Identification and Mitigation of Geologic Hazards

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Identification and Mitigation of Geologic Hazards AIPGprofessional geologists in all specialties of the science Identification and Mitigation of Geologic Hazards An important and practical application of and because earthquakes geology is identifying hazardous natural are of such a scale that phenomena and isolating their causes in they can affect several order to safeguard communities. According communities si-multane- to the USGS, the average economic toll ously, the risk to human life from natural hazards in the United States is is obvious.2 The largest approximately $52 billion per year, while recorded earthquake to hit the average annual death toll is approxi- the North American conti- mately 200.1 The primary causes are nent had a magnitude of earthquakes, landslides, and flooding, but 9.2, which occurred on other events, such as subsidence, volcanic March 27, 1964 in eruptions, and exposure to radon or asbes- Anchorage, Alaska. It dev- tos, also pose considerable danger. astated the town and sur- Awareness of the potential hazards that rounding area, and could persist in areas under consideration for be felt over an area of half Figure 2. Volcano Zones both private and community development a million square miles.2 is critical, and so geological consultants Land-slides caused most of the average global temperature by 2 and engineers are called in to survey land the damage, while a 30-foot high tsunami degrees Fahrenheit for 2 years.3 development sites and assist building con- generated by an underwater quake leveled tractors in designing structures that will coastal villages around the Gulf of Alaska, The role of geologists in mitigating such stand the test of time. killing more than 100 people.2 hazards is difficult. While great progress has been made in predicting the incidence Less frequent, but just as destructive are of volcanic eruptions, our ability to predict EARTHQUAKES AND volcanic eruptions. Approximately 700 earthquakes is inadequate. Despite these potentially dangerous volcanoes are active difficulties, generalities can be made. VOLCANOES in the world today, collectively initiating Earthquake occurrence is concentrated 3 In the average year, some 12 million approximately 50 eruptions each year. around, but not confined to, the rim of the earthquakes occur worldwide but most of Surprisingly, the United States is ranked Pacific Ocean in an area known as the cir- them are low in magnitude.1 Earthquakes third most volcanically active country in the cum-Pacific belt; this also happens to be are generally concentrated along tectoni- world, with most of the activity being con- the area of greatest volcanic activity (the cally active plate boundaries where numer- centrated along the Pacific coast (part of Pacific Ring of Fire). The geologic activity ous faults exist (normally near the edges of the Pacific Ring of Fire, Fig. 2). In addition in this region is produced by the movement continents, Fig. 1). As nearly half of the to lava flows, other volcanic hazards of the Pacific plate underneath the conti- world’s population resides in coastal areas, include lahars, which are mud and ash nents surrounding the Pacific Ocean. The flows (either hot or understanding of plate tectonics within the cold), and clouds of field of geology explains how and why poisonous gas and these earthquakes and volcanoes take 3 dust. Unlike most place. other natural disas- ters, volcanic erup- tions can affect the LANDSLIDES AND entire planet; for example, the 1815 SUBSIDENCE eruption of Tambora Landslides are a group of hazards that (in Indonesia) ex- include both fast- and slow-moving debris ploded with the flows associated with the onset of other energy of 10,000 natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, atomic bombs, re- volcanic eruptions, floods, and wildfires, as leasing a layer of well as slope instability created by industri- ash that shrouded alization processes.1 Landslides and ava- the earth and lanches produce over $2 billion in building Figure 1. Quake Zones caused a lowering of and highway losses and about 25-50 American Institute of Professional Geologists [email protected] • www.aipg.org AIPG Fact Sheet FS-04-003 July 2016 areas. Assessing the risk of large living in older homes may be most at risk floods is very difficult because of because of the types of materials used in the unpredictable nature of weath- the construction of the building. er patterns. Radon is a radioactive gas