DOCSLIB.ORG

Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption Date: mm dd, 2020 Monte Vista Water District Justin Scott-Coe, General Manager 10575 Central Avenue Montclair, California 91763 Monte Vista Water District 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Authority ................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Community Profile .................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Physical Setting ....................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 History ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.3 Demographics .......................................................................................... 8 1.3.4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................... 9 1.3.5 Development Trends .............................................................................. 11 Section 2 Plan Adoption .............................................................................. 12 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body ....................................................................... 12 2.2 Promulgation Authority ......................................................................................... 12 2.3 Primary Point of Contact ....................................................................................... 12 Section 3 Planning Process .......................................................................... 13 3.1 Preparing for the Plan ........................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Planning Team ....................................................................................... 14 3.2 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies, and Organizations ..................... 17 3.3 Public Involvement/Outreach ................................................................................ 20 3.4 Assess the Hazard ............................................................................................... 22 3.5 Set Goals .............................................................................................................. 22 3.6 Review and Propose Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 22 3.7 Draft the Hazard Mitigation Plan ........................................................................... 23 3.8 Adopt the Plan ...................................................................................................... 23 Section 4 Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 24 4.1 Hazard Identification ............................................................................................. 24 4.1.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...................................................................... 26 4.1.2 Hazard Assessment Matrix .................................................................... 26 4.1.3 Hazard Prioritization ............................................................................... 27 4.2 Hazard Profiles ..................................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Earthquake Hazard ................................................................................ 28 4.2.2 Drought Hazard ...................................................................................... 43 Monte Vista Water District | 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 4.2.3 Flooding Hazard ..................................................................................... 48 4.2.4 Terrorism ............................................................................................... xx 4.2.5 Dam Failure Inundation Hazard .............................................................. 58 4.2.6 Climate Change ..................................................................................... xx 4.3 Inventory Assets ................................................................................................... 67 4.3.1 Population .............................................................................................. 67 4.3.2 Buildings ................................................................................................ 68 4.3.3 Critical Facility List ................................................................................. 69 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment ...................................................................................... 73 4.4.1 Methodology .......................................................................................... 73 4.4.2 Potential Loss Estimates ........................................................................ 74 4.4.3 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis .......................................................... 76 4.4.4 Drought Vulnerability Analysis ................................................................ 79 4.4.5 Flooding Vulnerability Analysis ............................................................... xx 4.4.6 Terrorism Vulnerability Analysis ............................................................. xx 4.4.7 Dam Failure Inundation Vulnerability Analysis ........................................ 79 4.4.8 Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis ................................................... 79 Section 5 Community Capability Assessment .............................................. 81 5.1 Agencies and People ............................................................................................ 81 5.2 Existing Plans ....................................................................................................... 83 5.3 Regulations, Codes, Policies, and Ordinances ..................................................... 83 5.4 Mitigation Programs .............................................................................................. 84 5.5 Fiscal Resources .................................................................................................. 84 Section 6 Mitigation Strategies .................................................................... 86 6.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 86 6.2 Mitigation 5-Year Progress Report ........................................................................ 86 6.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Projects ............................................................ 88 6.3.1 All Hazards............................................................................................. 88 6.3.2 Earthquakes ........................................................................................... 91 6.3.3 Drought .................................................................................................. 92 6.3.4 Flooding ................................................................................................. 