DOCSLIB.ORG

Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project (Project No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project (Project No Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project (Project No. 5-67) RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT | JULY 2019 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project Lead Agency: ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Contact: Mr. Kevin Hadden Principal Staff Analyst 714.962.2411 Prepared by: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, California 92707 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505 July 2019 JN 168975 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Environmental Issues/Mitigation Summary ............................................................................. 1-2 1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives .............................................................................................. 1-26 SECTION 2.0: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose of the EIR ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Compliance with CEQA .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation (Scoping) ...................................... 2-4 2.4 Format of the Recirculated Draft EIR ...................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................................. 2-6 2.6 Incorporation by Reference ........................................................................................................ 2-7 SECTION 3.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Location and Setting ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.4 Construction ................................................................................................................................ 3-16 3.5 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3-31 3.6 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................................... 3-31 SECTION 4.0: BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................. 4-1 SECTION 5.0: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 5-1 5.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare ...................................................................................................... 5.1-1 5.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 5.2-1 5.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 5.3-1 5.4 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 5.4-1 5.5 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 5.5-1 5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 5.6-1 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 5.7-1 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 5.8-1 5.9 Land Use and Relevant Planning ............................................................................................. 5.9-1 5.10 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 5.10-1 5.11 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 5.11-1 5.12 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 5.12-1 SECTION 6.0: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 6-1 6.1 Short- and Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project ............................................... 6-1 6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented ................................................................ 6-1 Public Review Draft ● July 2019 i Table of Contents Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project 6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 6-7 SECTION 7.0: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................... 7-1 7.1 “No Project/Future Back Bay Landing Development” Alternative ..................................... 7-4 7.2 “Pump Station South Relocation” Alternative ....................................................................... 7-11 7.3 “Environmentally Superior” Alternative ................................................................................. 7-18 SECTION 8.0: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .............................. 8-1 SECTION 9.0: ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......................... 9-1 SECTION 10.0: REFERENCES AND SOURCES CITED .......................................... 10-1 SECTION 11.0: APPENDICES (UNDER SEPARATE COVER AND CONTAINED ON CD) 11.1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters 11.2 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data 11.3 Biological Resources Reports 11.4 Cultural/Paleontological Resources Assessment 11.5 Geology Report Public Review Draft ● July 2019 ii Table of Contents Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 3-1 Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................................. 3-2 Exhibit 3-2 Site Vicinity .......................................................................................................................... 3-3 Exhibit 3-3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3-4 Exhibit 3-4 Proposed Conceptual Site Plans ....................................................................................... 3-8 Exhibit 3-5 Original Northeast Pump Station Layout ....................................................................... 3-9 Exhibit 3-6 Northeast Pump Station Layout ..................................................................................... 3-12 Exhibit 3-7 South Pump Station Layout ............................................................................................ 3-15 Exhibit 3-8 Original Northeast Pump Station Work Areas ............................................................ 3-17 Exhibit 3-9 Original Northeast Pump Station Construction .......................................................... 