DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions FINAL REPORT 2013 UPDATE TO THE SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Stanford University Stanford, California 28 April 2014 Patricia Thomas, Ivan Wong, and Judith Zachariasen URS Corporation Seismic Hazards Group 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612 Robert Darragh and Walt Silva Pacific Engineering & Analysis 856 Seaview Dr. El Cerrito, CA 94530 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Section 1 ONE Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Acknowledgments.................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 TWO Seismic Hazard Analyses Methodologies .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis .................................................... 2-1 2.2 Seismic Source Characterization ............................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 Source Geometry ......................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Fault Recurrence .......................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Ground Motion Characterization ............................................................. 2-4 2.4 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis ................................................... 2-4 Section 3 THREE Campus Geotechnical Characterization ....................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 FOUR Inputs to Analyses .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Seismic Sources ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Faults ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Background Seismicity ................................................................ 4-7 4.2 Ground Motion Prediction Models .......................................................... 4-7 Section 5 FIVE PSHA Results .................................................................................................................. 5-1 Section 6 SIX DSHA Results ................................................................................................................. 6-1 Section 7 SEVEN Site Response Analysis ................................................................................................. 7-1 Section 8 EIGHT Design Response Spectra for New Buildings .............................................................. 8-1 8.1 ASCE 7-10 Methodology ........................................................................ 8-1 8.2 MCER and DRSR for Zones 1, 2 and 3 ..................................................... 8-1 8.3 MCER and DRSR for Zone 0 .................................................................... 8-2 8.4 Design Acceleration Parameters .............................................................. 8-3 Section 9 NINE Design Response Spectra for Existing Buildings........................................................ 9-1 9.1 ASCE 41-13 Methodology ...................................................................... 9-1 9.2 BSE-1E and BSE-2E for Zones 1, 2, and 3 ............................................. 9-1 9.3 BSE-1E and BSE-2E for Zone 0 .............................................................. 9-2 Section 10 TEN Comparison With 2010 Spectra and General Code Spectra ..................................... 10-1 10.1 Comparison of Site-Specific and General Code Design Spectra ........... 10-1 10.1.1 Design Spectra for New Buildings ............................................ 10-1 W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\STANFORD UNIV\2013 UPDATE GM\STANFORD PSHA 2013 UPDATE_FINAL.DOCX\28-APR-14\\OAK i TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1.2 Design Spectra for Existing Buildings ....................................... 10-1 10.2 Comparison With 2010 Spectra ............................................................. 10-2 10.2.1 Design Spectra for New Buildings ............................................ 10-2 10.2.2 Design Spectra for Existing Buildings ....................................... 10-2 Section 11 ELEVEN Conditional Mean Spectra ............................................................................................ 11-1 11.1 CMS Implementation ............................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Example CMS at Stanford ..................................................................... 11-2 Section 12 TWELVE Final Remarks ............................................................................................................... 12-1 Section 13 THIRTEEN References ......................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix A-1 Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters Tables 3-1 VS30 and NEHRP Site Classes 8-1 MCER (BSE-2N) and DRSR (BSE-1N) Spectra 8-2 Design Acceleration Parameters 9-1 BSE-1E and BSE-2E Spectra 10-1 Factors Impacting 84th Percentile Deterministic for Zone 0 Figures 1-1 Historical Seismicity in the San Francisco Bay Region (M 3.0) 1800-2013 1-2 Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Region 1-3 Active Faults in the Vicinity of the Site 2-1 Seismic Hazard Model Logic Tree 3-1 SASW Survey Locations and Quaternary Geology 3-2 All SASW VS Profiles 3-3 West Campus SASW VS Profiles 3-4 North-Central Campus SASW VS Profiles 3-5 East Campus SASW VS Profiles 3-6 Comparison of Lognormal Average VS Profiles for East and North Central Campus 3-7 West Campus VS Profiles 5-1 Locations of Hazard Computations 5-2 Seismic Hazard Curves for Peak Horizontal Acceleration for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\STANFORD UNIV\2013 UPDATE GM\STANFORD PSHA 2013 UPDATE_FINAL.DOCX\28-APR-14\\OAK ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5-3 Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition 5-4 Comparison of Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard for all Sites at Reference Site Condition 5-5 Comparison of 1.0 sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard for all Sites at Reference Site Condition 5-6 Seismic Source Contributions to Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition 5-7 Seismic Source Contributions to 1.0 Sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition 5-8 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard at 225-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-9 