DOCSLIB.ORG

Earthquakes and Geologic Hazards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Earthquakes and Geologic Hazards CHAPTER 6–EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS CHAPTER 6 – EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: RISKS AND MITIGATION CHAPTER CONTENT 6.1 Earthquake Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment 6.1.1 Identifying Earthquake Hazards 6.1.2 Profiling Earthquake Hazards 6.1.3 Assessment of State Earthquake Vulnerability and Potential Losses 6.1.4 Assessment of Local Earthquake Vulnerability and Potential Losses 6.1.5 Current Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Efforts 6.1.6 Additional Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Opportunities 6.2 Landslide and Other Earth Movements Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment 6.2.1 Identifying Landslide Hazards 6.2.2 Profiling Landslide Hazards 6.2.3 Assessment of Landslide Vulnerability and Potential Losses 6.2.4 Current Landslide Hazard Mitigation Efforts 6.3 Volcano Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment 6.3.1 Identifying and Profiling Volcano Hazards 6.3.2 Assessment of Volcano Vulnerability and Potential Losses 6.3.3 Current Volcano Hazard Mitigation Efforts 6.3.4 Additional Volcano Hazard Mitigation Opportunities About Chapter 6 Chapter 6 assesses earthquake and geologic hazards. Earthquake is considered one of the three primary hazards, as explained in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) Chapter 1. This chapter discusses hazards from earthquakes; landslides and other earth movements, and volcanoes. For more information on the criteria and template used for hazard risk assessments and a discussion of the hazard classification system, see Chapter 1: Introduction, Section 1.2.3. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS, VULNERABILITY, AND RISK ASSESSMENT This section addresses earthquakes as one of three primary hazards noted in the classification system introduced in Chapter 1: Introduction, Section, 1.2 Plan Overview. This risk analysis includes information identifying the following dimensions of this hazard: Overview of earthquake hazard Locations within the state (i.e., geographic areas) that are affected Previous occurrences within the state and the probability of future events (i.e., chances of recurrence) Seismic vulnerability and loss assessment efforts Current and future seismic mitigation efforts IDENTIFYING EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS Overview Earthquakes represent the most destructive source of hazards, risk, and vulnerability, both in terms of recent state history and the probability of future destruction of greater magnitudes than previously recorded. CALIFORNIA STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN │ SEPTEMBER 2018 SECTION 6.1- PAGE 243 CHAPTER 6–EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquakes are a significant concern for California for several reasons. First, California has a chronic and destructive earthquake history. Second, California has widespread earthquake vulnerability as indicated by California Geological Survey (CGS) mapping of potential earthquake shaking intensity zones, with these zones commonly located near populated areas. Third, nearly all local governments that have submitted Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) have identified earthquakes as a hazard of importance. In addition to shaking, buildings are also vulnerable to ground displacements associated with primary fault rupture, liquefaction, differential settlement, and landslides. Inundations from tsunamis, seiches, and dam failures can also be major sources of loss to buildings and infrastructure. Causes of Earthquakes: Plate Tectonics California is seismically active because it sits on the boundary between two of the earth’s tectonic plates. Most of the state—everything east of the San Andreas Fault—is on the North American Plate. The cities of Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego are on the Pacific Plate, which is constantly moving northwest past the North American Plate. The relative rate of movement is about 2 inches (50 millimeters) per year. The San Andreas Fault is considered the boundary between the two plates, although some of the motion (also known as slip) is taken up on faults as far away as central Utah. There are over 15,000 identified faults in California. Over 200 of these identified faults are considered very dangerous based on their slip rates in recent geological time (the last 10,000 years).96 More than 70 percent of the state's 40 million people reside within 30 miles of a known fault where strong ground shaking could occur in the next 30 years. The motion between the Pacific and North American Plates occurs primarily on the faults of the San Andreas system and the eastern California shear zone. Faults are more likely to have future earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Nearly all movement between the two plates is on active faults. The San Andreas Fault is not the only significant fault/plate boundary in California. The seismicity north of Cape Mendocino is controlled by faults associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a large offshore fault system that separates the Juan de Fuca Plate to the west and the North American Plate to the east. This area is the most seismically active portion of the state. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is capable of producing great earthquakes (magnitudes greater than 8.0) and last ruptured in the year 1700, causing what was likely an earthquake in the Magnitude 9.0 range. The subduction zone is also capable of generating a large tsunami. Earthquake Hazards: Shaking Overview Damage due to ground shaking accounts for significant amount of all building losses in typical earthquakes. Building damage can be both structural and/or non-structural (i.e., damage to building contents) and both types of damage can cause injury or loss of life. More than 70 percent of the state's 40 million people reside within 30 miles of a known fault where strong ground shaking could occur in the next 30 years. Amplification of Seismic Shaking Although seismic waves radiate from their source like ripples on a pond, the radiation is not uniform due to the complex nature of an earthquake rupture, different paths the waves follow through the earth, and different rock and soil layers near the earth’s surface. Large earthquakes begin to rupture at their hypocenter and the fault ruptures outward from that point. Because the speed of an earthquake rupture on a fault is similar to the speed of seismic waves, waves closer to the epicenter can be compounded by waves from farther along the rupture, creating 96 Uniform Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF 3 – 2014) CALIFORNIA STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN │ SEPTEMBER 2018 SECTION 6.1- PAGE 244 CHAPTER 6–EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS a pulse of very strong seismic waves that move along the fault in the direction of the fault rupture. Seismic waves may also be modified as they travel through the earth’s crust. Shaking from the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake was concentrated to the north, toward San Francisco and Oakland, possibly due to the reflection of seismic waves off the base of the earth’s crust. As seismic waves approach the ground surface, they commonly enter areas of loose soils where the waves travel more slowly. As the waves slow down, their amplitude increases, resulting in larger waves with frequencies that are more likely to damage structures. Waves can also be trapped within soft sediments between the ground surface and deep, hard basement rocks, their destructive energy multiplying as they bounce back and forth producing much greater shaking at the ground surface. The CGS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recorded large ground waves at many locations during both the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Topography can also affect the local intensity of earthquake shaking. Topographic highs, such as hills and ridges, enhance shaking and topographic lows, such as valleys, lessen shaking. This phenomenon has been observed in many earthquakes, and “topographic amplification” was quite pronounced in the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake where most of the shaking damage to residential structures occurred at the tops of hills. Loma Prieta Earthquake Damage, San Francisco, 1989 Source: U.S .Geological Survey Unexpectedly large seismic ground waves and their resulting damage may be produced from a relatively distant earthquake. Shaking from the 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake in the Mojave Desert produced seismic waves with amplitudes of up to 15 centimeters in the Los Angeles basin, more than 200 kilometers from the epicenter. While there was little damage from the Hector Mine Earthquake, other large earthquakes have caused damage in distant places. For example, Nevada’s 1954 Dixie Valley Earthquake resulted in damage to critical facilities in Sacramento due to water sloshing. CALIFORNIA STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN │ SEPTEMBER 2018 SECTION 6.1- PAGE 245 CHAPTER 6–EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Map 6.A: Historic Earthquakes In and Near California by Magnitude (1769-2017) Map 6.A shows the pattern and selected dates of earthquakes in and near California during the past 240 years. CALIFORNIA STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN │ SEPTEMBER 2018 SECTION 6.1- PAGE 246 CHAPTER 6–EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquake Hazards: Ground Failure Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground often accompany large earthquakes. Although not as pervasive or as costly as the shaking itself, these ground failures can significantly increase damage and under certain circumstances can be the dominant cause of damage. Studies after the 1994 Northridge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkstorm Scenario: California's Other "Big One"
    The San Bernardino County Museum Guest Lecture Series The ARkStorm Scenario: California’s other “Big One” Lucy Jones • U. S. Geological Survey Wednesday, January 25, 2012 • 7:30pm • Free Admission Landslides and debris flows. Coastal innundation and flooding. Infrastructure damage. Pollution. Dr. Lucy Jones will give an overview of the ARkStorm Scenario—catastrophic flooding resulting from a month-long deluge like was seen in 1862, and four larger such events in the past 100 years. This type of storm, resulting from atmospheric rivers of moisture, is plausible, and a smaller version hit San Bernardino in December of 2010 with a week’s worth of rain that impacted Highland and the surrounding communities. The ARkStorm Scenario explores the resulting impacts to our social structure and can be used to understand how California’s “other” Big One can be more expensive than a large San Andreas earthquake. Dr. Lucy Jones has been a seismologist with the US Geological Survey and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. She currently serves as the Science Advisor for the Natural Hazards Mission of the US Geological Survey, leading the long-term science planning for natural hazards research. She also leads the SAFRR Project: Science Application for Risk Reduction to apply USGS science to reduce risk in communities across the nation. Dr. Jones has written more than 90 papers on research seismology with primary interest in the physics of earthquakes, foreshocks, and earthquake hazard assessment, especially in southern California. She serves on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and was a Commissioner of the California Seismic Safety Commission from 2002 to 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Flooding