3-18 Exhibit 3-10 Temporary Pipe Stringing Alignment Option .............................................................. 3-20 Exhibit 3-11 Modified Northeast Pump Station Work Areas ........................................................... 3-23 Exhibit 3-12 Modified Northeast Pump Station Construction (Dredging) .................................... 3-24 Exhibit 3-13 Modified Northeast Pump Station Construction (Microtunneling) .......................... 3-25 Exhibit 3-14 South Pump Station Work Areas ................................................................................... 3-27 Exhibit 3-15 South Pump Station Construction (Dredging) ............................................................. 3-29 Exhibit 3-16 South Pump Station Construction (Microtunneling) .................................................. 3-30 Exhibit 4-1 Cumulative Project Locations ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements
    REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL 9515 HANEY STREET PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM Whittier, California January 20, 2016 Project 4953-15-0302 January 20, 2016 Mr Luis Rojas Rio Hondo Program Management Team c/o Rio Hondo College 3600 Workman Mill Road Whittier, California 90601-1699 Subject: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements Proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus El Rancho Adult School 9515 Haney Street Pico Rivera, California, 90660 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 Dear Mr. Rojas: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult School in Pico Rivera, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 24, 2015, which was authorized by e-mail on December 15, 2015. The scope of our services was planned with Mr. Manuel Jaramillo of DelTerra. We have been furnished with a site plan and a general description of the proposed improvements. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a permit. Correspondence: Amec Foster Wheeler 6001 Rickenbacker Road Los Angeles, California 90040 USA
    [Show full text]
  • An Elusive Blind-Thrust Fault Beneath Metropolitan Los Angeles
    R EPORTS 5 The intercept of the line with the abscissa yields Di/D 1/4, which is an extreme case, differs only by 36. N. A. Sulpice and R. J. D’Arcy, J. Phys. E 3, 477 (1970). 7% as compared with D 5 0. DV. This geometry-independent constant is i 37. Electrical charging due to the electron beam cannot 31. Microscopy was performed with a Philips CM30 200- account for the effect, because the charge found to characteristic for the specific nanotube under kV high-resolution TEM. reside on the nanotubes is positive rather than neg- investigation and is typically on the order of 32. The ripple mode may be a precursor to buckling, but ative. Furthermore, the amplitude of vibration at several volts. Similarly, attaching nanoscopic it should not be confused with bucking. Buckling (in resonance does not change with electron dose, as it contrast to rippling) is characterized as an instability would if electron beam charging were important. conducting particles to the nanotubes facilitates giving rise to a nonlinear response. It occurs in highly 38. M. Gurgoze, J. Sound Vib. 190, 149 (1996). measurements of their work functions. stressed nanotubes (and beams) and manifests as 39. We thank U. Landman, R. L. Whetten, L. Forro, and A. The methods developed here are also well one or several kinks with very small radii of curvature Zangwill for fruitful discussion and R. Nitsche for his suited to measure masses in the picogram-to- (about 1 to 10 nm). It is accompanied by abrupt analysis of the static bent nanotube.
    [Show full text]
  • STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY and TECTONICS DIVISION Newsletter Volume 13, Number 1 March 1994
    STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY and TECTONICS DIVISION Newsletter Volume 13, Number 1 March 1994 CHAIRPERSON'S MESSAGE Division activities at the annual meeting in Boston were quite successful. John Bartley became the new second vice chair, Ed Beutner moved up to first vice-chair and Art Goldstein is the new secretary-treasurer. We all thank the past secretary-treasurer, Don Secor, for keeping the Division running properly during his record tenure of six years. The papers at Division sessions were excellent, so interesting to me that I spent the meeting in these sessions and missed the exhibits. Thanks to Fred Chester and Ron Bruhn for organizing a really cutting-edge symposium on inferring paleoearthquakes from fault-rock fabrics. It appears that this seemingly intractable problem has some solutions. We can expect some significant publications from the speakers. Terry Engelder, with help from Mike Gross and Mark Fischer presented the Division's short course on fracture mechanics of rock. The course was highly praised by everyone I heard from; thanks guys. As always, it was a pleasure to attend the Division's award ceremony to honor the recipients and to hear the citations and responses. As Darrel Cowan, in his citation of Ben Page for the Career Contribution Award, summarized Ben's significant publications, I was intrigued as I realized that my list would have been as long but different. Such a broad range of important contributions is an excellent qualification for this award. Mark Cloos cited Dan Worrall and Sig Snelson for the best paper award for their 1989 DNAG paper "Evolution of the northern Gulf of Mexico, with emphasis on Cenozoic growth faulting and the role of salt." This paper contains important new insights into regional salt tectonics as well as helps highlight a large region of very active tectonics that misses out on being a classic orogenic belt only because it is not forming mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-8 Geologic-Seismic