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard at 975-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-10 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard at 2,475-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-11 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean 1.0 Sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard at 225-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-12 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean 1.0 Sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard at 975-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-13 Magnitude and Distance Contributions to the Mean 1.0 Sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard at 2,475-Year Return Period for Site 1 5-14 Sensitivity of the Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard to the Selection of Ground Motion Models for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition 5-15 Sensitivity of the 1.0 Sec Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Hazard to the Selection of Ground Motion Models for Site 1 and Reference Site Condition 5-16 5%-Damped Uniform Hazard Spectra at Reference Site Condition 6-1 Sensitivity of 84th Percentile Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectrum for the M 8.0 San Andreas Maximum Earthquake at 5.5 km to Ground Motion Models 6-2 Sensitivity of 84th Percentile Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectrum for the M 8.0 San Andreas Maximum Earthquake at 7.5 km to Ground Motion Models 6-3 84th Percentile Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectrum for the M 8.0 San Andreas Maximum Earthquake 6-4 Comparison of 84th Percentile Deterministic Spectra Using NGA-West1 and NGA- West2 Ground Motion Models 7-1 Example Randomized Velocity Profiles for North-Central/East Campus for One Bedrock Depth 7-2 Site-Specific Amplification Factors for Ground Motion Level of 0.5 g (PGA) 7-3 5%-Damped Uniform Hazard Spectra for Sites 1, 2, and 3 at the Ground Surface W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\STANFORD UNIV\2013 UPDATE GM\STANFORD PSHA 2013 UPDATE_FINAL.DOCX\28-APR-14\\OAK iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 7-4 84th Percentile Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectrum for the M 8.0 San Andreas Maximum Earthquake at the Ground Surface 7-5 Comparison of Uniform Hazard Spectra and 84th Percentile Deterministic Spectra for Sites 1, 2, and 3 at the Ground Surface 7-6 5%-Damped Uniform Hazard Spectra at 225-Year Return Period for Site 0 7-7 5%-Damped Uniform Hazard Spectra at 975-Year Return Period for Site 0 7-8 5%-Damped Uniform Hazard Spectra at 2,475-Year Return Period for Site 0 7-9 84th Percentile Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectrum for the M 8.0 San Andreas Maximum Earthquake at 5.5 km for West Campus 7-10 Comparison of 84th Percentile Deterministic Response Spectra to the 2,475-Year Return Period UHS for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Protection Plan Map (PDF)
    Proposed County Parks (Hill Slough, Fairfield Beldon’s Landing) Develop passive recreation facilities compatible with Marsh protection (e.g. fishing, picnicking, hiking, nature study.) Boat launching ramp may be constructed Suis nu at Beldon’s Landing. City Suisun Marsh 8 0 etaterstnI 80 a Protection Plan Map flHighway 12 San Francisco Bay Conservation (6) b .J ' and Development Commission I Denverton (7) I December 1976 ) I ~4 Slough Thomasson Shiloh Primary Management Area danyor, Potrero Hills ':__. .---) ... .. ... ~ . _,,. - (8) Secondary Management Area ~ ,. .,,,, Denverton ,,a !\.:r ~ Water-Related Industry Reserve Area c Beldon’s BRADMOOR ISLAND Slough (5) Landing t +{larl!✓' Road Boundary of Wildlife Areas and (9) Ecological Reserves Little I Honker (1) Grizzly Island Unit (9) Bay (2) Crescent Unit (4) Montezuma Slough (3) Island Slough Unit JOICE ISLAND (3) r (4) Joice Island Unit (5) Rush Ranch National Estuarine (10) Ecological Reserve Kirby Hill (6) Hill Slough Wildlife Area Suisun (7) Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve (8) Grey Goose Unit GRIZZLY ISLAND (2) GRIZZLY ISLAND (9) Gold Hills Unit (10) Garibaldi Unit (11) West Family Unit (12) Goodyear Slough Unit Benicia Area Recommended for Aquisition a. Lawler Property I (11) Hills b. Bryan Property . ~-/--,~ c. Smith Property ,,-:. ...__.. ,, \ 1 Collinsville: Reserve seasonal marshes and Benicia Hills lowland grasslands for their Amended 2011 Grizzly Bay intrinsic value to marsh wildlife and Steep slopes with high landslide and soil to act as the buffer between the erosion potentials. Active fault location. Land (1) Marsh and any future water-related Collinsville Road use practices should be controlled to prevent uses to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Concord Naval Weapons Station Epa Id
    EPA/ROD/R2005090001493 2005 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EPA ID: CA7170024528 OU 07 CONCORD, CA 09/30/2005 Final Record of Decision Inland Area Site 17 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord Concord, California GSA.0113.0012 Order N62474-03-F-4032; GSA-10F-0076K June 10, 2005 (Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team West, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Daly City, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 175 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, California San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, California Prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 543-4880 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAM MANAGEMEN1 OFFICE WEST 1455 FRAZEE AD, SUITE 900 SAN DIEGO, CA 92’ 08-4310 5090 Ser BPMOW.JTD/0361 April 17, 2006 Mr. Phillip A. Ramsey US. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco. CA 94105 Dear Mr. Ramsey: The Final Record of Decision (ROD), Inland Area Site 17, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, California, of June 10, ;!005, was fully executed on February 1, 2006. Copies of the ROD were provided to regulatory agencies shortly after final signatures. TMs letter is provided to you to document the transmittal of the ROD following its execution. Should you have any questions concerning this document or if you need additional information, please contact me at (619) 532-0975.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (Adobe E-Mail: [email protected] Portable Document Format, Including Full Text and All Graphics), Or SUMMARY (Abbreviated Text) Files
