DOCSLIB.ORG

Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Technical Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Technical Appendices Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Technical Appendices APPENDIX E Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update Seismic Hazards, Geologic Hazards, Flooding Hazards Prepared by Earth Consultants International, Inc. 1642 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Revised September 7, 2010 June 2010 E-1 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the SAFETY ELEMENT of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARDS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS FLOODING HAZARDS Prepared by: EARTH CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1642 E. Fourth Street Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 544-5321 & (714) 412-2654 June 2010 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT TO THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE CITY of LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC HAZARDS ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 SEISMIC CONTEXT – EARTHQUAKE BASICS..................................................................................1-1 1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...........................................................................................................1-4 1.2.1 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.............................................................1-4 1.2.2 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.................................................................................1-6 1.2.3 California Building Code.........................................................................................1-6 1.2.4 Unreinforced Masonry Law.....................................................................................1-7 1.2.5 Real Estate Disclosure Requirements .......................................................................1-8 1.2.6 California Environmental Quality Act......................................................................1-9 1.3 NOTABLE PAST EARTHQUAKES ..................................................................................................1-9 1.3.1 Wrightwood Earthquake of December 8, 1812 .......................................................1-9 1.3.2 San Jacinto Earthquake of 1899...............................................................................1-9 1.3.3 San Jacinto Earthquake of 1918.............................................................................1-11 1.3.4 San Jacinto Earthquake of 1937.............................................................................1-11 1.3.5 Desert Hot Springs Earthquake of 1948.................................................................1-11 1.3.6 San Jacinto Fault Earthquake of 1954 ....................................................................1-12 1.3.7 Borrego Mountain Earthquake of 1968..................................................................1-12 1.3.8 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake of 1971 ...........................................................1-12 1.3.9 North Palm Springs Earthquake of 1986................................................................1-13 1.3.10 Elmore Ranch and Superstition Hills Earthquakes of 1987.....................................1-13 1.3.11 Joshua Tree Earthquake of 1992 ............................................................................1-13 1.3.12 Landers Earthquake of 1992..................................................................................1-14 1.3.13 Big Bear Earthquake of 1992 .................................................................................1-14 1.3.14 Hector Mine Earthquake of 1999 ..........................................................................1-14 1.3.15 Baja California Earthquake of 2010 .......................................................................1-15 1.4 SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING...................................................................................................1-15 1.4.1 San Andreas Fault Zone.........................................................................................1-24 1.4.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone...........................................................................................1-26 1.4.3 Burnt Mountain Fault ............................................................................................1-27 1.4.4 Eureka Peak Fault ..................................................................................................1-27 1.4.5 Pinto Mountain Fault.............................................................................................1-27 1.4.6 Pisgah – Bullion Mountain – Mesquite Lake Fault Zone ........................................1-28 1.4.7 Elsinore Fault Zone................................................................................................1-28 1.5 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE ......................................................................................................1-29 1.5.