DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Review Draft | February 2017 Prepared For Town of Windsor Planning Division 9291 Old Redwood Highway, Building 400 Windsor, CA, 95492 Prepared By Michael Baker International One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1150 Oakland, CA, 94612 Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction ...................................................................................1 1.1. Plan Purpose................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Authority ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Plan Adoption .............................................................................................................. 2 1.4. Plan Use ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.5. Mitigation Priorities and Goals ................................................................................... 3 1.6. Hazard Mitigation Planning Process ........................................................................... 3 1.7. Public Engagement ...................................................................................................... 4 1.8. Public Review Draft ..................................................................................................... 6 1.9. Plans, Studies, and Technical Reports Used to Develop the Plan ............................... 6 Chapter 2 – Community Profile...........................................................................7 2.1. Physical Setting ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Windsor History........................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Windsor Community Profile ........................................................................................ 7 2.4. Economic Trends........................................................................................................ 10 2.5. Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................... 10 2.6. Development Trends and Future Development ......................................................... 11 2.7. Critical Facilities ....................................................................................................... 11 2.8. Evacuation Routes ..................................................................................................... 12 2.9. Energy Infrastructure................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3 – Hazards Assessment ...................................................................... 15 3.1. Hazard Identification................................................................................................. 15 3.2. Hazard Prioritization................................................................................................. 17 3.3. Climate Change Considerations ................................................................................ 18 3.4. Hazard Profiles .......................................................................................................... 18 Landslide .......................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4 – Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 45 Assessment Method .......................................................................................................... 45 Risk Assessment Results .................................................................................................. 47 Chapter 5 – Mitigation Actions ......................................................................... 53 5.1. Hazard Mitigation Overview ..................................................................................... 53 Page i Public Review Draft – February 2017 Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.2. Hazard Mitigation Actions......................................................................................... 53 5.3. Capabilities Assessment ............................................................................................ 67 Chapter 6 – Plan Maintenance and Capabilities .................................................... 75 6.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ....................................................... 75 6.2. Plan Update Method and Schedule............................................................................ 76 6.3. Adoption..................................................................................................................... 77 6.4. Implementation ......................................................................................................... 77 6.5. Continued Public Involvement .................................................................................. 78 6.6. Point of Contact ......................................................................................................... 78 Appendix A ................................................................................................ A-1 Appendix B ................................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C ................................................................................................ C-1 Appendix D................................................................................................ D-1 Appendix E ................................................................................................ E-1 Page ii Public Review Draft – February 2017 Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Tables Table 1. Key Resources Used to Develop the LHMP ............................................................ 