    Environmental Evaluation 3-8 GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC Changes Since the Draft EIS/EIR Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR in April 2004, the Gold Line Phase II project has undergone several updates: Name Change: To avoid confusion expressed about the terminology used in the Draft EIS/EIR (e.g., Phase I; Phase II, Segments 1 and 2), the proposed project is referred to in the Final EIS/EIR as the Gold Line Foothill Extension. Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative and Updated Project Definition: Following the release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the public comment period, and input from the cities along the alignment, the Construction Authority Board approved a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in August 2004. This LPA included the Triple Track Alternative (2 LRT and 1 freight track) that was defined and evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR, a station in each city, and the location of the Maintenance and Operations Facility. Segment 1 was changed to extend eastward to Azusa. A Project Definition Report (PDR) was prepared to define refined station and parking lot locations, grade crossings and two rail grade separations, and traction power substation locations. The Final EIS/EIR and engineering work that support the Final EIS/EIR are based on the project as identified in the Final PDR (March 2005), with the following modifications. Following the PDR, the Construction Authority Board approved a Revised LPA in June 2005. Between March and August 2005, station options in Arcadia and Claremont were added. Changes in the Discussions: To make the Final EIS/EIR more reader-friendly, the following format and text changes have been made: Discussion of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative has been deleted since the LPA decision in August 2004 eliminated it as a potential preferred alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • Iv.E Geology
    IV.E GEOLOGY 1.0 INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates geologic and soils conditions at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) campus that could affect, or be affected by, implementation of the Proposed Project. The information contained in this section is based on a geotechnical evaluation1 prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., (MACTEC) prepared in July 2009, which is provided in Appendix IV.E. 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 2.1 State and Regional Regulations 2.1.1 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990, the State Geologist is responsible for identifying and mapping seismic hazards zones as part of the California Geological Survey. The Geological Survey provides zoning maps of non-surface rupture earthquake hazards (including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides) to local governments for planning purposes. These maps are intended to protect the public from the risks involved with strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. For projects within seismic hazard zones, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires developers to conduct geological investigations and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures into project designs before building permits are issued. Most of the Southern California region has been mapped. Established by the Seismic Safety Commission Act in 1975, the State Seismic Safety Commission’s purpose is to provide oversight, review, and recommendations to the Governor and State Legislature regarding seismic issues. 2.1.2 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (the Act) (Public Resource Code Section 2621.5) of 1972 was enacted in response to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, which caused extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States
    Jump to Navigation Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States As of January 12, 2017, the USGS maintains a limited number of metadata fields that characterize the Quaternary faults and folds of the United States. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the interactive fault map. Lower Elysian Park thrust (Class A) No. 134 Last Review Date: 2017-06-14 citation for this record: Bryant, W.A., compiler, 2017, Fault number 134, Lower Elysian Park thrust, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 12/14/2020 02:13 PM. Synopsis Davis and others (1989) interpret the Elysian Park anticlinorium to be formed by stacked fault propagation folds; Elysian Park thrust is the lower ramp. The thrust propagates upward from an assumed detachment at about 15 km to a depth of about 10 km. Shaw and Suppe (1996) prefer a fault-bend fold model that links the Elysian Park fault ramp with the Compton [133] ramp to the west. This is implied by the similar kink band widths (growth triangles) associated with the two ramps. They define two segments of the Elysian Park Thrust (Los Angeles and Whittier) that are offset in the vicinity of the Whittier Narrows earthquake. Schneider and others (1996) define the Los Angeles fault as that responsible for ongoing deformation of the south facing monocline that forms the northern Los Angeles shelf, based on structural reconstruction from well log data and seismic stratigraphy. In well logs they recognize increasing dip with depth, suggesting that fold growth has been by progressive limb rotation.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulating Earthquake Damage to the Electric-Power Infrastructure: a Case Study for Urban Planning and Policy Development