    ATM 10 Severe and Unusual Weather Prof. Richard Grotjahn L 18/19 http://canvas.ucdavis.edu Lecture 18 topics: • Hurricanes – what is a hurricane – what conditions favor their formation? – what is the internal hurricane structure? – where do they occur? – why are they important? – when are those conditions met? – what are they called? – What are their life stages? – What does the ranking mean? – What causes the damage? Time lapse of the – (Reading) Some notorious storms 2005 Hurricane Season – How to stay safe? Note the water temperature • Video clips (colors) change behind hurricanes (black tracks) (Hurricane-2005_summer_clouds-SST.mpg) Reading: Notorious Storms • Atlantic hurricanes are referred to by name. – Why? • Notorious storms have their name ‘retired’ © AFP Notorious storms: progress and setbacks • August-September 1900 Galveston, Texas: 8,000 dead, the deadliest in U.S. history. • September 1906 Hong Kong: 10,000 dead. • September 1928 South Florida: 1,836 dead. • September 1959 Central Japan: 4,466 dead. • August 1969 Hurricane Camille, Southeast U.S.: 256 dead. • November 1970 Bangladesh: 300,000 dead. • April 1991 Bangladesh: 70,000 dead. • August 1992 Hurricane Andrew, Florida and Louisiana: 24 dead, $25 billion in damage. • October/November 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Honduras: ~20,000 dead. • August 2005 Hurricane Katrina, FL, AL, MS, LA: >1800 dead, >$133 billion in damage • May 2008 Tropical Cyclone Nargis, Burma (Myanmar): >146,000 dead. Some Notorious (Atlantic) Storms Tracks • Camille • Gilbert • Mitch • Andrew • Not shown: – 2004 season (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) – Katrina (Wilma & Rita) (2005) – Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Florence & Michael (2018) Hurricane Camille • 14-19 August 1969 • Category 5 at landfall – for 24 hours – peak winds 165 kts (190mph @ landfall) – winds >155kts for 18 hrs – min SLP 905 mb (26.73”) – 143 perished along gulf coast, – another 113 in Virginia Hurricane Andrew • 23-26 August 1992 • Category 5 at landfall • first Category 5 to hit US since Camille • affected S.
    [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]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022
    CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022 Hazard Mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. ~ Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (§206.401) Adopted by the City Council xxxx xx, 2017 Table of Contents APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... II MAPS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ II TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ III HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... IV PART 1 — INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Recent Movements of the Juan De Fuca Plate System
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 89, NO. B8, PAGES 6980-6994, AUGUST 10, 1984 Recent Movements of the Juan de Fuca Plate System ROBIN RIDDIHOUGH! Earth PhysicsBranch, Pacific GeoscienceCentre, Departmentof Energy, Mines and Resources Sidney,British Columbia Analysis of the magnetic anomalies of the Juan de Fuca plate system allows instantaneouspoles of rotation relative to the Pacific plate to be calculatedfrom 7 Ma to the present.By combiningthese with global solutions for Pacific/America and "absolute" (relative to hot spot) motions, a plate motion sequencecan be constructed.This sequenceshows that both absolute motions and motions relative to America are characterizedby slower velocitieswhere younger and more buoyant material enters the convergencezone: "pivoting subduction."The resistanceprovided by the youngestportion of the Juan de Fuca plate apparently resulted in its detachmentat 4 Ma as the independentExplorer plate. In relation to the hot spot framework, this plate almost immediately began to rotate clockwisearound a pole close to itself such that its translational movement into the mantle virtually ceased.After 4 Ma the remainder of the Juan de Fuca plate adjusted its motion in responseto the fact that the youngest material entering the subductionzone was now to the south. Differencesin seismicityand recent uplift betweennorthern and southernVancouver Island may reflect a distinction in tectonicstyle betweenthe "normal" subductionof the Juan de Fuca plate to the south and a complex "underplating"occurring as the Explorer plate is overriddenby the continent.The history of the Explorer plate may exemplifythe conditionsunder which the self-drivingforces of small subductingplates are overcomeby the influenceof larger, adjacent plates. The recent rapid migration of the absolutepole of rotation of the Juan de Fuca plate toward the plate suggeststhat it, too, may be nearingthis condition.
