Common use of Technical Presentations Clause in Contracts

Technical Presentations. The following presentations were made on current paleoseismic research and related activities in Utah (most presentations are available at xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxx.xxx).  Searching for evidence of seismic events in lacustrine sediments of Utah Lake; Ron Harris and Quincy Nickens, Brigham Young University  Automated fault scarp offset analysis of the Nephi segment of the Wasatch fault, Utah, utilizing LiDAR derived, high resolution DEMs; Billie Smathers, University of Utah  Update: Paleoseismic investigation of the northern and southern strands of the Nephi segment; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Results of fault trenching at the Baileys Lake site, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, Utah Geological Survey  Paleoseismology of the Salt Lake City segment and its seismologic relation to the West Valley fault zone; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Summary of recent consultant’s trench, Orange Street site, Taylorsville fault, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, Utah Geological Survey  Testing the role of fault segmentation in limiting earthquake magnitudes – A targeted paleoseismic investigation along the structurally segmented Wasatch fault zone; Rich Briggs, U.S. Geological Survey  Bear River fault behavior – Clues provided by LiDAR; Suzanne Hecker, U.S. Geological Survey  Evaluation of the Quaternary history of the Joes Valley fault zone, Utah – Background and update; Joanna Redwine, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation  Update on GPS monitoring of the Wasatch fault; Robert Smith, University of Utah  Large liquefaction features and evidence for earthquakes induced by Lake Bonneville in Cache Valley – A progress report; Susanne Janecke, Utah State University  New surficial geologic mapping redefines the northernmost sections of the Washington fault zone in SW Utah and NW Arizona; Tyler Knudsen, Utah Geological Survey  Results – Paleoseismic trenching investigation of the Northern (Fort Pearce) section of the Washington fault zone, SW Utah and NW Arizona; Bill Lund, Utah Geological Survey  Preliminary results from a high resolution reflection profile at Hansel Valley, Utah; Pier Bruno, University of Utah/Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy  Update on Blue Castle seismic source and fault characterization studies; Dean Ostenaa, Fugro, Inc. (no Power Point presentation available)  Utah paleoseismic-related USGS NEHRP FTR report compilation and some new data resources; Steve Bowman, Utah Geological Survey  Redefining “Active” faults – Proposal to evaluate paleo-seismology studies for evidence of Holocene climatic variation and basin-ward migration of faulting; Darlene Batatian, Mountain Land Development Services, LLC TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ITEMS No technical discussion items came before the Working Group this year. UQFPWG 2013 FAULT STUDY PRIORITIES In 2005, the UQFPWG recommended that 20 Quaternary faults/fault segments in Utah be investigated to “adequately characterize Utah’s earthquake hazard to a minimally acceptable level” (Lund, 2005). Since then, the Working Group has added an additional 11 faults/fault segments to the list: five in 2007, one in 2009, one in 2010, and four in 2011 (see table 1 below). No new faults were added to the list in 2013. The UQFPWG conducts an annual review of progress made toward investigating the faults/fault segments on their priority list. Based on that review, the Working Group establishes a short list of the highest priority faults/fault segments for future study. The list of highest priority faults/segments is published on the UGS web site, which is then referenced by the USGS in their annual NEHRP request for proposals. The Working Group’s highest priority list for 2013 includes: (1) Acquire new paleoseismic information for the five central segments of the Wasatch fault zone to address data gaps – e.g., (a) the rupture extent of earthquakes on the Brigham City and Salt Lake City segments, (b) long-term earthquake records for the northern Provo, southern Weber, and Salt Lake City segments, and (c) the subsurface geometry and connection of the Warm Springs and East Bench faults on the Salt Lake City segment; (2) acquire long-term earthquake record for the West Valley fault zone – Taylorsville fault; and (3) improve the long-term earthquake record for Cache Valley (East and West Cache fault zones). Table 2 shows both the 2013 highest priority fault/fault segment recommendations, and the current investigation status for all faults/fault segments identified by the UQFPWG as requiring additional study.