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................1-29 1.5.2 Faults in the La Quinta Area..................................................................................1-31 1.6 GROUND FAILURE DUE TO EARTHQUAKE SHAKING...................................................................1-31 1.6.1 Liquefaction ..........................................................................................................1-31 1.6.2 Earthquake-Induced Slope Failure .........................................................................1-35 1.6.3 Seismically Induced Settlement .............................................................................1-36 1.6.4 Deformation of Sidehill Fills..................................................................................1-37 1.6.5 Ridgetop Fissuring and Shattering..........................................................................1-37 1.7 OTHER POTENTIAL SEISMIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................1-38 1.7.1 Seiches..................................................................................................................1-38 1.7.2 Tsunami ................................................................................................................1-39 1.8 VULNERABILITY OF STRUCTURES TO EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE.......................................................1-40 1.8.1 Unreinforced Masonry Structures ..........................................................................1-44 1.8.2 Soft-Story Buildings ...............................................................................................1-44 1.8.3 Wood-Frame Structures.........................................................................................1-45 1.8.4 Pre-Cast Concrete Structures .................................................................................1-45 Earth Consultants International Table of Contents Page i 2010 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT TO THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE CITY of LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page No. 1.8.5 Tilt-up Buildings....................................................................................................1-46 1.8.6 Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings ...................................................................1-46 1.8.7 Multi-Story Steel Frame Buildings..........................................................................1-46 1.8.8 Mobile Homes......................................................................................................1-46 1.8.9 Combination Types ...............................................................................................1-47 1.9 EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO AND LOSS ESTIMATIONS .....................................................................1-47 1.9.1 Building Damage ..................................................................................................1-52 1.9.2 Casualties..............................................................................................................1-56 1.9.3 Damage to Critical and Essential Facilities ............................................................1-58 1.9.4 Economic Losses ...................................................................................................1-61 1.9.5 Transportation Damage.........................................................................................1-62 1.9.6 Utility Systems Damage.........................................................................................1-63 1.9.7 Shelter Needs ........................................................................................................1-65 1.10 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................1-66 CHAPTER 2: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTING…………………………………………………………. 2-1 2.2 EARTH UNITS AND THEIR ENGINEERING PROPERTIES ..................................................................2-2 2.2.1 Alluvial Sand and Gravel (map symbol: Qg)............................................................2-2 2.2.2 Windblown Sand (map symbol: Qs) .......................................................................2-4 2.2.3 Alluvial Deposits (map symbol: Qa) ........................................................................2-4 2.2.4 Interbedded Lacustrine and Alluvial Deposits (map symbol Ql/Qa).........................2-4 2.2.5 Alluvial Fan Deposits (map symbol: Qf) ..................................................................2-4 2.2.6 Landslide Deposits (map symbol: Qls).....................................................................2-5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 3.3 Geology Jan 09 02 ER Rev4
