2018-04-02_REVISION - M1977342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SECT NFOUR Seismic Hazard Inputs regression relations previously discussed yields preferred characteristic magnitudes for the WFMF of M 6.8,7.0 and 7.0 for rupture scenarios A,B and C,respectively(Table 1). Olig et al. (2013) considered uncertainties for the rupture scenarios as epistemic, but this has been revised to be modeled as aleatory variability, which we believe more accurately reflects fault behavior. Hence, our rupture scenarios (A, B, and C) are not separate branches on a logic tree. All three rupture scenarios occur and rupture rates for each scenario represent the aleatory variability in rupture sources for the fault (e.g.,the fault ruptures only the northern section 70% of the time, the northern and central sections together 25% of the time, and the full northern, central and southern sections only 5%of the time). We have also included epistemic uncertainty in these relative frequency of rupture scenarios by having three rupture models(1, II,and III).. In all the models (Tables I and 2), rupture scenario A is judged to occur more frequently (50-80% of the time)based on the younger most-recent activity,wider associated basin,better geomorphic expression and apparent higher rate of activity for the northern section than for the middle section, and especially the southern section with its very poor geomorphic expression. In comparison, Rupture Scenarios B and C occur less frequently at 20-40%and 0-10%of the time, respectively. In Rupture Model 1, the southern section is assumed to be completely abandoned, with minimum activity on the central section,whereas in Rupture Model 11 the maximum rates of activity on the central and southern sections that were assigned were judged to still fit the paleoseismic observations. For all the rupture models, rates of activity were moment balanced to the overall fault slip rates and Table 2 shows the resulting section rates for each rupture model. Hence, the slip rates for each scenario (Table 2) produce a combined moment rate for the fault that is equal to the moment rate based on the overall fault slip rate applied to a single, full-fault rupture source. Overall fault slip rates were after Olig et al. (2013) and include a broad range from 0.0005 mm/yr to 0.61 mm/yr to encompass many uncertainties (such as in ages, dips, and geomorphic evidence of highly variable rates through time). The weighted mean of the overall fault slip rate distribution is 0.11 mm/yr (Table 1). Based on Kirkham's (2004) scarp profiles, Olig et al. (2013)estimated an average dip slip on Qa2 deposits along the fault of 5.32 m, with a range of 4.95 to 9.17 m. Estimating an age for this movement is much more uncertain; their maximum rate of 0.61 mm/yr assumes the maximum dip slip occurred since the end of Pinedale glaciation about 15 ka(i.e., 9.17 m/15 ky). The next three values in their distribution of 0.15, 0.041, and 0.011 mm/yr assume an average dip slip of 5.32 m occurred since the onset of Pinedale glaciation (about 35 ka), since the end of Bull Lake glaciation (about 130 ka), and since the middle Pleistocene (about 500 ka), respectively. These values are symmetrically weighted here (Table 1) and form a broad center for the distribution reflecting the many uncertainties. Finally, the minimum value of 0.0005 mm/yr assumes the minimum dip slip of 4.95 m occurred since 11 Ma,the upper age estimated for the Troublesome Formation (Kellogg et al., 2011). This branch essentially assumes the fault is entering a period of relative quiescence. Finally,we assumed rapture of both the northern and middle sections (Scenario B)of the WFMF for the scenario for the DSHA. This results in a length of 32 km and an expected M 6.8 (using the regression for all fault types of Wells and Coppersmith, 1994)to M 7.1 (using the censored relation of Stirling et al.'s, 2002). Based on this, we used a M 7.1 earthquake rupturing the northern and middle sections of the WFMF with a 50'dip in the DSHA. Em C27.MkR-1e1 14