formed by The most intense form of flood- the decay of the element radium from ing, called flash flooding, results rocks that have a high uranium content, from tremendous amounts of water such as granites, shales, and metamor- raining down over a localized area phic varieties of these rocks.5 According in a short amount of time. Heavy to the EPA, radon is considered a carcino- runoff can pick up loose material gen to humans, and its presence in indoor and transport it quickly downslope air is estimated to cause between 15,000- in the form of mudflows, another 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year in 6 Photo by J. T. McGill, USGS geologic hazard. the United States. Radon can affect both new and old homes alike, as it is due to 4 deaths annually in the United States. The Geologists look back through the infiltration of the gas through cracks in vulnerability of future landslide occurrence the rock record to determine where and basements, or the transmittal of radon to is directly related to the location and fre- when floods have historically taken place. the home in contaminated water, which 5 quency of past slide events. The four Examination of landforms, types of soil has been in contact with high uranium- most landslide-active locations in the and sediment, signs of erosion, and flood- content rocks. Radon problems are solv- United States are California, Alaska, scarring recorded in tree rings, allow the able, and tests are available for its detec- 1 Washing-ton, and Utah. flood history of an area to be pieced tion. together. Geologists combine this data Subsidence, or the localized sinking of with contemporary knowledge about the Today’s geologist is well trained for the land surface, can be induced by a area in order to predict the likely-hood of identifying those forms of asbestos that number of factors, including tectonic shift- future flooding. are considered hazardous to human ing, collapse of soluble rock (karst topog- health. As such, geologists are used to raphy), removal of underground water diagnose asbestos problems. Since only supplies, earthquakes, and underground ASBESTOS AND RADON certain types of rocks containing high mines.3 Soil expansion due to the absorp- Two other hazards can be found inside quantities of uranium are presently linked tion of water, can cause homes and build- the home; they are asbestos and radon to most radon gas production, geologic ings to heave or buckle, and in the United gas. While presently on the decline due to maps can be used to identify areas of States, causes more than $2 billion in recent public abatement, exposure to cer- greatest risk. damages to highways and buildings annu- tain types of asbestos can result in severe ally.3 and fatal lung disease. The term “asbes- Field evaluation of slope stability tos” has evolved from being used to REFERENCES through the examination of materials and describe any fibrous mineral, to being 1. USGS, FS-61-95, http://water.usgs.- processes that comprise and affect them, reserved exclusively for use in describing gov/wid/html/HRDS.html#HDRO allows geologists to estimate their poten- a few fibrous minerals considered to be 2. Erickson, J., 1994, Quakes, Eruption, tial hazard and suggest ways to counter- health hazards by federal statutes.2 Most and other Geologic Cataclysms: New act or minimize their occurrence. Geologic varieties of asbestos do not pose a major York, Facts on File, Inc. maps already in existence can be used to health threat, and those that do, require detect areas where swelling soils, subsid- prolonged contact with the tissue of the 3. AIPG, 1993, Citizens’ Guide to 3 ence, and landslides may be problematic. lungs. Inhalation and the body’s inability Geologic Hazards. to break down certain types of asbestos fibers results in irritation and the eventual 4. AIPG, 1996, Home Buyers’ Guide to FLOODING production of cancerous cells.3 People Geologic Hazards. More than 3 million 5. USGS, http://energy.cr.usgs.gov-/ miles of rivers and streams radon/georadon.html flow throughout the United 6. EPA, www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/radon- States, resulting in nearly qa1.html 10 percent of the land sur- face to be prone to flood- ing.2 Average annual flood losses in the U.S. are more than $3 billion today, a substantial in-crease from the less than $100,000 at the beginning of this cen- tury.2 This rapid rise can be attributed to population growth and an unaware- ness of the inherent dan- gers of building on flood- plains and in flood-prone Geologic Radon Potential.