93 6.3.5 Terrorism ............................................................................................... xx 6.3.6 Dam Inundation ...................................................................................... xx 6.3.7 Climate Change ..................................................................................... xx Monte Vista Water District | 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2 6.4 Mitigation Priorities ............................................................................................... 94 6.5 Implementation Strategy ....................................................................................... 94 Section 7 Plan Maintenance ......................................................................... 96 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ...................................................... 96 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs .......................................................... 97 7.3 Continued Public Involvement .............................................................................. 98 Section 8 Attachments ................................................................................. 99 A. Monte Vista Water District Resolution 658-11 Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption 2011 B. FEMA Letter of Approval of Monte Vista Water District 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Monte Vista Water District Ordinance 33 D. Board of Directors Agenda – August 25, 2010 E. Board Letter for LHMP Agenda Item – August 25, 2010 F. PowerPoint Presentation on Hazard Mitigation Plan – August 25, 2010 G. Minutes of the Meeting of Board of Directors – August 25, 2010 H. Monte Vista Water District 2010 HMP Public Notice I. Monte Vista Water District Website – HMP Request for Input J. Hazard Mitigation Plan Joint Release K. MVWD Fall 2010 Waterline L. Monte Vista Water District Resolution 658-11 Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption 2017 M. FEMA Letter of Approval of Monte Vista Water District 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan Monte Vista Water District | 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 Section 1 – Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Plan Emergencies and disasters cause death or leave people injured or displaced, cause significant damage to our communities, businesses, public infrastructure and our environment, and cost tremendous amounts in terms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Resource Monitoring
    Appendix 4 4a. Cultural Resources Assessment 4b. Paleontological Technical Memorandum CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE LAKE GREGORY DAM REHABILITATION PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Jennifer Lancaster Aspen Environmental Group 5020 Chesebro Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 On behalf of: County of San Bernardino, Special Districts Department 157 W. 5th Street, 2nd Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0450 Authors: Dustin Keeler, Pam Daly, Tria Belcourt, Lynn Furnis, Ian Scharlotta and Sherri Gust Principal Investigator: Principal Architectural Historian: Tria Belcourt Pamela Daly Registered Professional Archaeologist October 2014 Revised June 2015 Project Number: 2861 Type of Study: Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I) Sites: Lake Gregory Dam, LG2-001, 2861-1 (Apple Orchard Site) USGS Quadrangle: Silverwood Lake, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino North Survey Area: Dam: 28.08 acres Key Words: CEQA, EIR, Lake Gregory, Crestline, Lake Gregory Dam, LG2-001, 2861-1 (Apple Orchard Site) 1518 West Taft Avenue Field Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Oakland Toll free (888) 333-3212 Office (714) 974-8300 Federal Certifications 8(a), SDB, 8(m) WOSB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE Lake Gregory Dam Rehabilitation Project TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... IV PURPOSE OF STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994 New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement by Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith Abstract Source parameters for historical earthquakes worldwide are com­ piled to develop a series of empirical relationships among moment magnitude (M), surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, rupture area, and maximum and average displacement per event. The resulting data base is a significant update of previous compilations and includes the ad­ ditional source parameters of seismic moment, moment magnitude, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and average surface displacement. Each source parameter is classified as reliable or unreliable, based on our evaluation of the accuracy of individual values. Only the reliable source parameters are used in the final analyses. In comparing source parameters, we note the fol­ lowing trends: (1) Generally, the length of rupture at the surface is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length; however, the ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases with magnitude; (2) the average surface dis­ placement per event is about one-half the maximum surface displacement per event; and (3) the average subsurface displacement on the fault plane is less than the maximum surface displacement but more than the average surface dis­ placement. Thus, for most earthquakes in this data base, slip on the fault plane at seismogenic depths is manifested by similar displacements at the surface. Log-linear regressions between earthquake magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area are especially well correlated, show­ ing standard deviations of 0.25 to 0.35 magnitude units.
    [Show full text]
  • Victorville OTSP
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................. 1.0-1 1.2 Technical Studies .......................................................................................................................... 1.0-1 1.3 Abbreviations Used ...................................................................................................................... 1.0-2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Setting ..................................................................................................... 2.0-1 2.2 Project Background and History ................................................................................................ 2.0-1 2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2.0-2 2.4 Project Characteristics................................................................................................................. 2.0-4 2.5 Construction and Phasing .......................................................................................................... 2.0-8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 3.0-1 3.2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................ 3.0-3 3.3 Determination ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Eric Garcetti, Mayor Aram Sahakian, General Manager Emergency Management Department EMERGE Ill MANAGEM August 2017 DEPART City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan August 2017 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department Tetra Tech 200 N. Spring Street 1999 Harrison Street Phone: 510.302.6300 Room 1533 Suite 500 Fax: 510.433.0830 Los Angeles, California 90012 Oakland, CA 94612 tetratech.com Tetra Tech Project # 103S4869 \\IWRS065FS1\Data\Active\0_HazMitigation\103s4869.emi_LACity_HMP\2017-08_ApprovedFinal\2017_LA_HMP_Final_2017-08-23.docx City of Los Angeles 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ xxii PART 1— PLANNING PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE 1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 The Big Picture ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Purposes for Planning ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Who Will Benefit From This Plan? ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hashmi Quazi, Phd, PE, GE Principal in Charge/Project Manager
    Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE Principal in Charge/Project Manager Dr. Quazi has 31 years of experience providing geotechnical engineering services and has earned a reputation for providing quality work in an honest and ethical manner, on time and within budget. In his capacity as Principal in Charge or Project Manager, Dr. Quazi provides quality control, budget oversight, and technical assistance on various types of projects, including pipelines, wastewater treatment plants, reservoirs, and other related studies. He has supervised site investigations and prepared technical reports for facilities located in areas of high liquefaction potential and difficult subsurface conditions. Dr. Quazi is also responsible for the operation and management of our offices in Redlands, Monrovia, Costa EDUCATION Mesa, Palm Desert and Palmdale. Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of Arizona, 1987 . M.S., Civil Engineering, Arizona State University, 1982 Relevant Experience . B.S., Bangladesh Engineering University, 1978 Pipelines REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS La Sierra Pipeline (WMWD), Riverside County, CA. Principal . California, Civil Engineer, #46651 in Charge. Provides technical oversight and budget control for . California, Geotechnical Engineer, the geotechnical investigation report. The project consisted of #2517 approximately 21,000 linear feet of 24-inch diameter water pipeline, installed along La Sierra Avenue and the Riverside PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS County Flood Control Arlington Channel, Arizona Channel, . American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Line C-1 Channel. The alignment was located in the City . American Water Works Association of Riverside and the adjacent unincorporated portion of (AWWA) Riverside County, California. American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Simpson Road Sewer Pipeline Repair (EMWD), Menifee, CA. Principal in Charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae DON HELMBERGER Professor of Geophysics
    Curriculum Vitae DON HELMBERGER Professor of Geophysics Seismological Laboratory 252-21 California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 Tel. (626) 395-6998; Fax (626) 564-0715 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION: B. A. (Geophysics) University of Minnesota (five year curriculum), 1962 M. S. University of California, San Diego, 1965. Ph.D. University of California, San Diego, 1967. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Research Associate, Department of Geology and Geophysics, MIT, 1968 Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Princeton University, 1969 Assistant Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1970-1974 Associate Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1974-1979 Professor of Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1979 - present. Director, Seismological Laboratory, Caltech, May 1998-May 2003 RECENT HONORS AND AWARDS: First American Geophysical Union recipient of the Inge Lehmann Medal, 1997 Smits Family Professorship, California Institute of Technology, 2000-2011 Medal of the Seismological Society of America, 2002 National Academy of Sciences Member, 2004 RESEARCH INTERESTS: Seismic wave propagation and the inversion of waveforms to recover detailed information about earthquake characteristics and earth structure; particularly interested in mapping ultra-low-velocity zones and possible post-perovskite effects at the Core-Mantle Boundary. PUBLICATIONS: Helmberger, D. V. (1967). Head Waves from the Oceanic Mohorovicic Discontinuity, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Helmberger, D. V. (1968). The crust-mantle transition in the Bering Sea, Seismol. Soc. Am. Bull., 58, No. 1, 179-214. Helmberger, D. V. and G. B. Morris (1969). A travel time and amplitude interpretation of a marine refraction profile, primary waves, J. Geophys. Res., 74, No. 2, 438-494.
    [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]
  • June 17, 2004 10:13 WSPC/124-JEE 00165 CAN SITE
    June 17, 2004 10:13 WSPC/124-JEE 00165 Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, Special Issue 1 (2004) 1–41 c Imperial College Press CANSITERESPONSEBEPREDICTED? DAVID M. BOORE US Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, MS 977, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA Large modifications of seismic waves are produced by variations of material properties near the Earth’s surface and by both surface and buried topography. These modifica- tions, usually referred to as “site response”, in general lead to larger motions on soil sites than on rock-like sites. Because the soil amplifications can be as large as a factor of ten, they are important in engineering applications that require the quantitative spec- ification of ground motions. This has been recognised for years by both seismologists and engineers, and it is hard to open an earthquake journal these days without finding an article on site response. What is often missing in these studies, however, are discus- sions of the uncertainty of the predicted response. A number of purely observational studies demonstrate that ground motions have large site-to-site variability for a single earthquake and large earthquake-location-dependent variability for a single site. This variability makes site-specific, earthquake-specific predictions of site response quite un- certain, even if detailed geotechnical and geological information is available near the site. Predictions of site response for average classes of sites exposed to the motions from many earthquakes can be made with much greater certainty if sufficient empirical observations are available. Keywords: Site response; amplification; transfer functions; ground motion; variability; prediction. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Milebymile.Com Personal Road Trip Guide California State Highway #18