    [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]
  • Presentation
    Severe Weather in North America Peter Hoeppe, Head Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre, Munich Re ECSS 2013, Helsinki, June 3, 2013 US Insurance Survey April 2013 Participants: 81 CEOs of US Primary Insurers What are the 3 most critical issues facing the primary insurance industry today? Issue Rank Low interest rates and capital market returns 1st (64%) Natural catastrophes/weather events 2nd (51%) Price competition 3rd (43%) Multiple responses allowed. Does not add to 100%. MR NatCatSERVICE The world‘s largest database on natural catastrophes The Database Today . From 1980 until today all loss events; for USA and selected countries in Europe all loss events since 1970. Retrospectively, all great disasters since 1950. In addition, all major historical events starting from 79 AD – eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (3,000 historical data sets). Currently more than 32,000 data sets 3 NatCatSERVICE Weather catastrophes worldwide 1980 – 2012 Percentage distribution – ordered by continent 18,200 Loss events 1,405,000 Fatalities 4% <1% 1% 8% 25% 11% 30% 41% 6% 43% 9% 22% Overall losses* US$ 2,800bn Insured losses* US$ 855bn 3% 3% 9% 31% 46% 18% 1% 16% 70% 3% *in 2012 values *in 2012 values Africa Asia Australia/Oceania Europe North America, South America incl. Central America and Caribbean © 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE – As at January 2013 Global Natural Catastrophe Update Natural catastrophes worldwide 2012 Insured losses US$ 65bn - Percentage distribution per continent 5% 91% <3% <1% <1% Continent
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing
    Constructing Mimi Hughes (NOAA), Tapash Das (SIO), Dale Cox (USGS) Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project • Fire / Debris Flow 2007 Post Fire Coordination • Earthquake / Tsunami Earthquake Scenario • Winter Storm Winter Storm Scenario • Information Interface Community Interface, Implementation, Tools and Training The Great Southern California ShakeOut • A week-long series of events to inspire southern Californians to improve their earthquake resiliency; >6 million participants • Based on a scenario of a major southern San Andreas earthquake designed by the USGS for California Office of Homeland Security’s Golden Guardian exercise, Nov 2008, Oct 2009, Oct 2010, … • December 24, 1861 through Jan 21, 1862: nearly unbroken rains • Central Valley flooding over about 300 mi long, 12 – 60 mi wide • Most of LA basin reported as “generally inundated” • San Gabriel & San Diego Rivers cut new paths to sea • 420% of normal-January precipitation in Sacramento in Jan 1862 • 300% of normal-January precipitation fell in K Street Sacramento, looking east San Diego in Jan 1862 • No way of knowing how intense the rains were, but they were exceptionally large in total and prolonged. • Implication: Prolonged storm episodes are a plausible mechanism for winter-storm disaster conditions in California • Implication: A combined NorCal+SoCal extreme event is plausible. 12 days separated the flood crest in Sacramento from the crest in Los Angeles in Jan 1862 Generating the scenario details Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) model’s nested grids Mimi Hughes, NOAA/ESRL,V at the helm From James Done, NCAR ARkStorm Precipitation Totals Daily Precipitation at three locations 6” 20” 20” Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing Ratio of VIC-simulated ARkStorm Runoff vs Historical Periods (1969, 1986) Runoff Maximum Daily Runoff Total Runoff Recurrence Intervals of Maximum 3-day Runoff (relative to WY1916-2003 Historical Simulation) Summary of ARkStorm Meteorological Events Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismicity Remotely Triggered by the Magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake Author(S): D
    Seismicity Remotely Triggered by the Magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake Author(s): D. P. Hill, P. A. Reasenberg, A. Michael, W. J. Arabaz, G. Beroza, D. Brumbaugh, J. N. Brune, R. Castro, S. Davis, D. dePolo, W. L. Ellsworth, J. Gomberg, S. Harmsen, L. House, S. M. Jackson, M. J. S. Johnston, L. Jones, R. Keller, S. Malone, L. Munguia, S. Nava, J. C. Pechmann, A. Sanford, R. W. Simpson, R. B. Smith, M. Stark, M. Stickney, A. Vidal, S. Walter, V. Wong and J. Zollweg Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 260, No. 5114 (Jun. 11, 1993), pp. 1617-1623 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2881709 . Accessed: 28/10/2013 21:58 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:58:06 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ............................................---.----..;- Rv'>'E S5'5.' EA ; a ar"T I_Cl E few tens of kilometersor less of the induc- Seismicity Remotely Triggered by ing source (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County San Mateo County
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. M A Y - 2 0 1 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................2 Background & Collaboration...............................................................................................3 The Landscape .....................................................................................................................6 The Wildfire Problem ..........................................................................................................8 Fire History Map................................................................................................................10 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................11 Reducing Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................12 x Construction Methods............................................................................................13 x Education ...............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared By
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. APRIL - 2 0 1 8 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Background & Collaboration ............................................................................................... 4 The Landscape .................................................................................................................... 7 The Wildfire Problem ........................................................................................................10 Fire History Map ............................................................................................................... 13 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................14 Reducing Structural Ignitability .........................................................................................16 • Construction Methods ........................................................................................... 17 • Education .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]