Miscellaneous improvements

• New Madrid and Meers dips: 89°
• RLME fixed strikes are ridiculously precise
• Puget mMax is 7.3, regional in 2008 was 7.0, in 2104 7.5
• Is charleston supposed to be 90% RLME 10% null (background)? (Charleston broad and narrow were additive on background in 2008)
• There is no double counting consideration in CEUS gridded seismicity models.
• Review additional epistemic uncertainty (WUS)
• Check 'historic mMax' against actual WC94L computed lengths
• Should we propagate uncertainty in site term (or other scale factors) through as hazard curves/branches?

• Dips revised to 90°
• Strikes were already updated for 2023
• Puget is no longer in model
• Whatever CHarleston was supposed to be, we're leaving the existing logic tree in place. Presumably the SSCn model had 10% weight on background but that was never implemented in the USGS model.
• Double counting is still not accounted for in 2023, but is likely inconsequential and RLME and fault source rates are much higher than background rates at the magnitudes of interest.
• WUS NGA-West2 epistemic uncertainty model stands for 2023
• There are no longer any historic EQ constraints in WUS 2023 model
• Ground motion panel didn't seem concerned that epistemic uncertainty in site was being propagated.

Resolved in !109 (merged)

closed