6 Table 2. Basic Demographics of Windsor and Sonoma County, 2014................................... 8 Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Windsor and Sonoma County Residents, 2014 .................... 8 Table 4. Educational Attainment in Windsor and Sonoma County, 2014 (25+ Years of Age) ................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 5. Languages Spoken and Language Proficiency in Windsor and Sonoma County, 2014 (5+ Years of Age) ............................................................................................ 9 Table 6. Jobs by Major Sector in Windsor, 2015 ................................................................ 10 Table 7. Windsor Land Uses (2015) ................................................................................... 10 Table 8. Windsor Critical Facilities.................................................................................... 12 Table 9. Evaluated Hazards for Windsor LHMP................................................................ 15 Table 10. Hazard Criteria Ranking Scores and Weighing Factors....................................... 17 Table 11. Scores and Threat Levels for Included Hazards ................................................... 18 Table 12. US Drought Monitor Classification Scheme ......................................................... 22 Table 13. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale......................................................................... 25 Table 14. Major Faults Near Windsor.................................................................................. 28 Table 15. UCERF3 Major Earthquake Probabilities for Faults Near Windsor .................... 31 Table 16. Selected Earthquake Scenarios Near Windsor ..................................................... 32 Table 17. Windsor Critical Facilities.................................................................................... 46 Table 18. Social Vulnerability Metrics ................................................................................. 47 Table 19. Critical Facilities in Dam Failure Hazard Zone ................................................... 47 Table 20. Social Vulnerability for Dam Failure Hazard Zone .............................................. 48 Table 21. Critical Facilities in Flood Hazard Zones ............................................................. 49 Table 22. Social Vulnerability for Flood Hazard Zones ........................................................ 50 Table 23. Critical Facilities in Landslide Hazard Zones ...................................................... 51 Table 24. Critical Facilities in Liquefaction Hazard Zones .................................................. 51 Table 25. Social Vulnerability for Liquefaction Hazard Zones............................................. 52 Table 26. Critical Facilities in Wildfire Hazard Zone .......................................................... 52 Table 27. STAPLE/E Criteria............................................................................................... 54 Table 28. Town of Windsor Hazard Mitigation Actions ....................................................... 57 Table 29. Town of Windsor Capabilities Assessment ........................................................... 69 Page iii Public Review Draft – February 2017 Town of Windsor Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figures
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Resources
    3.2 Land Resources 3.2 Land Resources 3.2.1 Geologic Setting The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California. The topography of the province is characterized by mountain ranges with intervening valleys trending to the northwest, roughly paralleling the Pacific coastline. The project site is located in the northern portion of the Alexander Valley, which in the area is also referred to locally as the Cloverdale Valley. The Alexander Valley is likely a sediment-filled valley that has been pulled apart by the Maacama and the Healdsburg Fault Zones. Elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 302 to 332 feet above mean sea level, sloping in a southeasterly direction. The project site lies within the eastern flank of the northern Coast Ranges, which is underlain by the Franciscan Complex, an assemblage of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Bedrock underlying the project area is about 50 feet to 60 feet deep and consists of fractured dark greenish-gray shale of the Franciscan Formation. Overlying the bedrock assemblages in the project region are younger (10,000 to 1.6 million years old) alluvium and river channel deposits consisting of various clay, silt, sand, and gravel mixtures. Boring logs revealed that these alluvial sediments occur generally as alternating sandy clay mixtures and gravels from the surface to the interface with the bedrock. The sediment transport and depositional history of the Russian River has controlled the placement of the alluvial sediments and the horizontal and vertical distribution of these materials (Appendix K). 3.2.2 Soils Figure 3.2-1 provides a map of soils on the project site.
    [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]
  • Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L