    Simulating Earthquake Damage to the Electric-Power Infrastructure: A Case Study for Urban Planning and Policy Development L. Jonathan Dowell Sudha Maheshwari Los Alamos National Laboratory Urban Planning and Policy Development P. O. Box 1663 MS F604 Rutgers University Los Alamos, NM 87545 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [email protected] [email protected] (505) 665-9193 FAX (505) 665-5125 Abstract This paper presents a case study of the consequences of a Richter magnitude 6.75 earthquake on the Los Angeles Elysian Park fault to the electric-power infrastructure of the western United States. The analysis combines aspects of geological modeling of such an earthquake with probabilistic simulation of power-system component failures for evaluation of the operation of the engineering infrastructure. This hybrid analysis demonstrates emergent behavior of a complex system and illustrates the challenges of multi-disciplinary analyses necessary for computational operations research. The simulation predicts blackouts in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and abnormal voltages throughout the western U.S. electric-power infrastructure that compare favorably with the consequences observed following a recent Northridge earthquake. The paper discusses applications of such analyses for urban planning and policy development. 1. INTRODUCTION Assessment of the possible consequences of a major natural disaster is a daunting problem. This paper presents an approach to the assessment of the implications of a moderate earthquake in the Los Angeles basin to the electric- power infrastructure of the western United States. Such assessment requires evaluation of a complex system of systems, requiring expert knowledge of the operation and behavior of each system, the interactions between these systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 10066 Report.Pdf
    Subsurface Evidence for the Puente Hills and Compton-Los Alamitos Faults in South-Central Los Angeles 2010 SCEC Annual Report Project # 10066 Robert S. Yeats and Danielle Verdugo Earth Consultants International 1642 E. 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Abstract We analyzed well data in the vicinity of a deep exploration campaign in 1973-1975 by American Petrofina Exploration Co. to a maximum depth of 6,477 m (American Petrofina Core Hole 1), twice the depth of data from multichannel seismic profiles used in previous studies. The deeper control of the Compton-Los Alamitos (CLA) and Puente Hills reverse faults based on these wells provides evidence of reverse faulting based on repetition of strata on electric logs, abrupt changes of dipmeter-based attitudes, and offset of events on seismic profiles following Avalon Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. Structure contours on the Puente Hills fault are straightforward, whereas contours on the CLA fault are more complex. The presence of faulting at depth leads to the conclusion that the CLA and Puente Hills reverse faults change upward into fault-propagation folds rather than fault-bend folds. The CLA fault marks the northeastern boundary of a broad anticline, called here the Central Uplift anticline, cut along its crest by the right-lateral strike-slip Potrero fault in the vicinity of our study. Structure contours at depth confirm the observations of others that the CLA fault swings westward and steepens in dip toward the NIFZ south of Inglewood oil field. The presence of reverse- fault-plane solutions along the northern NIFZ and evidence for uplift along the CLA fault east of Long Beach and Seal Beach oil fields during the 1933 Long Beach earthquake support an interpretation of faulting along the Newport- Inglewood trend related to strain partitioning, indicating that the NIFZ might generate a Coalinga-type reverse fault as well as a strike-slip event similar to the 1933 earthquake.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 SCEC Report Enhancements to the Community Fault Model (CFM
    2020 SCEC Report Enhancements to the Community Fault Model (CFM) and its IT infrastructure to support SCEC science SCEC Award 20081 Principal Investigators: Scott Marshall Professor of Geophysics Dept. of Geological and Environmental Sciences Appalachian State University 572 Rivers St., Boone, NC 28608 [email protected] // (828) 265-8680 John H. Shaw Professor of Structural & Economic Geology Andreas Plesch (Co-Investigator) Senior Research Scientist Harvard University Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences 20 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] // (617) 495-8008 Philip Maechling Associate Director for Information Technology Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California 3651 Trousdale Parkway, Suite 169 Los Angeles, California, 90089-0742 Proposal Categories: Data Gathering and Products; Collaborative Proposals SCEC Science Priorities: P3a; P1a; P1b Duration: 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 1 1. Summary This past year, we made significant progress in improving SCEC’s Community Fault Model (CFM) and enhancing the recently developed website and associated database that allows users to access and query the model and its associated metadata. The CFM (Plesch et al., 2007) is one of SCEC’s most established and widely used community resources, with applications in many aspects of SCEC science, including crustal deformation modeling, wave propagation simulations, and probabilistic seismic hazards assessment (e.g., UCERF3). The CFM also directly contributes to other community modeling efforts, such as the Geological Framework (GFM), Community Rheologic (CRM), and Community Velocity (CVM-H) Models. This project represents a collaboration between the SCEC CXM co-chair (Marshall), Associate Director for IT (Maechling), CXM software developer (Mei-Hui Su), and the primary Community Fault Model (CFM) developers (Plesch and Shaw).