Technical Presentations. The following presentations were made on current paleoseismic research and related activities in Utah (note that titles of the presentations listed here may vary from the titles listed in the meeting agenda (attachment 2), most presentations are available at xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxx.xxx)xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxx/xxxxxx/XXXXXX-0000_Xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.  Searching for evidence of seismic events in lacustrine sediments of Utah Lake; Ron Harris and Quincy Nickens, Brigham Young University  Automated fault scarp offset analysis of the Nephi segment of the Wasatch fault, Utah, utilizing LiDAR derived, high resolution DEMs; Billie Smathers, University of Utah  Update: Paleoseismic investigation of the northern and southern strands Update on trenching of the Nephi segment; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey (UGS)  Results of fault trenching at Preliminary results from the Baileys Lake Flat Canyon paleoseismic trench site, West Valley southern Provo segment, Wasatch fault zone‒ Potential implications for Holocene fault segmentation; Mike HyllandScott Bennett, Utah U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)  Paleoseismology of Evidence for multiple surface ruptures along structures between the Salt Lake City segment and its seismologic relation to the West Valley fault zone; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Summary of recent consultant’s trench, Orange Street site, Taylorsville fault, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, Utah Geological Survey  Testing the role of fault segmentation in limiting earthquake magnitudes – A targeted paleoseismic investigation along the structurally segmented Wasatch fault zone; Rich Briggs, U.S. Geological Survey  Bear River fault behavior – Clues provided by LiDAR; Suzanne Hecker, U.S. Geological Survey  Evaluation of the Quaternary history of the Joes Valley fault zone, Utah – Background and update; Joanna Redwine, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation  Update on GPS monitoring Provo segments of the Wasatch fault; Robert SmithNathan Toké, Utah Valley University of (UVU)  Newly discovered Holocene-active basin floor fault in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah; Adam McKean, UGS  Large liquefaction features The Bear River fault zone, Wyoming and evidence for Utah ‒ Complex ruptures on a young normal fault; David Schwartz, USGS  Updates about Pleistocene earthquakes induced by Lake Bonneville in east Cache Valley – A progress reportValley, Utah; Susanne Janecke, Utah State University (USU)  Contemporary deformation of the Wasatch Front, Utah, and its implication for interseismic loading of the Wasatch fault zone; Wu-Lung Chang, National Central University, Taiwan and the University of Utah (UU)  New surficial geologic mapping redefines high-resolution LiDAR data for the northernmost sections of the Washington fault zone in SW Utah and NW Arizona; Tyler Knudsen, Utah Geological Survey  Results – Paleoseismic trenching investigation of the Northern (Fort Pearce) section of the Washington Wasatch fault zone, SW and Salt Lake and Utah Counties, and NW Arizonahazard mapping; Steve Bowman, UGS  Forecasting large earthquakes along the Wasatch Front; Ivan Wong, URS Corporation  Upcoming investigations of the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault near Corner Canyon (DuRoss), and Upcoming investigations of the Provo segment of the Wasatch fault near Dry Creek and Maple Canyon (Bennett); Chris DuRoss, UGS and Scott Bennett, USGS  Basin and Range Seismic Hazard Summit III; Bill Lund, Utah Geological Survey  Preliminary results from a high resolution reflection profile at Hansel Valley, Utah; Pier Bruno, University of Utah/Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy  Update on Blue Castle seismic source and fault characterization studies; Dean Ostenaa, Fugro, Inc. UGS (no Power Point PowerPoint) Note that a scheduled presentation availableby Jim McCalpin, GEO-HAZ Consulting, on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Joes Valley fault study had to be cancelled (attachment 2)  Utah paleoseismic-related USGS NEHRP FTR report compilation and some new data resources; Steve Bowman, Utah Geological Survey  Redefining “Active” faults – Proposal due to evaluate paleo-seismology studies for evidence of Holocene climatic variation and basin-ward migration of faulting; Darlene Batatian, Mountain Land Development Services, LLC inclement weather that prevented Jim from traveling to the meeting. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ITEMS No technical discussion items came before the Working Group this year. UQFPWG 2013 FAULT STUDY PRIORITIES In 2005, the UQFPWG recommended that 20 Quaternary faults/fault segments in Utah be investigated to “adequately characterize Utah’s earthquake hazard to a minimally acceptable level” (Lund, 2005). Since then, the Working Group has added an additional 11 faults/fault segments to the list: five in 2007, one in 2009, one in 2010, and four in 2011 (see table 1 below). No new faults were added to the list in 2013. The UQFPWG conducts an annual review of progress made toward investigating the faults/fault segments on their priority list. Based on that review, the Working Group establishes a short list of the highest priority faults/fault segments for future