    3.3 Geology and Soils 3.3.1 Introduction and Summary Table 3.3-1 summarizes the geology and soils impacts for the Proposed Project and alternatives. TABLE 3.3-1 Summary of Geology and Soils Impacts1 Alternative 2: 130 KAFY Proposed Project: On-farm Irrigation Alternative 3: 300 KAFY System 230 KAFY Alternative 4: All Conservation Alternative 1: Improvements All Conservation 300 KAFY Measures No Project Only Measures Fallowing Only LOWER COLORADO RIVER No impacts. Continuation of No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. existing conditions. IID WATER SERVICE AREA AND AAC GS-1: Soil erosion Continuation of A2-GS-1: Soil A3-GS-1: Soil A4-GS-1: Soil from construction existing conditions. erosion from erosion from erosion from of conservation construction of construction of fallowing: Less measures: Less conservation conservation than significant than significant measures: Less measures: Less impact with impact. than significant than significant mitigation. impact. impact. GS-2: Soil erosion Continuation of No impact. A3-GS-2: Soil No impact. from operation of existing conditions. erosion from conservation operation of measures: Less conservation than significant measures: Less impact. than significant impact. GS-3: Reduction Continuation of A2-GS-2: A3-GS-3: No impact. of soil erosion existing conditions. Reduction of soil Reduction of soil from reduction in erosion from erosion from irrigation: reduction in reduction in Beneficial impact. irrigation: irrigation: Beneficial impact. Beneficial impact. GS-4: Ground Continuation of A2-GS-3: Ground A3-GS-4: Ground No impact. acceleration and existing conditions. acceleration and acceleration and shaking: Less than shaking: Less than shaking: Less than significant impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report
    I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION Y ORBA L INDA B OULEVARD W IDENING I MPROVEMENTS P ROJECT S EPTEMBER 2020 Y ORBA L INDA, C ALIFORNIA APPENDIX F STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT P:\HNT1901.02 - Yorba Linda\Draft ISMND\Draft ISMND_Yorba Linda Blvd Widening Improvements Project_9.18.20.docx «09/18/20» Y ORBA L INDA B OULEVARD W IDENING I MPROVEMENTS P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION Y ORBA L INDA, C ALIFORNIA S EPTEMBER 2020 This page intentionally left blank P:\HNT1901.02 - Yorba Linda\Draft ISMND\Draft ISMND_Yorba Linda Blvd Widening Improvements Project_9.18.20.docx «09/18/20» Earth Mechanics, Inc. Geotechnical & Earthquake Engineering November 13, 2019 EMI Project No. 19-143 HNTB 200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 Attention: Mr. Patrick Somerville Subject: Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yorba Linda Blvd Bridge over Santa Ana River (Widen), Bridge No. 55C-0509 Yorba Linda Boulevard and Savi Ranch Parkway Widening Project City of Yorba Linda, California Dear Mr. Somerville: Attached is our Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR) for the proposed widening of the Yorba Linda Boulevard Bridge over the Santa Ana River (Bridge No. 55C-0509) in the City of Yorba Linda, California. The bridge widening is part of the Yorba Linda Boulevard and Savi Ranch Parkway Widening Project. This report was prepared to support the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA-ED) phase of the project. The SPGR includes information required by the 2017 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Foundation Reports for Bridges document.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-44568-9 — Active Faults of the World Robert Yeats Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-44568-9 — Active Faults of the World Robert Yeats Index More Information Index Abancay Deflection, 201, 204–206, 223 Allmendinger, R. W., 206 Abant, Turkey, earthquake of 1957 Ms 7.0, 286 allochthonous terranes, 26 Abdrakhmatov, K. Y., 381, 383 Alpine fault, New Zealand, 482, 486, 489–490, 493 Abercrombie, R. E., 461, 464 Alps, 245, 249 Abers, G. A., 475–477 Alquist-Priolo Act, California, 75 Abidin, H. Z., 464 Altay Range, 384–387 Abiz, Iran, fault, 318 Alteriis, G., 251 Acambay graben, Mexico, 182 Altiplano Plateau, 190, 191, 200, 204, 205, 222 Acambay, Mexico, earthquake of 1912 Ms 6.7, 181 Altunel, E., 305, 322 Accra, Ghana, earthquake of 1939 M 6.4, 235 Altyn Tagh fault, 336, 355, 358, 360, 362, 364–366, accreted terrane, 3 378 Acocella, V., 234 Alvarado, P., 210, 214 active fault front, 408 Álvarez-Marrón, J. M., 219 Adamek, S., 170 Amaziahu, Dead Sea, fault, 297 Adams, J., 52, 66, 71–73, 87, 494 Ambraseys, N. N., 226, 229–231, 234, 259, 264, 275, Adria, 249, 250 277, 286, 288–290, 292, 296, 300, 301, 311, 321, Afar Triangle and triple junction, 226, 227, 231–233, 328, 334, 339, 341, 352, 353 237 Ammon, C. J., 464 Afghan (Helmand) block, 318 Amuri, New Zealand, earthquake of 1888 Mw 7–7.3, 486 Agadir, Morocco, earthquake of 1960 Ms 5.9, 243 Amurian Plate, 389, 399 Age of Enlightenment, 239 Anatolia Plate, 263, 268, 292, 293 Agua Blanca fault, Baja California, 107 Ancash, Peru, earthquake of 1946 M 6.3 to 6.9, 201 Aguilera, J., vii, 79, 138, 189 Ancón fault, Venezuela, 166 Airy, G.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.4 Geology and Soils
    BEACH BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR CITY OF ANAHEIM 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (Proposed Project) to impact geological and soil resources in the City of Anaheim. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972. Its primary purpose is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act delineates “Earthquake Fault Zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” The act also requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the state in 1990 to protect the public from the effects of nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the act is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Race to Seismic Safety Protecting California’S Transportation System