Recommended publications
  • The Exchange of Water Between Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska Recommended
    The exchange of water between Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Schmidt, George Michael Download date 27/09/2021 18:58:15 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/5284 THE EXCHANGE OF WATER BETWEEN PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND AND THE GULF OF ALASKA RECOMMENDED: THE EXCHANGE OF WATER BETWEEN PRIMCE WILLIAM SOUND AND THE GULF OF ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE by George Michael Schmidt III, B.E.S. Fairbanks, Alaska May 197 7 ABSTRACT Prince William Sound is a complex fjord-type estuarine system bordering the northern Gulf of Alaska. This study is an analysis of exchange between Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Warm, high salinity deep water appears outside the Sound during summer and early autumn. Exchange between this ocean water and fjord water is a combination of deep and intermediate advective intrusions plus deep diffusive mixing. Intermediate exchange appears to be an annual phen­ omenon occurring throughout the summer. During this season, medium scale parcels of ocean water centered on temperature and NO maxima appear in the intermediate depth fjord water. Deep advective exchange also occurs as a regular annual event through the late summer and early autumn. Deep diffusive exchange probably occurs throughout the year, being more evident during the winter in the absence of advective intrusions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is extended to Dr. T. C. Royer, Dr. J. M. Colonell, Dr. R. T. Cooney, Dr. R.
    [Show full text]
  • Bathymetry and Geomorphology of Shelikof Strait and the Western Gulf of Alaska
    geosciences Article Bathymetry and Geomorphology of Shelikof Strait and the Western Gulf of Alaska Mark Zimmermann 1,* , Megan M. Prescott 2 and Peter J. Haeussler 3 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Seattle, WA 98115, USA 2 Lynker Technologies, Under contract to Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA 98115, USA; [email protected] 3 U.S. Geological Survey, 4210 University Dr., Anchorage, AK 99058, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-206-526-4119 Received: 22 May 2019; Accepted: 19 September 2019; Published: 21 September 2019 Abstract: We defined the bathymetry of Shelikof Strait and the western Gulf of Alaska (WGOA) from the edges of the land masses down to about 7000 m deep in the Aleutian Trench. This map was produced by combining soundings from historical National Ocean Service (NOS) smooth sheets (2.7 million soundings); shallow multibeam and LIDAR (light detection and ranging) data sets from the NOS and others (subsampled to 2.6 million soundings); and deep multibeam (subsampled to 3.3 million soundings), single-beam, and underway files from fisheries research cruises (9.1 million soundings). These legacy smooth sheet data, some over a century old, were the best descriptor of much of the shallower and inshore areas, but they are superseded by the newer multibeam and LIDAR, where available. Much of the offshore area is only mapped by non-hydrographic single-beam and underway files. We combined these disparate data sets by proofing them against their source files, where possible, in an attempt to preserve seafloor features for research purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.4.5 Geological Hazards
    Section 5.4.5: Risk Assessment – Geological Hazards 5.4.5 Geological Hazards The following section provides the hazard profile (hazard description, location, extent, previous occurrences and losses, probability of future occurrences, and impact of climate change) and vulnerability assessment for the geological hazards in Sussex County. 2016 Plan Update Changes The hazard profile has been significantly enhanced to include a detailed hazard description, location, extent, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrence, and potential change in climate and its impacts on the geological hazards is discussed. The geological hazards is now located in Section 5 of the plan update. It includes landslide, land subsidence and sinkholes, all of which were profiled separately in the 2011 HMP. New and updated figures from federal and state agencies are incorporated. U.S. 2010 Census data was incorporated, where appropriate. Previous occurrences were updated with events that occurred between 2008 and 2015. A vulnerability assessment was conducted for the geological hazards and it now directly follows the hazard profile. 5.4.5.1 Profile Hazard Description Geological hazards are any geological or hydrological processes that pose a threat to humans and natural properties. Every year, severe natural events destroy infrastructure and cause injuries and deaths. Geologic hazards may include volcanic eruptions and other geothermal related features, earthquakes, landslides and other slope failures, mudflows, sinkhole collapses, snow avalanches, flooding, glacial surges and outburst floods, tsunamis, and shoreline movements. For the purpose of this HMP update, only landslides and land subsidence/sinkholes will be discussed in the Geological Hazard profile. Landslides According to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program
