Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
7 As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the conceptual framework for assessing the CEUS SSC model is characterized by two alternative branches of the master logic tree: the Mmax zones branch and the seismotectonic zones branch. The seismotectonic zones branch subdivides the CEUS SSC region according to differences in the seismic source assessment criteria described in Section 4.1.3.3. A common element of both the Mmax zones and the seismotectonic zones branches is the RLME sources. Because the paleoearthquake data that indicate the presence, location, and size of the RLMEs are essentially independent from data used to assess seismotectonic sources, the RLME branch is present in both models. The seismotectonic zones approach allows the incorporation of additional information related to the characteristics of future earthquakes. Therefore, this approach is assessed a higher weight than the Mmax zones approach in the master logic tree, as discussed in detail in Section 4.2.1. An overview of the factors used to identify and characterize the seismotectonic zones is given in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, followed by a detailed discussion of each of these zones in Section 7.3. !" !#$ $%!!$ The conceptual basis for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree is that regional differences in characteristics related to recurrence rates, Mmax, future earthquake characteristics, and/or the probability of activity of tectonic features are best addressed by identifying a source zone (see Section 4.1.3.3). Likewise, the regional differences in these characteristics provide the bases for defining individual seismotectonic zones. Although the recurrence rates within the zones are allowed to vary according to the smoothing of observed seismicity, the other characteristics are assumed to be uniform within the zone. For example, a seismotectonic zone may possess characteristics that would lead to a different Mmax than adjacent zones, including a different prior distribution or different maximum observed earthquake. A seismotectonic zone might also be characterized by earthquakes resulting from reverse fault displacement, while adjacent zones might be characterized by larger components of strike-slip displacement. Likewise, a seismotectonic zone might best be characterized as having thicker seismogenic crust than adjacent zones. A seismotectonic zone may also be defined if tectonic features or groups of tectonic features are identified that have a significant probability of activity, but as discussed in Section 4.1.3.3, such features have not been identified on a regional basis as part of this study. The geometries of the seismotectonic zones are largely a function of the major tectonic domains within which a given SSC characteristic is assessed to be relatively uniform (Figures 7.1-1 through 7.1-4) and different from the characteristics of adjacent zones. In most cases, the characteristics that define the zones are expected differences in future earthquake characteristics 7-1 Chapter 7 SSC Model: Seismotectonic Zones Branch such as rupture orientation, depth distribution, and style of faulting. A summary of the future earthquake characteristics for each seismotectonic zone is given in Table 5.4-2. The boundaries of the seismotectonic zones are derived from interpretations in the literature of regional geophysical, geologic, and tectonic data sets. In addition, data developed as part of the CEUS SSC Project, such as magnetic and gravity data (Figures 7.1-5 and 7.1-6), were examined for defining the zones. As discussed in Section 5.4.7, zone boundaries are defined as being either “leaky” or “strict” with respect to whether future earthquake ruptures are assessed to extend across a zone boundary. As described in Section 4.1.2.2 and included in Appendices C and D, Data Evaluation and Data Summary tables have been developed for each of the seismotectonic zones. These tables are an important resource for the reader, as they supplement the discussions of each zone given in this section. The Data Summary tables specify the various data sets that were reviewed and considered by the TI Team during the course of its assessments. The Data Evaluation tables provide an evaluation of the quality of the data and the degree of reliance placed by the team on the data during the assessment process. The reader is advised to consult both tables when reviewing the descriptions to better understand how the available data were applied to define the characteristics of each seismotectonic zone. Tables developed for RLME sources are also relevant for some of the seismotectonic zones. Table 7.1-1 shows which table numbers are associated with each of the seismotectonic zones. To illustrate the definition of a seismotectonic zone by way of a specific example, the St. Lawrence Rift (SLR) seismotectonic zone (discussed in Section 7.3.1 and shown on Figures 7.1-1 and 7.3.1-1) is outlined