A Seismic Hazards Overview of the Urban Regions of Nevada: Recent Advancements and Research Directions

Authors

John G. Anderson, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Richard D. Koehler, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Rachel Abercrombie, Boston UniversityFollow
Sean Kamran Ahdi, University of California, Los AngelesFollow
Stephen Angster, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Jayne Bormann, California State University, Long BeachFollow
James N. Brune, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Seth M. Dee, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Craig dePolo, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Stephen E. Dickerson, New Albion Geotechnical, Inc.Follow
Michelle Dunn, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
James E. Faulds, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
William C. Hammond, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Rachel Hatch, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Annie Kell, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Graham Kent, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Corne Kreemer, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
John Louie, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Ian Pierce, Unviersity of Nevada, RenoFollow
Christine J. Ruhl, University of TulsaFollow
Kenneth D. Smith, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Wanda Taylor, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Steven G. Wesnousky, University of Nevada, RenoFollow
Ivan Wong, Lettis Consultants InternationalFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-5-2019

Publication Title

Seismological Research Letters

Volume

90

Issue

4

First page number:

1577

Last page number:

1583

Abstract

Nevada is a large western state in the United States with a seismic hazard that ranges from moderate to high, depending on location. This article identifies priorities to improve estimates of the seismic hazard in the most urbanized parts of the state, specifically the Reno–Carson City urban area of western Nevada and the Las Vegas urban region of southern Nevada. Collaborative task forces are needed to efficiently realize these priorities. For the Reno–Carson City region in western Nevada, the seismic hazard is high because of strain distributed across several active faults, including normal faults that dip beneath parts of the urban areas. The subsurface geometry and possible connections of these faults remain to be determined. The present large uncertainty in estimates of the slip rates can be reduced by future geological and geodetic studies, including trenching at more than one site per fault and increasing the density of geodetic stations to include multiple stations in the mountain ranges between faults to detect rotations. Adjustments to the ground‐motion models for the regional properties of western and southern Nevada could reduce ground‐motion uncertainties. Ground‐motion simulation research needs an improved 3D velocity model. The seismic hazard in Las Vegas is lower than in Reno. An expanded geodetic network and continued geological studies of the active faults are needed. Uncertainties in the geometry and activity of the Frenchman Mountain and Eglington faults particularly introduce significant uncertainties into the seismic hazard in the Las Vegas basin. The more distant Garlock and Death Valley faults in eastern California impact the hazard in Las Vegas because the Las Vegas basin amplifies long‐period ground motion and prolongs its duration, so reliable simulations from these sources are needed.

Disciplines

Emergency and Disaster Management | Geophysics and Seismology

Language

English

Repository Citation

Anderson, J. G., Koehler, R. D., Abercrombie, R., Ahdi, S. K., Angster, S., Bormann, J., Brune, J. N., Dee, S. M., dePolo, C., Dickerson, S. E., Dunn, M., Faulds, J. E., Hammond, W. C., Hatch, R., Kell, A., Kent, G., Kreemer, C., Louie, J., Pierce, I., Ruhl, C. J., Smith, K. D., Taylor, W., Wesnousky, S. G., Wong, I. (2019). A Seismic Hazards Overview of the Urban Regions of Nevada: Recent Advancements and Research Directions. Seismological Research Letters, 90(4), 1577-1583.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220180357