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California State Highway #18 Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 San Bernardino, CA Community of San Bernardino, California, a large city located in San -Junction of California Bernardino County, California, Attractions: Arrowhead Springs Hotel State Route #210/30 and Spa, a historic hotel & Spa located in the Arrowhead Springs neighborhood, Arrowhead geological monument, which is California Historical Landmark, Original McDonald's Site and Museum, SB Raceway Indoor Karting. Altitude: 1234 feet 2.9 Arrowhead Springs Road: Arrowhead Springs Road, Old Waterman Canyon Road, Campus Hot Springs Crusade for Christ, Arrowhead Springs Hot Lake, Altitude: 1788 feet 4.9 Cloudland Truck Trail Cloudland Truck Trail, Sweetwater Percolation Basin, Altitude: 2477 feet 11.3 Junction Junction California State Route #138, to, Crestline, California, a community in the San Bernardino Mountains of San Bernardino County, California, Lake Gregory Regional Park, Lake Gregory, a man-made lake and a county park Crestline, California, Altitude: 4390 feet 14.1 Squirrel Inn Squirrel Inn Road/California Route #189, N Road, Twin Pikes Road/California Route #189 Community Church, Calvary Chapel Conference Center, Blue Jay, California, a town in San Bernardino County, California. Altitude: 5144 feet 16.8 Daley Canyon Road: Daley Canyon Road, connects with California Route #189, Lake Country Club Arrowhead Country Club, Grass Valley Lake Park, State Route #173 traverses the Sand Bernardino Mountains, Blue Jay Bay, on Lake Arrowhead, a community in San Bernardino County, California, within the San Bernardino National Forest. Altitude: 5581 feet 17.2 Access Road: Robert Access Road, to, Robert Brownlee Observatory, an astronomical Brownlee Observatory observatory, located in Lake Arrowhead, California, just off California State Highway #18, Altitude: 5699 feet 18.2 California Route #173: California Route #173, to, Lake Arrowhead, California, a community in Lake San Bernardino County, California, within the San Bernardino National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Outstanding Stale Dated Warrants Listing As Of: 11/20/2020
    Outstanding Stale Dated Warrants Listing as of: 11/20/2020 Please Note: Requests to replace Stale Dated Warrants must be submitted and received by the Auditor-Controller's Office before the "Claim Deadline Date" (shown below) to be considered for reissuance. The county retains the right to deny any claims if filed after the "Claim Deadline Date". Government Code Section 29802. (a) Any warrant issued is void (stale) if not presented to the county treasurer for payment within six months after its date. (b) Any time within two years from the date on which the original warrant became void (stale), the payee or assignee of any stale dated warrant may present the warrant to the auditor to draw new warrants within the limitations prescribed by board resolution. (c) Any time after a period of two years from the date on which the original warrant became void (stale), the payee or assignee will need to present the warrant to the auditor to draw new warrants within the limitations prescribed by board resolution. Business Warrant Payee Payment Stale Dated Claim Deadline Payment Unit No. Name Date Date Date Amount Address CSARC 03432735 Napa Auto Parts 11/21/2016 05/23/2017 05/22/2021 $134.89 1323 West Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543-3911 MHARC 03433493 Treatment Innovations 11/22/2016 05/24/2017 05/23/2021 $261.50 28 Westbourne Rd, Newton Centre, MA 02459 DPARC 03434701 Katie Smith 11/28/2016 05/30/2017 05/29/2021 $44.40 858 Oasis Village Ct, Blythe, CA 92225 TLARC 03435159 PEREZ NICANOR 11/28/2016 05/30/2017 05/29/2021 $2,351.95 46850 PALA RD, TEMECULA,
    [Show full text]
  • Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report RIMFOREST STORM
    Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the RIMFOREST STORM DRAIN PROJECT Prepared by: County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Flood Control District Technical Assistance Provided By September 2016 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rimforest Storm Drain Project Lead Agency: San Bernardino County Flood Control District 825 East Third Street San Bernardino, California 92415 Technical Assistance Provided by: Aspen Environmental Group 5020 Chesebro Road, Suite 200 Agoura Hills, California 91301 September 2016 Rimforest Storm Drain Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Executive Summary ES.1 Summary of Proposed Project .............................................................................................................................................. ES-2 ES.2 Environmental Review Process............................................................................................................................................. ES-6 ES.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................... ES-6 ES.3.1 Impacts Not Further Considered in this EIR ............................................................................................. ES-7 ES.3.2 Growth Inducing-Effects .......................................................................................................................................... ES-9 ES.3.3 Irreversible Commitment of Resources ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Source Complexity of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and Its Relation to Aftershock Mechanisms
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 1B, pp. $84-$92, February 1996 Source Complexity of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and Its Relation to Aftershock Mechanisms by Hong Kie Thio* and Hiroo Kanamori Abstract We determined the source process of the 1994 Northridge earthquake in relation to the aftershock mechanisms. To study the source complexity of the mainshock, we inverted the P and SH waveforms recorded by the IRIS and IDA/IRIS networks, using the method of Kikuchi and Kanamori (1991) in which the rupture is represented by a series of discrete subevents with varying mechanisms. The wave- forms show that the rupture consisted of several subevents with about 2 sec in be- tween. Our solution consists of three subevents with essentially the same mechanism, viz., strike, dip, and slip of 130 °, 42 °, and 116 °, respectively. The first subevent occurred at a depth of about 19 kin, followed after 2 sec by the second and largest subevent at a depth of 17 km and the third subevent again 2 sec after the second at a depth of about 13 km. The total moment from the body waves of this sequence is about 1.1 × 1026 dyne • cm (Mw = 6.6) with a source duration of 7 sec. The large depths of these subevents explain the lack of any surface rupture. Fur- thermore, the upward propagation of the subevents is consistent with the depth of the hypocenter and the distribution of the aftershocks, which are shallower and more northerly than the mainshock hypocenter. The aftershocks were analyzed using data from the TERRAscope network.
    [Show full text]