<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Hi Art,</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Sorry I missed your deadline. We
just changed from a failing e-mail server to a new one, changed from Groupwise
to Outlook, and changed our e-mail addresses. Many things have slipped
throught the cracks. The main item for me to comment on is the treatment
of the faults in the Yakima fold belt. I agree with Bob that the treatment
of including only those faults with demonstrated Holocene activity is misleading
in two ways. One, as Bob pointed out, if the recurrence interval is longer
than the length of the Holocene then faults that have not had a Holocene
event may be more likely to have one than faults with Holocene activity.
I realize, following Rus’ argument , that it would be difficult to accommodate
that. The other problem, though, is that most of them haven’t been investigated,
i.e., high epistemic uncertainty. This could lead to the issue that the
building officials have, which is that as paleoseismology investigations
are done the regional hazard may change dramatically as new trenches are
dug. I wonder if this might be best treated as a source region using the
net shortening rate for the fold belt as a whole rather than concentrating
on those structures that have been studied in some detail.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Regards,</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Tim</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Joan Gomberg<br>
US Geological Survey<br>
University of Washington<br>
Dept of Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310<br>
Seattle, Washington 98195-1310<br>
206-616-5581(office) <br>
206-553-8350 (fax)<br>
206-941-7498 (cell)<br>
gomberg@usgs.gov</font>