The Nevada NEHRP Working Group

Email louie@seismo.unr.edu to get your email address listed on the 2004 mail list nvnehrp that we use to collaborate from seismo.unr.edu.

2003 Draft Priorities below:

 

During a Fall 2003 visit by Mark Petersen, NIW region coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program - NEHRP), he emphasized that he would like to get two to three general priorities for earthquake research in Nevada to consider putting in the next RFP for Intermountain West external research.  There is a priority in the USGS 5-year plan for studying the Reno-Carson City urban corridor, which is appropriate given the relatively high level of earthquake hazard in the region. Yet there is still a fairly incomplete knowledge base for adequately characterizing this hazard.  This is a tremendous opportunity for our community to focus the research needed to bring our understanding of the earthquake hazard to a level and form that society can use. Ultimately we can make all of Nevada safer and more resilient in earthquakes.

 

Mark has prodded us to form a ``Nevada NEHRP Working Group'' to assess what the most effective types of research would be for characterizing Nevada earthquake potential, and offer him two to three top priorities.

 

Examine or download a presentation on this group to the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council on Nov. 21.

 

Examine the released NIW priorities posted at http://erp-web.er.usgs.gov/.

Nevada Priorities for NEHRP Research
Dec. 15, 2003
J. Louie and C. dePolo
On Nov. 12, 2003, an ad-hoc working group met to prioritize research topics for the next USGS NEHRP External Research Program announcement. The group included: J. Price and C. Henry of the NBMG; A. Anooshehpoor, Y. Zeng, F. Su, G. Biasi, and J. Louie of the NSL; and C. Snelson and B. Luke of UNLV. Written comments were also received from A. Ramelli of NBMG, C. Watson of Seismo-Watch, A. Rodgers of LLNL, W. Taylor of UNLV, and J. O'Donnell. The consensus priorities of those at the meeting are below, with some comments received since. We sought further input from the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council on Nov. 21. NESC asked its Research Subcommittee to look over the priorities, and plans to endorse a consensus document at the February NESC meeting. We planned to deliver community consensus priorities to Mark Petersen (USGS NEHRP-NIW coordinator) in February 2004, but he has requested them immediately. The website www.seismo.unr.edu/nvnehrp will show these priorities and further info:

  1. Consensus fault parameters (product: reviewed database)
    1. Characterize high-hazard faults near Reno/Carson and Las Vegas. Seek geologic limits on ground motions.
    2. Develop fault and earthquake parameter uncertainty input to urban hazard maps for Nevada.

  2. Ground shaking models (products: community velocity model, attenuation relations, Reno and Las Vegas hazard maps)
    1. Obtain shallow, basin, and basement velocities below the Reno and Las Vegas areas. Investigate the relation of ground shaking to geologic attributes in Nevada urban areas; assess the sufficiency of the IBC VS30 criterion for predicting ground shaking.

  3. Organize a Nevada Seismic Hazard Workshop to develop a preliminary Nevada Community Fault Model (CFM) and Community Velocity Model (CVM), and to prioritize future efforts, Jan 2005.

  4. Develop probabilistic seismic hazard models and planning scenarios for Reno and Las Vegas.

    5. The initial ad-hoc group did not reach a consensus on whether the following tasks should have a high priority for NEHRP-ERP funding:

  5. Organize sub-discipline working groups:
    1. Faults: Taylor, NBMG, Wesnousky, Consultants (URS, WLA, Werle, Sawyer, etc.)
    2. CVM: Luke, Snelson, Louie, Consultants (Converse, O'Donnell, BlackEagle, Kleinfelder, Terracon, Owens, etc.), USGS (Stevenson, etc.)