study. The list of highest priority faults/segments is published on the UGS web sitewebsite, which is then referenced by the USGS in their annual NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) request for proposals. The Working Group’s highest priority list for 2013 2014 includes: (1) Acquire new paleoseismic information for the five central segments of the Wasatch fault zone to address data gaps – e.g., (a) the rupture extent of earthquakes on the Brigham City and Salt Lake City segments, (b) long-term earthquake records for the northern Provo, southern Weber, and Salt Lake City segments, and (c) the subsurface geometry and connection of the Warm Springs and East Bench faults on the Salt Lake City segment; (2) acquire long-term earthquake record for the West Valley fault zone – Taylorsville fault; and (3) improve the long-term earthquake record for Cache Valley (East and West Cache fault zones). Table 2 shows both the 2013 highest priority fault/fault segment recommendations, and the current investigation status for all faults/fault segments identified by the UQFPWG as requiring additional study.,

Technical Presentations. The following presentations were made on current paleoseismic research and related activities in Utah (most presentations are available at xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxx.xxx).  Searching for evidence of seismic events in lacustrine sediments of Utah Lake; Ron Harris and Quincy Nickens, Brigham Young University  Automated fault scarp offset analysis Utah: • Paleoseismicity of the Nephi segment of Salt Lake City segment―Results from the Wasatch fault, Utah, utilizing LiDAR derived, high resolution DEMs; Billie Smathers, University of Utah  Update: Paleoseismic investigation of the northern and southern strands of the Nephi segmentPenrose Drive trench investigation; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Results of UGS • Update on fault trenching at the Baileys Lake site, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, UGS • Searching for evidence of seismic events in lacustrine sediments in Utah Geological Survey  Paleoseismology of the Salt Lake; Quincy Nickens, Brigham Young University • Hurricane Cliffs hydropower and Lake City segment and its seismologic relation to the West Valley Powell pipeline preliminary Quaternary fault zone; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Summary of recent consultant’s trench, Orange Street site, Taylorsville fault, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, Utah Geological Survey  Testing the role of fault segmentation in limiting earthquake magnitudes – A targeted paleoseismic investigation along the structurally segmented Wasatch fault zone; Rich Briggs, U.S. Geological Survey  Bear River fault behavior – Clues provided by LiDAR; Suzanne Hecker, U.S. Geological Survey  Evaluation of the Quaternary history of the Joes Valley fault zone, Utah – Background and update; Joanna Redwine, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation  Update on GPS monitoring of the Wasatch fault; Robert Smith, University of Utah  Large liquefaction features and evidence for earthquakes induced by Lake Bonneville in Cache Valley – A progress report; Susanne Janecke, Utah State University  New surficial geologic mapping redefines the northernmost sections of the Washington fault zone in SW Utah and NW Arizona; Tyler Knudsen, Utah Geological Survey  Results – Paleoseismic trenching investigation of the Northern (Fort Pearce) section of the Washington fault zone, SW Utah and NW Arizona; Bill Lund, Utah Geological Survey  Preliminary results from a high resolution reflection profile at Hansel Valley, Utah; Pier Bruno, University of Utah/Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy  Update on Blue Castle seismic source and fault characterization studiesinvestigation; Dean Ostenaa, Fugro, Inc. • Blue Castle licensing project; Dean Ostenaa, Fugro, Inc. • Summary of preliminary investigations of the Paunsaugunt fault, Utah; Bob Kirkham, RJH Consultants (no Power Point presentation availablePoint, hard copy handout)  Utah paleoseismic-related USGS NEHRP FTR report compilation and some new data resources; Steve Bowman, • Utah Geological Survey  Redefining “Active” faults – Proposal to evaluate paleo-seismology studies Nephi segment trenching project, June 2012: Chris DuRoss, UGS • Characterizing the central Wasatch fault zone for evidence the Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities; Chris DuRoss, UGS • Comparison of Holocene climatic variation moment rates from GPS observations and basin-ward migration of faultinglate Quaternary earthquakes on the Wasatch fault, Utah; Darlene BatatianChristine Puskas, Mountain Land Development ServicesUNAVCO • The Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities (WGUEP)―Background, LLC goals, and progress; Ivan Wong, URS Corporation • Basin and Range Province Earthquake Working Group II; Bill Lund, UGS TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ITEMS No technical • East Cache fault zone study; discussion items came before leader Bill Lund, UGS A long-standing question exists regarding the Working Group this yearstatus of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)-funded investigation titled Earthquake Timing on the Southern Segment of the East Cache Fault Zone, Utah by Utah State University (USU). UQFPWG 2013 FAULT STUDY PRIORITIES In 2005Originally approved by NEHRP in 