Program.

Contributed by Jenna Minicucci, AGI Government Affairs Intern
Last updated July 23, 1997

American Geological Institute Home Page

Government Affairs Program Home Page