    2±8±99 Vol. 64 No. 25 Monday Pages 5927±6186 February 8, 1999 Briefings on how to use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. Now Available Online via GPO Access Free online access to the official editions of the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations and other Federal Register publications is available on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html For additional information on GPO Access products, services and access methods, see page II or contact the GPO Access User Support Team via: ★ Phone: toll-free: 1-888-293-6498 ★ Email: [email protected] Attention: Federal Agencies Plain Language Tools Are Now Available The Office of the Federal Register offers Plain Language Tools on its Website to help you comply with the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998ÐPlain Language in Government Writing (63 FR 31883, June 10, 1998). Our address is: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg For more in-depth guidance on the elements of plain language, read ``Writing User-Friendly Documents'' on the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) Website at: http://www.plainlanguage.gov federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected]
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-20-2016 Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Bowis, Meagan, "Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident" (2016). Master's Projects and Capstones. 340. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/340 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master’s Project Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident By Meagan Kane Bowis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)
    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair Linda S. Adams Arnold 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 Secretary for Phone (916) 464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 Schwarzenegger Environmental http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley Governor Protection 18 August 2008 See attached distribution list DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM STAKEHOLDER PANEL KICKOFF MEETING This is an invitation to participate as a stakeholder in the development and implementation of a critical and important project, the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (Delta RMP), being developed jointly by the State and Regional Boards’ Bay-Delta Team. The Delta RMP stakeholder panel kickoff meeting is scheduled for 30 September 2008 and we respectfully request your attendance at the meeting. The meeting will consist of two sessions (see attached draft agenda). During the first session, Water Board staff will provide an overview of the impetus for the Delta RMP and initial planning efforts. The purpose of the first session is to gain management-level stakeholder input and, if possible, endorsement of and commitment to the Delta RMP planning effort. We request that you and your designee attend the first session together. The second session will be a working meeting for the designees to discuss the details of how to proceed with the planning process. A brief discussion of the purpose and background of the project is provided below. In December 2007 and January 2008 the State Water Board, Central Valley Regional Water Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (collectively Water Boards) adopted a joint resolution (2007-0079, R5-2007-0161, and R2-2008-0009, respectively) committing the Water Boards to take several actions to protect beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta).
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record-House. J .Anu.Ary 4
    - 204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J .ANU.ARY 4, $55,000,000 is a threat to the interests of the country, its own history SURVEYOR-GENERAL OF NEVADA. shows that the announcement was unwarranted by its own history and Charles W. Irish, of Iowa Ci~y, Iowa, whowascom;nissioned dnring entirelv uncalled for. the recess of the Senate, to be surveyor-general of Nevada, vice Chris­ The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The Senate topher C. Downing, removed. resumes the consideration of the unfinished business, being the bill (S. llECEIVERS OF PUBLIC MONEYS. 311) to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. Gould B. Blakely, of Sidney, Nebr., who was commissioned during Mr. CULLOl\f. There ought to be a brief executive session this the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at Sidney, evening, aud I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Nebr., to fill an original vacancy. executive business. Benjamin F. Burch, of Independence, Oregon, who was commissioned Mr. BLAIR. Before that motion is put I should like to say that I during the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at shall press the consideration of the unfinished business. Oregon City, Oregon, 'Vice John G. Pillsbury, term expired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the motion withdrawn? Alfred B. Charde, of Oakland, Nebr., who was commissioned during Mr. CULLOM. Only to allow a statement to be made. the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at Niobrara, Nebr., vice Sanford Parker, term expired.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 43 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 76 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 67 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov May 5, 2020 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: I am pleased to transmit this updated San Francisco Bay Plan, which was revised by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the fall of 2019. The Commission approved two groundbreaking Bay Plan amendments – the Bay Fill Amendment to allow substantially more fill to be placed in the Bay as part of an approved multi-benefit habitat restoration and shoreline adaptation project to help address Rising Sea Levels, and the Environmental Justice and Social Equity Amendment to implement BCDC’s first- ever formal environmental justice and social equity requirements for local project sponsors.
    [Show full text]