2007 as a one-year investigation, results of the study are not yet available to the public. Cache Valley is one of Utah’s most populous regions off the Wasatch Front, and as such, the UQFPWG recommended that 20 Quaternary faults/fault segments in Utah be investigated to “adequately characterize Utah’s earthquake hazard to a minimally acceptable level” (Lund, 2005). Since then, the Working Group has added an additional 11 faults/fault segments to the list: five in 2007, one in 2009, one in 2010, and four in 2011 (see table 1 below). No new faults were added to the list in 2013. The UQFPWG conducts an annual review of progress made toward investigating the faults/fault segments on their priority list. Based on that review, the Working Group establishes a short list results of the highest priority faults/fault segments USU investigation are important to seismic-hazard reduction for future study. The list of highest priority faults/segments is published on the UGS web site, which is then referenced by the USGS in their annual NEHRP request for proposals. The Working Group’s highest priority list for 2013 includes: (1) Acquire new paleoseismic information for the five central segments of the Wasatch fault zone to address data gaps – e.g., (a) the rupture extent of earthquakes on the Brigham City and Salt Lake City segments, (b) long-term earthquake records for the northern Provo, southern Weber, and Salt Lake City segments, and (c) the subsurface geometry and connection of the Warm Springs and East Bench faults on the Salt Lake City segment; (2) acquire long-term earthquake record for the West Valley fault zone – Taylorsville fault; and (3) improve the long-term earthquake record for Cache Valley (East and West Cache fault zones). Table 2 shows both the 2013 highest priority fault/fault segment recommendations, and the current investigation status for all faults/fault segments identified by the UQFPWG as requiring additional studythat area.

Technical Presentations. The following presentations were made on current paleoseismic research and related activities in Utah (most presentations are available at xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxx.xxx).  Searching for evidence of seismic events in lacustrine sediments of Utah Lake; Ron Harris and Quincy Nickens, Brigham Young University  Automated fault scarp offset analysis of Utah: • Preliminary results from the Nephi segment of Penrose Drive trench on the Wasatch fault, Utah, utilizing LiDAR derived, high resolution DEMs; Billie Smathers, University of Utah  Update: Paleoseismic investigation of the northern and southern strands of the Nephi Salt Lake City segment; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Results of UGS • Update on fault trenching at the Baileys Lake site, West Valley fault zone; Mike Hylland, Utah Geological Survey  Paleoseismology UGS • A brief summary of recent work on the northern Nephi segment of the Salt Lake City segment and its seismologic relation to the West Wasatch fault, Utah; Daniel Horns, Utah Valley University (UVU) • Joes Valley fault zone; Lucy Piety, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) • Main Canyon and East Canyon faults; Lucy Piety, USBR • Interactive Utah Quaternary fault map demonstration; Corey Unger and Mike Hylland, UGS • HAZDOCS document archive presentation and progress report on UGS publishing USBR seismotectonic reports in the Paleoseismology of Utah series; Steve Bowman, UGS • Utah Lake faults study – Preliminary progress report as of 2/15/2011; David Dinter, University of Utah Department of Geology and Geophysics (UUGG) • Update on the Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities; Ivan Wong, URS Corp. • Integration of paleoseismic data from multiple sites to develop an objective earthquake chronology – Application to the Weber segment of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah; Chris DuRoss, Utah Geological Survey  Summary UGS • Implementation: The third dimension of recent consultant’s trenchseismic hazard mitigation; Ron Harris, Orange Street site, Taylorsville fault, West Valley fault zone; Mike HyllandBrigham Young University (BYU) A scheduled presentation by Jim Evans, Utah Geological Survey  Testing State University, on the role of East Cache fault segmentation in limiting earthquake magnitudes – A targeted paleoseismic investigation along zone trenching study was cancelled because Jim failed to attend the structurally segmented Wasatch fault zone; Rich Briggs, meeting. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ITEM • Recommendations to the U.S. Geological Survey  Bear River fault behavior – Clues provided by LiDAR; Suzanne Hecker, U.S. Geological Survey  Evaluation (USGS) for the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States regarding the Joes Valley fault zone and the East Canyon and Main Canyon (East of East Canyon) faults; discussion moderator Bill Lund, UGS Recent USBR investigations of the Joes Valley fault zone and the East Canyon and Main Canyon (East of East Canyon) faults (see xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx/xxx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxx.xxx) completed as part of seismic hazard evaluations for the Joes Valley and East Canyon dams demonstrate that (a) the Joes Valley fault zone likely consists of shallow structures (a few to five kilometers deep) that may not be seismogenic, (b) clear evidence of Quaternary history