    THE RACE TO SEISMIC SAFETY PROTECTING CALIFORNIA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Submitted to the Director, California Department of Transportation by the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Joseph Penzien, Chairman December 2003 The Board of Inquiry has identified three essential challenges that must be addressed by the citizens of California, if they expect a future adequately safe from earthquakes: 1. Ensure that earthquake risks posed by new construction are acceptable. 2. Identify and correct unacceptable seismic safety conditions in existing structures. 3. Develop and implement actions that foster the rapid, effective, and economic response to and recovery from damaging earthquakes. Competing Against Time Governor’s Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake It is the policy of the State of California that seismic safety shall be given priority consideration in the allo- cation of resources for transportation construction projects, and in the design and construction of all state structures, including transportation structures and public buildings. Governor George Deukmejian Executive Order D-86-90, June 2, 1990 The safety of every Californian, as well as the economy of our state, dictates that our highway system be seismically sound. That is why I have assigned top priority to seismic retrofit projects ahead of all other highway spending. Governor Pete Wilson Remarks on opening of the repaired Santa Monica Freeway damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, April 11, 1994 The Seismic Advisory Board believes that the issues of seismic safety and performance of the state’s bridges require Legislative direction that is not subject to administrative change. The risk is not in doubt. Engineering, common sense, and knowledge from prior earthquakes tells us that the consequences of the 1989 and 1994 earthquakes, as devastating as they were, were small when compared to what is likely when a large earthquake strikes directly under an urban area, not at its periphery.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Geological Records of Large Tsunamis at Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and Implications for Hazard John J
    Quaternary Science Reviews 19 (2000) 849}863 A review of geological records of large tsunamis at Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and implications for hazard John J. Clague! " *, Peter T. Bobrowsky#, Ian Hutchinson$ !Depatment of Earth Sciences and Institute for Quaternary Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 "Geological Survey of Canada, 101 - 605 Robson St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 5J3 #Geological Survey Branch, P.O. Box 9320, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 9N3 $Department of Geography and Institute for Quaternary Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada BC V5A 1S6 Abstract Large tsunamis strike the British Columbia coast an average of once every several hundred years. Some of the tsunamis, including one from Alaska in 1964, are the result of distant great earthquakes. Most, however, are triggered by earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone, which extends along the Paci"c coast from Vancouver Island to northern California. Evidence of these tsunamis has been found in tidal marshes and low-elevation coastal lakes on western Vancouver Island. The tsunamis deposited sheets of sand and gravel now preserved in sequences of peat and mud. These sheets commonly contain marine fossils, and they thin and "ne landward, consistent with deposition by landward surges of water. They occur in low-energy settings where other possible depositional processes, such as stream #ooding and storm surges, can be ruled out. The most recent large tsunami generated by an earthquake at the Cascadia subduction zone has been dated in Washington and Japan to AD 1700. The spatial distribution of the deposits of the 1700 tsunami, together with theoretical numerical modelling, indicate wave run-ups of up to 5 m asl along the outer coast of Vancouver Island and up to 15}20 m asl at the heads of some inlets.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Study Connects Southern California, Mexico Faults 10 October 2018, by Esprit Smith
    NASA study connects Southern California, Mexico faults 10 October 2018, by Esprit Smith fault zone that is still developing, where repeated earthquakes have not yet created a smoother, single fault instead of several strands. The Ocotillo section was the site of a magnitude 5.7 aftershock that ruptured on a 5-mile-long (8-kilometer-long) fault buried under the California desert two months after the 2010 El Mayor- Cucapah earthquake in Baja California, Mexico. The magnitude 7.2 earthquake caused severe damage in the Mexican city of Mexicali and was felt throughout Southern California. It and its aftershocks caused dozens of faults in the region—including many not previously identified—to move. The California desert near the connecting fault segment. Credit: Oleg/IMG_6747_8_9_tonemapped A multiyear study has uncovered evidence that a 21-mile-long (34-kilometer-long) section of a fault links known, longer faults in Southern California and northern Mexico into a much longer continuous system. The entire system is at least 217 miles (350 kilometers) long. Knowing how faults are connected helps scientists understand how stress transfers between faults. Ultimately, this helps researchers understand whether an earthquake on one section of a fault would rupture multiple fault sections, resulting in a much larger earthquake. A team led by scientist Andrea Donnellan of The approximate location of the newly mapped Ocotillo NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, section, which ties together California's Elsinore fault and California, recognized that the south end of Mexico's Laguna Salada fault into one continuous fault system. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech California's Elsinore fault is linked to the north end of the Laguna Salada fault system, just north of the international border with Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Paleo-Tsunami Deposits During the Last 4000 Years and Their
    Ishimura and Miyauchi Progress in Earth and Planetary Science (2015) 2:16 DOI 10.1186/s40645-015-0047-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Historical and paleo-tsunami deposits during the last 4000 years and their correlations with historical tsunami events in Koyadori on the Sanriku Coast, northeastern Japan Daisuke Ishimura1* and Takahiro Miyauchi2 Abstract Large tsunamis occurring throughout the past several hundred years along the Sanriku Coast on the Pacific coast of northeastern Japan have been documented and observed. However, the risk of large tsunamis like the tsunami generated by the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake could not be evaluated from previous studies, because these studies lacked evidence of historical and paleo-tsunami deposits on the coastline. Thus, we first identified event deposits, which are candidates for tsunami deposits, from excavating surveys conducted on the coastal marsh in Koyadori on the Sanriku Coast, northeastern Japan. Second, we determined the physicochemical sediment properties of the deposits (roundness of grains, color, wet and dry densities, and loss on ignition) and established their geochronology by radiocarbon dating and tephra analysis. Third, we identified event deposits as tsunami deposits, based on their sedimentary features and origin, sedimentary environment, paleo-shoreline, and landowner interviews. In this study, we report 11 tsunami deposits (E1–E11) during the past 4000 years, of which E1, E2, E3, and E4 were correlated with the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami, the 1896 Meiji Sanriku tsunami, the 1611 Keicho Sanriku tsunami, and the 869 Jogan tsunami, respectively. From age data and the number of tsunami deposits in the trench, we estimated that tsunamis larger than the 1896 Meiji Sanriku tsunami occur and hit the study area on average every 290–390 years.
    [Show full text]
  • JONATHAN DONALD BRAY Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence Professor of Geotechnical Engineering University of California at Berkeley
    JONATHAN DONALD BRAY Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence Professor of Geotechnical Engineering University of California at Berkeley Office Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 453 Davis Hall, MC-1710 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1710 Office Phone: (510) 642-9843 Cell Phone: (925) 212-7842 E-Mail: [email protected] EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Berkeley, California Ph.D. in Geotechnical Engineering, 1990 STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Palo Alto, California M.S. in Structural Engineering, 1981 UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, West Point, New York B.S., 1980 AWARDS AND HONORS National Academy of Engineering, elected in 2015. Mueser Rutledge Lecture, American Society of Civil Engineers Metropolitan Section, New York, 2014 Ralph B. Peck Award, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013 Fulbright Award, U.S. Fulbright Scholarship to New Zealand, 2013 William B. Joyner Lecture Award, Seismological Society of America & Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2012 Erskine Fellow, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2012 Thomas A. Middlebrooks Award, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010 Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006 Shamsher Prakash Research Award, Shamsher Prakash Foundation, 1999 Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Forensic Engineering Outstanding Paper Award, 1995 North American Geosynthetics Society - State of the Practice Award of Excellence, 1995 North American Geosynthetics Society - Geotechnical Engineering Technology Award of Excellence, 1993 David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engineering, 1992-1997 Presidential Young Investigator Award, National Science Foundation, 1991-1996 American Society of Civil Engineers Trent R. Dames and William W.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregory C. Beroza Department of Geophysics, 397 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305-2215 Phone: (650)723-4958 — Fax: (650)725-7344 — E-Mail: [email protected]