    Technical Report Number 36 Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program Sponsor: Bureau of Land Management Alaska Outer Northern Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios Sociocultural Impacts The United States Department of the Interior was designated by the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of 1953 to carry out the majority of the Act’s provisions for administering the mineral leasing and develop- ment of offshore areas of the United States under federal jurisdiction. Within the Department, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the responsibility to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as well as other legislation and regulations dealing with the effects of offshore development. In Alaska, unique cultural differences and climatic conditions create a need for developing addi- tional socioeconomic and environmental information to improve OCS deci- sion making at all governmental levels. In fulfillment of its federal responsibilities and with an awareness of these additional information needs, the BLM has initiated several investigative programs, one of which is the Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program (SESP). The Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program is a multi-year research effort which attempts to predict and evaluate the effects of Alaska OCS Petroleum Development upon the physical, social, and economic environ- ments within the state. The overall methodology is divided into three broad research components. The first component identifies an alterna- tive set of assumptions regarding the location, the nature, and the timing of future petroleum events and related activities. In this component, the program takes into account the particular needs of the petroleum industry and projects the human, technological, economic, and environmental offshore and onshore development requirements of the regional petroleum industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Spanning the Bering Strait
    National Park service shared beringian heritage Program U.s. Department of the interior Spanning the Bering Strait 20 years of collaborative research s U b s i s t e N c e h UN t e r i N c h UK o t K a , r U s s i a i N t r o DU c t i o N cean Arctic O N O R T H E L A Chu a e S T kchi Se n R A LASKA a SIBERIA er U C h v u B R i k R S otk S a e i a P v I A en r e m in i n USA r y s M l u l g o a a S K S ew la c ard Peninsu r k t e e r Riv n a n z uko i i Y e t R i v e r ering Sea la B u s n i CANADA n e P la u a ns k ni t Pe a ka N h las c A lf of Alaska m u a G K W E 0 250 500 Pacific Ocean miles S USA The Shared Beringian Heritage Program has been fortunate enough to have had a sustained source of funds to support 3 community based projects and research since its creation in 1991. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev expanded their cooperation in the field of environmental protection and the study of global change to create the Shared Beringian Heritage Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Flow of Pacific Water in the Western Chukchi
    Deep-Sea Research I 105 (2015) 53–73 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Deep-Sea Research I journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dsri Flow of pacific water in the western Chukchi Sea: Results from the 2009 RUSALCA expedition Maria N. Pisareva a,n, Robert S. Pickart b, M.A. Spall b, C. Nobre b, D.J. Torres b, G.W.K. Moore c, Terry E. Whitledge d a P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, 36, Nakhimovski Prospect, Moscow 117997, Russia b Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 266 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA c Department of Physics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada d University of Alaska Fairbanks, 505 South Chandalar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA article info abstract Article history: The distribution of water masses and their circulation on the western Chukchi Sea shelf are investigated Received 10 March 2015 using shipboard data from the 2009 Russian-American Long Term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA) pro- Received in revised form gram. Eleven hydrographic/velocity transects were occupied during September of that year, including a 25 August 2015 number of sections in the vicinity of Wrangel Island and Herald canyon, an area with historically few Accepted 25 August 2015 measurements. We focus on four water masses: Alaskan coastal water (ACW), summer Bering Sea water Available online 31 August 2015 (BSW), Siberian coastal water (SCW), and remnant Pacific winter water (RWW). In some respects the Keywords: spatial distributions of these water masses were similar to the patterns found in the historical World Arctic Ocean Ocean Database, but there were significant differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Other Hazards (Se)
    Goleta General Plan /Coastal Land Use Plan 5.0 Safety Element CHAPTER 5.0 SAFETY ELEMENT: COASTAL AND OTHER HAZARDS (SE) 5.1 INTRODUCTION General Plan Law Requirements [GP] The Safety Element is one of seven general Safety Element Policies plan elements mandated by state law. The SE 1: Safety in General scope of the Safety Element is specified in SE 2: Bluff Erosion and Retreat Section 65302 (g) of the California SE 3: Beach Erosion and Shoreline Hazards SE 4: Seismic and Seismically Induced Hazards Government Code as follows: SE 5: Soil and Slope Stability Hazards SE 6: Flood Hazards The general plan shall include a safety SE 7: Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards element for the protection of the SE 8: Oil and Gas Industry Hazards community from any unreasonable SE 9: Airport-Related Hazards. SE 10: Hazardous Materials and Facilities risks associated with the effects of SE 11: Emergency Preparedness seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, peak-load water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. Coastal hazards such as bluff retreat and shoreline erosion are also addressed in this element, as are hazards associated with oil and gas production, processing, and transport. California Coastal Act Requirements [CP] The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) requires new development to be sited and designed to minimize risks, ensure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion or require the construction of new shoreline protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along coastal bluffs and cliffs.
