Now Some Implications of Deformation Models & Seismicity Observations…

Moment Rates (10 19 Nm/yr) 1.Include creep-based moment-rate reductions (default = 0.1). 2.57% of Geologic on-fault increase (0.31) is from: Cerro Prieto (0.077  Nm/yr); Mendocino (0.054  Nm/yr); and Brawley (Seismic Zone) alt 1 (0.049  Nm/yr). 3.On-fault moment rate change for the same faults as used in the UCERF2 model. 4.UCERF2 value includes both “C-Zones (aseismic)” and “Non-CA Faults” (treated as off fault here). 5.Relative to the UCERF2 total value of 2.37  Nm/yr, which includes contributions from “C-Zones (aseismic)”. 6.Assuming a truncated GR distribution with 8.7 M  5 events per year (Appendix L) and a b-value of 1.0 Increase on faults comes from addition of new faults; old faults came down a bit 57% of new fault increase is from three of the new faults. Increase on faults comes from addition of new faults; old faults came down a bit 57% of new fault increase is from three of the new faults.

Moment Rates (10 19 Nm/yr) 1.Include creep-based moment-rate reductions (default = 0.1). 2.57% of Geologic on-fault increase (0.31) is from: Cerro Prieto (0.077  Nm/yr); Mendocino (0.054  Nm/yr); and Brawley (Seismic Zone) alt 1 (0.049  Nm/yr). 3.On-fault moment rate change for the same faults as used in the UCERF2 model. 4.UCERF2 value includes both “C-Zones (aseismic)” and “Non-CA Faults” (treated as off fault here). 5.Relative to the UCERF2 total value of 2.37  Nm/yr, which includes contributions from “C-Zones (aseismic)”. 6.Assuming a truncated GR distribution with 8.7 M  5 events per year (Appendix L) and a b-value of 1.0 Off-fault increases are from 11% to 45% These off-fault moment rates are not used to constrain UCERF3 (but rather provide an implied off-fault aseismcity) Off-fault increases are from 11% to 45% These off-fault moment rates are not used to constrain UCERF3 (but rather provide an implied off-fault aseismcity)

Deformation Model Moment Rates UCERF2 (2.1)GeologicABMNeoKinemaZeng On fault Off Fault Total Ratio to U3 Ave log 10 (Ratio) M o Rate ( Nm/yr ) UCERF3 Ave

Moment Rates Average Deformation Model UCERF2 Smooth Seismicity Implied UCERF3 Smooth Seismicity Implied (Geologic, Zeng, ABM, & NeoKinema)(Assuming same total moment rate as for Ave Def Mod & constant M max and b-value) log( Moment Rate )

Smooth Seismicity Divided By Ave Deformation Model log10(ratio) UCERF2 UCERF3

Smooth Seismicity Divided By Ave Deformation Model log10(ratio) UCERF3 1)Temporal rate changes orange/red areas are more active (& green/blue less active) in recent times 2)Inadequate Declustering under declustered in orange/red areas (& over declustered in green/blue areas) 3)Aseismicity green/blue areas are more aseismic (at least at lower mags); this can’t explain orange/red areas ( and we wouldn’t see aseis that only influences larger events like on Creeping SAF ) 4)M max Variability orange/red areas have lower M max & green/blue areas have higher M max 5)b-value Variability orange/red areas have higher, & green/blue have lower b-value 6)Char MFDs On Faults where faults appear green/blue; rest of region would need to be a bit more orange/red. 7)Undetected Earthquakes in green/blue areas 8)No real significant differences (given uncertainties in both)? UCERF2 Assumptions

Smooth Seismicity Divided By Ave Deformation Model UCERF3 1)Temporal rate changes orange/red areas are more active (& green/blue less active) in recent times 2)Inadequate Declustering under declustered in orange/red areas (& over declustered in green/blue areas) 3)Aseismicity green/blue areas are more aseismic (at least at lower mags); this can’t explain orange/red areas ( and we wouldn’t see aseis that only influences larger events like on Creeping SAF ) 4)M max Variability orange/red areas have lower M max & green/blue areas have higher M max 5)b-value Variability orange/red areas have higher, & green/blue have lower b-value 6)Char MFDs On Faults where faults appear green/blue; rest of region would need to be a bit more orange/red. 7)Undetected Earthquakes in green/blue areas 8)No real significant differences (given uncertainties in both)? Implied M max if both deformation models and smoothed seismicity are correct (assuming GR)

Now General Discussion