surface faulting is lacking on the East Canyon fault, and (c) the Main Canyon fault has had two surface-faulting earthquakes during the past 30,000 to 38,000 years, with the most recent earthquake likely occurring shortly before 5000 to 6000 years ago (Piety and others, 2010). The Joes Valley fault zone and East Canyon faults are currently classified as Class A faults in the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. The Main Canyon (East of East Canyon) fault is classified as a Class B fault in the database. The definitions of Class A and B faults are as follows: Class A Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of a Quaternary fault of tectonic origin, whether the fault is exposed by mapping or inferred from liquefaction or other deformational features. Class B Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of Quaternary deformation, but either (1) the fault might not extend deeply enough to be a potential source of significant earthquakes, or (2) the currently available geologic evidence is too strong to confidently assign the feature to Class C, but not strong enough to assign it to Class A. A Class C fault is defined as: Class C Geologic evidence is insufficient to demonstrate (1) the existence of tectonic faulting, or (2) Quaternary slip or deformation associated with the feature. The UQFPWG discussed the results of the USBR paleoseismic and geologic investigations for the Joes Valley fault zone and East Canyon and Main Canyon faults, and whether or not the working group should make a recommendation to the USGS to reclassify the Joes Valley fault zone and East Canyon fault as Class B faults and the Main Canyon fault as a Class A fault. Lucy Piety indicated that the USBR plans to continue studying the Joes Valley fault zone as funds and time permit (neither being presently available), because the USBR is not yet fully convinced that the fault zone is not seismogenic. Based on the USBR’s continued interest in the Joes Valley fault zone, Utah – Background and update; Joanna Redwinethe UQFPWG decided to withhold making a recommendation regarding fault reclassification pending the results of future USBR investigations. However, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation  Update on GPS monitoring of the Wasatch fault; Robert Smith, University of Utah  Large liquefaction features and evidence for earthquakes induced by Lake Bonneville it should be noted that in Cache Valley – A progress report; Susanne Janecke, Utah State University  New surficial geologic mapping redefines the northernmost sections of the Washington fault zone in SW Utah and NW Arizona; Tyler Knudsen, Utah Geological Survey  Results – Paleoseismic trenching investigation of the Northern (Fort Pearce) section of the Washington fault zone, SW Utah and NW Arizona; Bill Lund, Utah Geological Survey  Preliminary results from a high resolution reflection profile at Hansel Valley, Utah; Pier Bruno, University of Utah/Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy  Update on Blue Castle seismic source and fault characterization studies; Dean Ostenaa, Fugro, Inc. (no Power Point presentation available)  Utah paleoseismic-related USGS NEHRP FTR report compilation and some new data resources; Steve Bowman, Utah Geological Survey  Redefining “Active” faults – Proposal to evaluate paleo-seismology studies for evidence of Holocene climatic variation and basin-ward migration of faulting; Darlene Batatian, Mountain Land Development Services, LLC TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ITEMS No technical discussion items came before the Working Group this year. UQFPWG 2013 FAULT STUDY PRIORITIES In 20052004, the UQFPWG recommended that 20 Quaternary faults/fault segments in Utah be investigated to “adequately characterize Utah’s earthquake hazard to a minimally acceptable level” (Lund, 2005). Since then, the Working Group has added an additional 11 faults/fault segments to the list: five in 2007, one in 2009, one in 2010, and four in 2011 (see table 1 below). No new faults were added to the list in 2013. The UQFPWG conducts an annual review of progress made toward investigating the faults/fault segments on their priority list. Based on USGS that review, the Working Group establishes a short list of the highest priority faults/fault segments for future study. The list of highest priority faults/segments is published on the UGS web site, which is then referenced by the USGS in their annual NEHRP request for proposals. The Working Group’s highest priority list for 2013 includes: they (1) Acquire new paleoseismic information for the five central segments combine all of the Wasatch fault zone to address data gaps – e.g., (a) the rupture extent of earthquakes on the Brigham City and Salt Lake City segments, (b) long-term earthquake records for the northern Provo, southern Weber, and Salt Lake City segments, and (c) the subsurface geometry and connection various groupings of the Warm Springs and East Bench faults on the Salt Lake City segment; (2) acquire long-term earthquake record for the West Joes Valley fault zone – Taylorsville fault; and (3) improve the long-term earthquake record for Cache Valley (East and West Cache system into a single fault zones). Table 2 shows both the 2013 highest priority fault/fault segment recommendationsgroup, and the current investigation status for all faults/fault segments identified by the UQFPWG as requiring additional study.and