    [Show full text]
  • BAER) Assessment Specialist Report, Phase 2 – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
    Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment Specialist Report, Phase 2 – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Thomas Fire, Los Padres National Forest January 2018 Allen King – Geologist, Los Padres NF (retired) Dennis Veich – Forest Geologist, Shasta-Trinity NF Fire-damaged Tree near Chismahoo Mountain “When rain starts to fall, people in higher risk basins should be prepared to evacuate. Do not remain in, near or below burned areas at the base of canyons, even during light rain. Stay away from small streams that could become raging rivers in the blink of an eye. If the forecast calls for heavy rains through the night, homes may not be safe places if they are located in or near drainage areas and within a mile of the mountain front. Roads can suddenly become blocked with mud and debris, and can wash out at stream crossings. It is important to pay strong attention to warnings from local emergency responders and weather advisories.” -Sue Cannon, USGS Landslide Hazards Program, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Thomas Fire started on December 4, 2017, near the Thomas Aquinas College (east end of Sulphur Mountain), Ventura County, California. The fire is still considered to be active and as of January 12th, 2018, it is estimated to have burned 281,900 acres and is 92% contained. Approximately 181,300 acres within the burn area are National Forest lands (~64%); 98,200 acres are private (~35%); and 2,400 acres (~1%) are a combination of state and county properties. Although tremendous down-slope/down-drainage resources and values and lives are recognized and kept in mind during our analysis, this report addresses the effects of the Thomas Fire and the associated Values At Risk (VARs) ONLY on Forest Service lands, since the other lands are being evaluated by teams of Cal Fire scientists and other agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Design Guidelines Appendix B: Geotechnical
    Mandatory Retrofit Program for Non-Ductile Concrete Buildings And Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Frame Buildings Ordinance 17-1011 SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES APPENDIX B ISSUED NOVEMBER 8, 2019 REVISED SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 APPENDIX B: GEOTECHNICAL / GEOLOGICAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ASCE 41 geotechnical/geological report requirements for seismic evaluation and retrofit design varies greatly based on the amount of as-built information obtained and type of existing foundation system. The following document is intended to help clarify geotechnical / geological requirements of Ordinance 17-1011 for Non-Ductile Concrete and Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Frames. It is noted that all geotechnical / geological reports shall be signed and stamped by a California licensed Geotechnical Engineer and by a California licensed Geologist (if applicable). 2.0 SEISMIC SITE HAZARD The following frequently asked questions and answers are intended to clarify the scope and requirements of the seismic site hazard requirements of Ordinance 17-1011. 2.1 When is a site-specific seismic hazard determination required? A site-specific seismic hazard procedure is required when: a. The building is located on Site Class E soils and the mapped BSE-2N Sxs>2.0 or b. The building is located on Site Class F soils, unless Ss<0.20. In addition, a site-specific hazard is required to scale records when performing a non- linear dynamic time-history analysis. [Ref. ASCE 41 Section 2.4]. 2.2 When scaling a suite of acceleration records, is there a required or preferred scaling method? A site-specific response spectra shall be developed per ASCE 41 Section 2.4.2.1 requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Type of Services Current Conditions Soils, Geology, and Geologic Hazards Envision San José 2040 General Plan Update