    Gregory C. Beroza Department of Geophysics, 397 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305-2215 Phone: (650)723-4958 Fax: (650)725-7344 E-Mail: [email protected] Positions • Wayne Loel Professor of Earth Sciences, Stanford University 2008-present • Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 2003-present • Associate Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 1994-2003 • Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University 1990-1994 • Postdoctoral Associate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1989-1990 Education Ph.D. Geophysics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1989 B.S. Earth Sciences, University of California at Santa Cruz 1982 Honors and Awards • Lawson Lecturer, University of California Berkeley 2015 • Beno Gutenberg Medal, European Geosciences Union 2014 • Citation, Geophysical Research Letters, 40th Anniversary Collection 2014 • IRIS/SSA Distinguished Lecturer 2012 • RIT Distinguished Lecturer 2011 • Wayne Loel Professor of Earth Sciences 2009 • Brinson Lecturer, Carnegie Institute of Washington 2008 • Fellow, American Geophysical Union 2008 • NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award 1991 • NSF Graduate Fellowship 1983 • ARCS Foundation Scholarship 1983 • UCSC Chancellor’s Award for Undergraduates 1983 • Outstanding Undergraduate in Earth Science 1983 • Highest Honors in the Major 1982 • Undergraduate Thesis Honors 1982 Recent Professional Activities • Associate Editor, Science Advances 2016-present • AGU Seismology Section President 2015-present • IRIS Industry Working Group 2015-present Gregory C. Beroza Page 2 • Co-Director,
    [Show full text]
  • TSUNAMIGENIC SOURCES in the INDIAN OCEAN R. K. Jaiswal , B. K
    TSUNAMIGENIC SOURCES IN THE INDIAN OCEAN 1 1 2 R. K. Jaiswal , B. K. Rastogi & Tad S. Murty 1 Institute of Seismological Research, Gandhinagar-382 018, Gujarat (India) 2 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Based on an assessment of the repeat periods of great earthquakes from past seismicity, convergence rates and paleoseismological results, possible future source zones of tsunami generating earthquakes in the Indian Ocean (possible seismic gap areas) are identified along subduction zones and zones of compression. Central Sumatra, Java, Makran coast, Indus Delta, Kutch-Saurashtra, Bangladesh and southern Myanmar are identified as possible source zones of earthquakes in near future which might cause tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, and in particular, that could affect India. The Sunda Arc (covering Sumatra and Java) subduction zone, situated on the eastern side of the Indian Ocean, is one of the most active plate margins in the world that generates frequent great earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. The Andaman- Nicobar group of islands is also a seismically active zone that generates frequent earthquakes. However, northern Sumatra and Andaman-Nicobar regions are assessed to be probably free from great earthquakes (M!8.0) for a few decades due to occurrence of 2004 Mw 9.3 and 2005 Mw 8.7 earthquakes. The Krakatau volcanic eruptions have caused large tsunamis in the past. This volcano and a few others situated on the ocean bed can cause large tsunamis in the future. List of past tsunamis generated due to earthquakes/volcanic eruptions that affected the Indian region and vicinity in the Indian Ocean are also presented.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2010-1333 and CGS SR
    Prepared in cooperation with the California Geological Survey; University of Oregon; University of Colorado; University of California, San Diego; and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Triggered Surface Slips in Southern California Associated with the 2010 El Mayor-Cucapah, Baja California, Mexico, Earthquake SALTON SEA Open-File Report 2010-1333 Jointly published as California Geological Survey Special Report 221 U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER Landsat satellite image (LE70390372003084EDC00) showing location of surface slip triggered along faults in the greater Salton Trough area. Red bars show the generalized location of 2010 surface slip along faults in the central Salton Trough and many additional faults in the southwestern section of the Salton Trough. Surface slip in the central Salton Trough shown only where verified in the field; slip in the southwestern section of the Salton Trough shown where verified in the field or inferred from UAVSAR images. Triggered Surface Slips in Southern California Associated with the 2010 El Mayor-Cucapah, Baja California, Mexico, Earthquake By Michael J. Rymer, Jerome A. Treiman, Katherine J. Kendrick, James J. Lienkaemper, Ray J. Weldon, Roger Bilham, Meng Wei, Eric J. Fielding, Janis L. Hernandez, Brian P. E. Olson, Pamela J. Irvine, Nichole Knepprath, Robert R. Sickler, Xiaopeng Tong, and Martin E. Siem Prepared in cooperation with the California Geological Survey; University of Oregon; University of Colorado; University of California, San Diego; and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Open-File Report 2010–1333 Jointly published as California Geological Survey Special Report 221 U.S. Department of Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]