by the region assessed to be a terrane of known and inferred northeast-trending normal faults that formed parallel to the passive margin of Laurentia during the late Proterozoic–early Paleozoic opening of the Iapetus Ocean and underwent continental extension during the most recent extensional tectonic episode in the Mesozoic. The data considered in the identification and characterization of this zone are presented in Data Summary Table D-7.3.1 (Appendix D), and the data evaluated to provide a basis for characterizing the zone are given in Data Evaluation Table C-7.3.1 (Appendix C). The detailed assessments of the available data for the SLR zone are given in Section 7.3.1, including the basis for identifying the SLR as a seismotectonic zone and the location of the zone boundary (Section 7.3.1.2). The set of future earthquake characteristics for the SLR zone is given in Table 5.4-2. This zone is adjacent to the Northern Appalachian zone to the south and differs from it in the expected strikes of future ruptures and in the thickness of the seismogenic crust. The boundaries to the SLR zone are assessed to be “leaky,” such that future earthquake epicenters would lie within the zone, but ruptures, the strike of which is given in Table 5.4-2 and the length and width of which are magnitude-related (as discussed in Section 5.4), could extend beyond the zone boundaries. Given the regional nature of the CEUS SSC model and the need for it to be reviewed for possible local refinement for site-specific application (see discussion in Section 4.1.3), the sensitivity to the exact location of seismotectonic zone boundaries is not expected to be large. Therefore, explicit quantification of the uncertainty in zone boundary location is included in the model for only a couple of cases, such as the western boundary of the Paleozoic Extended Crust (PEZ narrow or wide) and the inclusion or exclusion of the Rough Creek graben in the Reelfoot Rift seismotectonic zone (RR-RCG). 7-2 Chapter 7 SSC Model: Seismotectonic Zones Branch It is important to note that, in the discussion of the seismotectonic zones, the TI Team was well aware of previous SSC models developed for the CEUS through the years for both site-specific and regional hazard evaluations. Some of these studies relied on different approaches and criteria for identifying seismic source zones from those used in this study (Section 4.1.3). As a result, it may appear that some of the “tried-and-true” approaches to drawing seismic source zone boundaries have been ignored or not considered in the CEUS SSC Project. For example, the spatial distribution of seismicity is decidedly non-uniform in the CEUS (Figure 7.1-7), and a common approach to identifying seismic sources in some past studies was to enclose zones of concentrated seismicity. Specific examples include the Central Virginia seismic zone and the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone (ETSZ). Acknowledging that these zones of elevated seismicity in the historical period of observation likely represent zones of future elevated rates, the method of implementing this concept in the CEUS SSC model is spatial smoothing of a- and b-values, rather than drawing source zone boundaries. Further, both the Mmax zones and the seismotectonic zones branches of the master logic tree provide for such smoothing regardless of where source zone boundaries are drawn. Therefore, given that some seismotectonic zones show spatial variations in observed rates of past earthquakes (Figure 7.1-8), these variations are accounted for in the smoothing model. Another common characteristic of previous SSC models is identifying prominent tectonic features as potential seismic source zones. Examples include the Midcontinent rift, which displays strong gravity and magnetic anomalies, or the numerous Mesozoic extensional faults and basins along the eastern margin of the CEUS. In a general sense, the seismotectonic zones accommodate the regional tectonic domains within which these types of tectonic features occur, provided that they meet the criteria for identifying a seismic source (Section 4.1.3.3). The SLR is defined by a different prior distribution for estimating Mmax from that of some adjacent regions, and the zone encloses the major Paleozoic extensional features of the St. Lawrence rift system. However, the zone boundary is drawn not because it is a tectonic feature, but because of expected differences with adjacent zones in Mmax, as well as other future earthquake characteristics (e.g., style of faulting, rupture orientation, thickness of seismogenic crust). In contrast, features such as the Midcontinent rift are not assessed to lead to different Mmax or future earthquake characteristics from adjacent regions, nor does the feature have a high probability of activity (Pa > 0.5) that could lead to a significant potential hazard. Therefore, using the hazard-informed approach discussed in Section 4.1.3, these types of tectonic features are not called out in the SSC model.