    Type of Services Current Conditions Soils, Geology, and Geologic Hazards Envision San José 2040 General Plan Update Client David J. Powers & Associates Client Address 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204 San José, CA 95126 Project Number 118-13-2 Date March 20, 2009 Prepared Scott E. Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E. by Principal Geotechnical Engineer Philip A. Frame, C.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Laura C. Knutson, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Quality Assurance Reviewer Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2: SOILS AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................................... 1 2.1 GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW OF SAN JOSÉ ......................................................... 1 2.2 LANDSLIDES ................................................................................................... 2 2.3 WEAK/EXPANSIVE SOILS .............................................................................. 3 2.4 NATURALLY-OCCURRING ABESTOS (NOA) ............................................... 4 2.5 EROSION .......................................................................................................... 4 2.6 ARTIFICIAL FILL .............................................................................................. 4 2.7 GROUND SUBSIDENCE DUE TO GROUND WATER REMOVAL ................. 4 2.8 MINERAL RESOURCES
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Timeline for Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
    Historical Timeline Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Much of the refuge has been protected as a national wildlife refuge for over a century, and we recognize that refuge lands are the ancestral homelands of Alaska Native people. Development of sophisticated tools and the abundance of coastal and marine wildlife have made it possible for people to thrive here for thousands of years. So many facets of Alaska’s history happened on the lands and waters of the Alaska Maritime Refuge that the Refuge seems like a time-capsule story of the state and the conservation of island wildlife: • Pre 1800s – The first people come to the islands, the Russian voyages of discovery, the beginnings of the fur trade, first rats and fox introduced to islands, Steller sea cow goes extinct. • 1800s – Whaling, America buys Alaska, growth of the fox fur industry, beginnings of the refuge. • 1900 to 1945 – Wildlife Refuge System is born and more land put in the refuge, wildlife protection increases through treaties and legislation, World War II rolls over the refuge, rats and foxes spread to more islands. The Aleutian Islands WWII National Monument designation recognizes some of these significant events and places. • 1945 to the present – Cold War bases built on refuge, nuclear bombs on Amchitka, refuge expands and protections increase, Aleutian goose brought back from near extinction, marine mammals in trouble. Refuge History - Pre - 1800 A World without People Volcanoes push up from the sea. Ocean levels fluctuate. Animals arrive and adapt to dynamic marine conditions as they find niches along the forming continent’s miles of coastline.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Hazards
    Geologic Hazards CVEN 3698 Engineering Geology Definitions • A geologic hazard is one of several types of adverse geologic conditions capable of causing damage or loss of property and life (Wikipedia) • A geologic hazard shall mean a geologic condition or geologic process which poses a significant threat to health, life, limb, or property. (BC Land Use Department) • A geologic constraint shall mean a geologic condition which does not pose a significant threat to life or limb, but which can cause intolerable damage to structures (BC Land Use Department) • A geologic hazard is a natural geologic event that can endanger human lives and threaten human property. Earthquakes, geomagnetic storms, landslides, sinkholes, tsunamis, and volcanoes are all types of geologic hazards. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides real-time hazard information on earthquakes, landslides, geo-magnetics, and volcanoes, as well as background information on all the types of hazards. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov Counties and Municipalities in Colorado regulate geologic Hazards in four different ways • Master and Land Use Plans for land use patterns and development • Zoning Regulations • 1041 Regulations where hazardous areas are identified • Land Use or Subdivision Codes https://www.bouldercounty.org/departments/land-use/ http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/ https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cesare- geologic-hazard-study-boulder-county-20170331.pdf Front Range Geologic Hazards Field Trip: http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/6.pdf Two Types • Hazards associated with particular earth materials. Examples include swelling soils and rocks, toxic minerals (asbestos, acid drainage) and toxic gases (radon gas). • Hazards associated with earth processes (earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, avalanches, rock slides and rock falls, soil creep, subsidence, floods, frost heave, coastal hazards).
    [Show full text]