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2005/01 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley June 2005 ABSTRACT
    PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Empirical Characterization of Site Conditions on Strong Ground Motion Jonathan P. Stewart Yoojoong Choi University of California, Los Angeles and Robert W. Graves URS Corporation Pasadena, California PEER 2005/01 JUNE 2005 Empirical Characterization of Site Conditions on Strong Ground Motion Jonathan P. Stewart Yoojoong Choi Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Los Angeles and Robert W. Graves URS Corporation, Pasadena, California PEER Report 2005/01 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley June 2005 ABSTRACT Empirical relationships are developed to predict amplification factors for 5% damped response spectral acceleration as a function of site condition. Amplification factors are evaluated as residuals between ground motion recordings and predictions from modified rock attenuation relationships. Both shallow and deep characteristics of site condition are considered to identify those parameters that are most effective from the standpoint of bias and dispersion reduction. The parameterization of shallow site condition is based on (1) surface geology, (2) NEHRP classification, (3) geotechnical site categories, and (4) average shear wave velocity in upper 30 m of site (Vs-30). Also considered are parameters that reflect the relatively deep sedimentary structure at many of the strong motion sites, including depth to the 1.5 km/s shear wave isosurface (z1.5) as well as the location of the source inside or outside of the basin in which the site is located. Sites located in a basin overlaying the source are denoted as having coincident source and site basin locations (CBL) and are differentiated from distinct source and site basin locations (DBL).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No
    U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No. G12AP20066 Recipient: University of California at Santa Barbara Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Craig Nicholson1, Andreas Plesch2, John Shaw2 & Egill Hauksson3 1Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara 2Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University 3Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Principal Investigator: Craig Nicholson Marine Science Institute, University of California MC 6150, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 phone: 805-893-8384; fax: 805-893-8062; email: [email protected] 01 April 2012 - 31 March 2013 Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS Award No. G12AP20066. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. 1 Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Abstract Accurate assessment of the seismic hazard in southern California requires an accurate and complete description of the active faults in three dimensions. Dynamic rupture behavior, realistic rupture scenarios, fault segmentation, and the accurate prediction of fault interactions and strong ground motion all strongly depend on the location, sense of slip, and 3D geometry of these active fault surfaces. Comprehensive and improved catalogs of relocated earthquakes for southern California are now available for detailed analysis. These catalogs comprise over 500,000 revised earthquake hypocenters, and nearly 200,000 well-determined earthquake focal mechanisms since 1981. These extensive catalogs need to be carefully examined and analyzed, not only for the accuracy and resolution of the earthquake hypocenters, but also for kinematic consistency of the spatial pattern of fault slip and the orientation of 3D fault surfaces at seismogenic depths.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan Available to the Public by Publishing the Plan Electronically on the City’S Websites
    Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California City of Glendale Hazard Mitigati on Plan 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 Introduction 1-2 Why Develop a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan? 1-3 Who is covered by the Mitigation Plan? 1-3 Natural Hazard Land Use Policy in California 1-4 Support for Hazard Mitigation 1-6 Plan Methodology 1-6 Input from the Steering Committee 1-7 Stakeholder Interviews 1-7 State and Federal Guidelines and Requirements for Mitigation Plans 1-8 Hazard Specific Research 1-9 Public Workshops 1-9 How is the Plan Used? 1-9 Volume I: Mitigation Action Plan 1-10 Volume II: Hazard Specific Information 1-11 Volume III: Resources 1-12 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE 2-1 Why Plan for Natural and Manmade Hazards in the City of Glendale? 2-2 History of Glendale 2-2 Geography and the Environment 2-3 Major Rivers 2-5 Climate 2-6 Rocks and Soil 2-6 Other Significant Geologic Features 2-7 Population and Demographics 2-10 Land and Development 2-13 Housing and Community Development 2-14 Employment and Industry 2-16 Transportation and Commuting Patterns 2-17 Extensive Transportation Network 2-18 SECTION 3: RISK ASSESSMENT 3-1 What is a Risk Assessment? 3-2 2018 i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California Federal Requirements for Risk Assessment 3-7 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 3-8 Summary 3-9 SECTION 4: MULTI-HAZARD GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS 4-1 Mission 4-2 Goals 4-2 Action
    [Show full text]