    Masthead Logo Smith ScholarWorks Geosciences: Faculty Publications Geosciences 3-2012 Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L. Evans Harvard University John P. Loveless Harvard University, [email protected] Brendan J. Meade Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Eileen L.; Loveless, John P.; and Meade, Brendan J., "Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault" (2012). Geosciences: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs/21 This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Geosciences: Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Smith ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected] JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, B03410, doi:10.1029/2011JB008398, 2012 Geodetic constraints on San Francisco Bay Area fault slip rates and potential seismogenic asperities on the partially creeping Hayward fault Eileen L. Evans,1 John P. Loveless,1,2 and Brendan J. Meade1 Received 28 March 2011; revised 17 November 2011; accepted 31 January 2012; published 31 March 2012. [1] The Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) is sometimes considered unusual among continental faults for exhibiting significant aseismic creep during the interseismic phase of the seismic cycle while also generating sufficient elastic strain to produce major earthquakes. Imaging the spatial variation in interseismic fault creep on the Hayward fault is complicated because of the interseismic strain accumulation associated with nearby faults in the SFBA, where the relative motion between the Pacific plate and the Sierra block is partitioned across closely spaced subparallel faults.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma Gounty Residents Face Big Challenges
    July 8, 2019 TAC Mtg Agenda Item #5 Attachment 1 WILL THERE BE WATER AFTER AN EARTHQUAKE? Sonoma Gounty Residents Face Big Challenges SUMMARY When the next earthquake arrives, will we have enough water? Engineers say our water supplies will probably be disrupted after a major earthquake. In Sonoma County, most people rely on water supplied by Sonoma Water (formerly known as the Sonoma County Water Agency) to nine city contractors and special districts, and they, in turn, deliver water to residents, businesses, and organizations within their areas. The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury has investigated how well-prepared Sonoma Water is to respond to a major earthquake. Our report seeks to answer this crucial question: What plans and resources are in place in the event of a major earthquake, to provide drinking water to residents of the county who receive water from Sonoma Water? The Russian River is the primary source of water for Sonoma County and northern Marin County. Sonoma Water supplies 90%o of the pressurized water used in nine contracting cities and water agencies (Santa Rosa, Windsor, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District) that together serve over 600,000 customers. Water flows through a network of pumps, pipes, and valves to its final destination in our homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses. Sonoma Water projects that a minor earthquake (5.0 or less) will not impair water supply operations or services, and will not present immediate danger to the health and welfare of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.5 Geological Resources
    Cotati Downtown Specific Plan GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Draft EIR 4.5 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Issues Although implementation of the DSP will improve buildings in the planning area relative to geologic and seismic safety by upgrading structures or developing new structures subject to current building codes, implementation of the plan will also induce population growth and development in a seismically active area. The evaluation that follows provides a general characterization of the seismic setting, soil types, and associated hazards and risks in the planning area. This analysis is not intended as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical reports that may be required for individual projects in the DSP area under the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Additional study may be required to obtain site-specific data, and to determine the appropriate engineering recommendations based on a particular building’s size, design, and use. 4.5.2 Setting Regional (Structural) Geology California is divided geologically into several physiographic or geomorphic provinces, including the Sierra Nevada range, the Central (Great) Valley, the Transverse Ranges, the Coast Ranges, and others. Cotati lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Range was formed at the intersection of two tectonic plates: the Pacific to the west, and the North American to the east. The compressive and shearing motions between the tectonic plates resulted in a complex system of active strike-slip faults, reverse faults, thrust faults and related folds (bends in rock layers). Locally, the Coast Ranges are characterized by northwest trending valleys and basins. Cotati is located in the topographic area known as the Cotati Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • I Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National
    Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program - External Research Grants Award Number 08HQGR0140 Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: Science, Hazard, Engineering and Risk Conference Dates: October 22nd-26th, 2008 Location: California State University, East Bay Principal Investigator: Mitchell S. Craig Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences California State University, East Bay Submitted March 2010 Summary The Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area was held October 22nd-26th, 2008 at California State University, East Bay. The conference included three days of technical presentations attended by over 200 participants, a public forum, two days of field trips, and a one-day teacher training workshop. Over 100 technical presentations were given, including oral and poster presentations. A printed volume containing the conference program and abstracts of presentations (attached) was provided to attendees. Participants included research scientists, consultants, emergency response personnel, and lifeline agency engineers. The conference provided a rare opportunity for professionals from a wide variety of disciplines to meet and discuss common strategies to address region-specific seismic hazards. The conference provided participants with a comprehensive overview of the vast amount of new research that has been conducted and new methods that have been employed in the study of East Bay earthquake hazards since the last East Bay Earthquake Conference was held in 1992. Topics of presentations included seismic and geodetic monitoring of faults, trench-based fault studies, probabilistic seismic risk analysis, earthquake hazard mapping, and models of earthquake rupture, seismic wave propagation, and ground shaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Superposition in Fault Systems Bounding Santa Clara Valley, California
    A New Three-Dimensional Look at the Geology, Geophysics, and Hydrology of the Santa Clara (“Silicon”) Valley themed issue Structural superposition bounding Santa Clara Valley Structural superposition in fault systems bounding Santa Clara Valley, California R.W. Graymer, R.G. Stanley, D.A. Ponce, R.C. Jachens, R.W. Simpson, and C.M. Wentworth U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, MS 973, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT We use the term “structural superposition” to and/or reverse-oblique faults, including the emphasize that younger structural features are Silver Creek Thrust1 (Fig. 3). The reverse and/or Santa Clara Valley is bounded on the on top of older structural features as a result of reverse-oblique faults are generated by a com- southwest and northeast by active strike-slip later tectonic deformation, such that they now bination of regional fault-normal compression and reverse-oblique faults of the San Andreas conceal or obscure the older features. We use the (Page, 1982; Page and Engebretson, 1984) fault system. On both sides of the valley, these term in contrast to structural reactivation, where combined with the restraining left-step transfer faults are superposed on older normal and/or pre existing structures accommodate additional of slip between the central Calaveras fault and right-lateral normal oblique faults. The older deformation, commonly in a different sense the southern Hayward fault (Aydin and Page, faults comprised early components of the San from the original deformation (e.g., a normal 1984; Andrews et al., 1993; Kelson et al., 1993). Andreas fault system as it formed in the wake fault reactivated as a reverse fault), and in con- Approximately two-thirds of present-day right- of the northward passage of the Mendocino trast to structural overprinting, where preexisting lateral slip on the southern part of the Calaveras Triple Junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Brocher
    Bay Area Geophysical Society Seminar Series Thomas Brocher USGS November 19, 2018 4:00 PM McCone Hall 265, UC Berkeley The 150th Anniversary of the Damaging 1868 Hayward Earthquake: Why it Matters Abstract: October 21st marks the 150th anniversary of the damaging 1868 Hayward earthquake. USGS studies of the Hayward Fault reveal that it has produced 12 large earthquakes in the past 2000 years spaced from 100 to 220 years apart. The Hayward Fault is one of the most urbanized faults in the United States. So the expected large Hayward Fault earthquake will impact the entire San Francisco Bay Area. The odds of a damaging M6.7 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area in the next 30 years are nearly 3 out of 4. The effects of earthquakes can be mitigated through building codes, retrofits, planning, and training. Speaker Bio: Tom Brocher is a seismologist at the USGS Earthquake Science Center, in Menlo Park, where he has worked for 33 years after working briefly at the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He served as Director of the Earthquake Science Center for several years and prior to that served as the USGS Coordinator for Northern California Earthquake Hazard Investigations. His interests include earthquake hazard assessment, earthquake mitigation, and earthquake preparedness. Tom served as chair of the 1868 Hayward Earthquake Alliance, a public/private non-profit organization seeking to increase public awareness of that earthquake and the hazards posed by the Hayward Fault. Tom has authored or co-authored 165 peer-reviewed publications and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Dimensional Deformation and Stress Models: Exploring One-Thousand Years of Earthquake History Along the San Andreas Fault System
