Inconsistent treatment of faults with probability of activity < 1.0

[pmpowers-usgs]

Low probability of activity faults were not intended to be modeled using geodetic data, however some faults slipped in. In some cases, the weights or rates in the geodetic models were adjusted to 0.0; these can be removed from the input files. In other cases no adjustment was made. In both cases, the geologic weights should be adjusted upward to compensate for the absence of these faults in the geodetic models.

Faults to review:

• Carson City fault, Nevada; 0.25
• Carson Range fault, Nevada; 0.25
• Indian Hill fault, Nevada; 0.25
• Kings Canyon fault zone, Nevada; 0.25
• Little Valley fault, Nevada; 0.25
• Alvin Canyon fault, Oregon; 0.05
• Cape Blanco anticline, Oregon; 0.5
• Daisy Bank fault, Oregon; 0.05
• Wecoma fault, Oregon; 0.05
• Yaquina faults, Oregon; 0.5

[pmpowers-usgs]

Resolved in issue #28:

• Carson City fault
• Carson Range fault
• Indian Hill fault
• Kings Canyon fault zone
• Little Valley fault

[pmpowers-usgs]

Resolved in commit cf6e3706891c53d3e19e5eea625eb4439f67b41f. Although the rest of the faults listed were all present in the geodetic input files, they had weights of 0.0. They were removed:

• Alvin Canyon fault
• Cape Blanco anticline
• Daisy Bank fault
• Wecoma fault
• Yaquina faults