    Three-dimensional Deformation and Stress Models: Exploring One-Thousand Years of Earthquake History Along the San Andreas Fault System by Bridget Renee Smith UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY 2005 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Three-dimensional Deformation and Stress Models: Exploring One-Thousand Years of Earthquake History Along the San Andreas Fault System A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Earth Sciences by Bridget Renee Smith Committee in charge: David T. Sandwell, Chair Bruce Bills Steve Cande Yuri Fialko Catherine Johnson Xanthippi Markenscoff 2005 Copyright Bridget Smith, 2005 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Bridget Renee Smith is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ University of California, San Diego 2005 iii For my parents – although I have never been a student in your classrooms, you will always be my most treasured teachers of life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page.……………………...……………………………………………………………….iii Dedication.……………………...……………………………………………………………………iv Table of Contents.……………………..……………………………………………………………...v List of Figures and Tables.……………………...………………………………………………….viii Acknowledgements.…………………….………………………………………………………….…x
    [Show full text]
  • Database of Potential Sources for Earthquakes Larger Than Magnitude 6 in Northern California
    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DATABASE OF POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR EARTHQUAKES LARGER THAN MAGNITUDE 6 IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA By The Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential Open-File Report 96-705 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1996 Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential William Bakun U.S. Geological Survey Edward Bortugno California Office of Emergency Services William Bryant California Division of Mines & Geology Gary Carver Humboldt State University Kevin Coppersmith Geomatrix N. T. Hall Geomatrix James Hengesh Dames & Moore Angela Jayko U.S. Geological Survey Keith Kelson William Lettis Associates Kenneth Lajoie U.S. Geological Survey William R. Lettis William Lettis Associates James Lienkaemper* U.S. Geological Survey Michael Lisowski Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Patricia McCrory U.S. Geological Survey Mark Murray Stanford University David Oppenheimer U.S. Geological Survey William D. Page Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Mark Petersen California Division of Mines & Geology Carol S. Prentice U.S. Geological Survey William Prescott U.S. Geological Survey Thomas Sawyer William Lettis Associates David P. Schwartz* U.S. Geological Survey Jeff Unruh William Lettis Associates Dave Wagner California Division of Mines & Geology
    [Show full text]
  • Seismotectonics of the San Andreas Fault System Between
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 1993 Seismotectonics of the San Andreas Fault System Between Point Arena and Cape Mendocino in Northern California' Implications for the Development and Evolution of a Young Transform David A. Castillo Stanford University William L. Ellsworth U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Castillo, David A. and Ellsworth, William L., "Seismotectonics of the San Andreas Fault System Between Point Arena and Cape Mendocino in Northern California' Implications for the Development and Evolution of a Young Transform" (1993). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 387. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/387 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 98, NO. B4, PAGES 6543-6560, APRIL 10, 1993 Seismotectonics of the San Andreas Fault System Between Point Arena and Cape Mendocino in Northern California' Implications for the Development and Evolution of a Young Transform DAVID A. CASTILLO 1 AND WILLIAM L. ELLSWORTH U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California The northernmostand relatively youthful segmentof the San Andreas fault systemis situated within a 100+ km wide zone of northwest trending strike-slip faults that includes, from west to east, the San Andreas, Maacama, and Bartlett Springs faults. Although the San Andreas fault is the principal strike-slip fault in this system, it has been virtually aseismic since the 1906 earthquake.
    [Show full text]
  • Fault Scaling Relationships Depend on the Average Fault Slip Rate
    Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript RL+SR_2MW_r16.tex 1 Fault Scaling Relationships Depend on the 2 Average Fault Slip Rate 3 John G. Anderson, Glenn P. Biasi, Steven G. Wes- 4 nousky 5 Abstract 6 This study addresses whether knowing the slip rate on a fault improves es- 7 timates of magnitude (MW ) of shallow, continental surface-rupturing earth- 8 quakes. Based on 43 earthquakes from the database of Wells and Coppersmith 9 (1994), Anderson et al. (1996) previously suggested that estimates of MW from 10 rupture length (LE)areimprovedbyincorporatingthesliprateofthefault 11 (SF ). We re-evaluate this relationship with an expanded database of 80 events, 12 that includes 57 strike-slip, 12 reverse, and 11 normal faulting events. When the 13 data are subdivided by fault mechanism, magnitude predictions from rupture 14 length are improved for strike-slip faults when slip rate is included, but not for 15 reverse or normal faults. Whether or not the slip rate term is present, a linear 16 model with M log L over all rupture lengths implies that the stress drop W ⇠ E 17 depends on rupture length - an observation that is not supported by teleseismic 18 observations. We consider two other models, including one we prefer because it 19 has constant stress drop over the entire range of LE for any constant value of 20 SF and fits the data as well as the linear model. The dependence on slip rate for 21 strike-slip faults is a persistent feature of all considered models. The observed 22 dependence on SF supports the conclusion that for strike-slip faults of a given 23 length, the static stress drop, on average, tends to decrease as the fault slip rate 24 increases.
    [Show full text]