Appendix IS-3 Soils and Geology Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
5.4 Geology and Soils
BEACH BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR CITY OF ANAHEIM 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan (Proposed Project) to impact geological and soil resources in the City of Anaheim. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972. Its primary purpose is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The act delineates “Earthquake Fault Zones” along faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” The act also requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an earthquake fault zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. Pursuant to this act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault. Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the state in 1990 to protect the public from the effects of nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The goal of the act is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures. -
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL 9515 HANEY STREET PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM Whittier, California January 20, 2016 Project 4953-15-0302 January 20, 2016 Mr Luis Rojas Rio Hondo Program Management Team c/o Rio Hondo College 3600 Workman Mill Road Whittier, California 90601-1699 Subject: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements Proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus El Rancho Adult School 9515 Haney Street Pico Rivera, California, 90660 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302 Dear Mr. Rojas: We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult School in Pico Rivera, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 24, 2015, which was authorized by e-mail on December 15, 2015. The scope of our services was planned with Mr. Manuel Jaramillo of DelTerra. We have been furnished with a site plan and a general description of the proposed improvements. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a permit. Correspondence: Amec Foster Wheeler 6001 Rickenbacker Road Los Angeles, California 90040 USA -
City of Monrovia General Plan General Plan Safety Element Safety
City of Monrovia General Plan Safety Element Adopted June 12, 2002 Resolution No. 2002-40 Safety Element City of Monrovia Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Seismic Activity ......................................................................................................................... 2 A. Background......................................................................................................................... 2 1. Geologic Setting............................................................................................................ 2 2. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act ............................................................. 2 Major Faults .................................................................................................................. 3 B. Goals, Objectives and Policies - Seismic Activity............................................................... 9 III. Flood Control........................................................................................................................... 11 A. Background....................................................................................................................... 11 1. Setting ......................................................................................................................... 11 2. Mud and Debris Flows ............................................................................................... -
3-8 Geologic-Seismic
Environmental Evaluation 3-8 GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC Changes Since the Draft EIS/EIR Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS/EIR in April 2004, the Gold Line Phase II project has undergone several updates: Name Change: To avoid confusion expressed about the terminology used in the Draft EIS/EIR (e.g., Phase I; Phase II, Segments 1 and 2), the proposed project is referred to in the Final EIS/EIR as the Gold Line Foothill Extension. Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative and Updated Project Definition: Following the release of the Draft EIS/EIR, the public comment period, and input from the cities along the alignment, the Construction Authority Board approved a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in August 2004. This LPA included the Triple Track Alternative (2 LRT and 1 freight track) that was defined and evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR, a station in each city, and the location of the Maintenance and Operations Facility. Segment 1 was changed to extend eastward to Azusa. A Project Definition Report (PDR) was prepared to define refined station and parking lot locations, grade crossings and two rail grade separations, and traction power substation locations. The Final EIS/EIR and engineering work that support the Final EIS/EIR are based on the project as identified in the Final PDR (March 2005), with the following modifications. Following the PDR, the Construction Authority Board approved a Revised LPA in June 2005. Between March and August 2005, station options in Arcadia and Claremont were added. Changes in the Discussions: To make the Final EIS/EIR more reader-friendly, the following format and text changes have been made: Discussion of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative has been deleted since the LPA decision in August 2004 eliminated it as a potential preferred alternative. -
The Research Results Described in the Following Summaries Were Submitted by the Investigators on May 10, 1984 and Cover the 6-Mo
The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on May 10, 1984 and cover the 6-months period from October 1, 1983 through May 1, 1984. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the three major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 84-628 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research. Readers who wish to cite findings described herein should confirm their accuracy with the author. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME XVIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson Thelraa R. Rodriguez CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Page I. Recent Tectonics and Earthquake Potential (T) Determine the tectonic framework and earthquake potential of U.S. seismogenic zones with significant hazard potential. Objective T-1. Regional seismic monitoring........................ 1 Objective T-2. Source zone characteristics Identify and map active crustal faults, using geophysical and geological data to interpret the structure and geometry of seismogenic zones. -
Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS VOLUME XXVIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on May 14, 1989 and cover the period from October 1, 1988 through April 1, 1989. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the five major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 89-453 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Parts of it were pre pared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necess arily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research. Readers who wish to cite findings described herein should confirm their accuracy with the author. CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Page ELEMENT I - Recent Tectonics and Earthquake Potential Determine the tectonic framework and earthquake potential of U.S. seismogenic zones with significant hazard potential Objective (1-1); Regional seismic monitoring.................... 1 Objective (1-2): Source zone characteristics Identify and map active crustal faults, using geophysical and geological data to interpret the structure and geometry of seismogenic zones. -
Estimation of Future Earthquake Losses in California
Estimation of Future Earthquake Losses in California B. Rowshandel, M. Reichle, C. Wills, T. Cao, M. Petersen(¨), D. Branum, and J. Davis California Geological Survey Executive Summary Using the latest information on earthquake hazard in California and the publicly available demographic data, we have made estimations of expected future earthquake economic losses in the State. The estimates presented in this paper are for two categories: scenario earthquake loss, and annualized earthquake loss. For scenario earthquake loss, we quantified the damage and loss expected in ten counties in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) and in ten counties in Southern California, due to possible earthquakes on known faults in the two regions. To accomplish this task, we used scenario ground motions, or shake-maps of 50 potential earthquakes published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Of these 50 scenario shake-maps, 34 represent the expected ground motion hazard in the SFBA counties and 16 represent the expected ground motion hazard in the southern region. For annualized earthquake loss, we estimated the overall long-term damage and loss using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) maps for the State of California, prepared and published by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the USGS. These PSHA maps show the expected ground motions of specified annual chance of occurrence at any location within the State. The effect on ground motions on the soils at the site are taken into account for both the shake-maps and the PSHA maps, through the use of appropriate ground motion attenuation relations and soil correction factors. Liquefaction effect was taken into account for the annualized loss study, but not for the scenario loss study. -
Sessions Calendar
Associated Societies GSA has a long tradition of collaborating with a wide range of partners in pursuit of our mutual goals to advance the geosciences, enhance the professional growth of society members, and promote the geosciences in the service of humanity. GSA works with other organizations on many programs and services. AASP - The American Association American Geophysical American Institute American Quaternary American Rock Association for the Palynological Society of Petroleum Union (AGU) of Professional Association Mechanics Association Sciences of Limnology and Geologists (AAPG) Geologists (AIPG) (AMQUA) (ARMA) Oceanography (ASLO) American Water Asociación Geológica Association for Association of Association of Earth Association of Association of Geoscientists Resources Association Argentina (AGA) Women Geoscientists American State Science Editors Environmental & Engineering for International (AWRA) (AWG) Geologists (AASG) (AESE) Geologists (AEG) Development (AGID) Blueprint Earth (BE) The Clay Minerals Colorado Scientifi c Council on Undergraduate Cushman Foundation Environmental & European Association Society (CMS) Society (CSS) Research Geosciences (CF) Engineering Geophysical of Geoscientists & Division (CUR) Society (EEGS) Engineers (EAGE) European Geosciences Geochemical Society Geologica Belgica Geological Association Geological Society of Geological Society of Geological Society of Union (EGU) (GS) (GB) of Canada (GAC) Africa (GSAF) Australia (GSAus) China (GSC) Geological Society of Geological Society of Geologische Geoscience -
U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No
U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No. G12AP20066 Recipient: University of California at Santa Barbara Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Craig Nicholson1, Andreas Plesch2, John Shaw2 & Egill Hauksson3 1Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara 2Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University 3Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Principal Investigator: Craig Nicholson Marine Science Institute, University of California MC 6150, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 phone: 805-893-8384; fax: 805-893-8062; email: [email protected] 01 April 2012 - 31 March 2013 Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS Award No. G12AP20066. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. 1 Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Abstract Accurate assessment of the seismic hazard in southern California requires an accurate and complete description of the active faults in three dimensions. Dynamic rupture behavior, realistic rupture scenarios, fault segmentation, and the accurate prediction of fault interactions and strong ground motion all strongly depend on the location, sense of slip, and 3D geometry of these active fault surfaces. Comprehensive and improved catalogs of relocated earthquakes for southern California are now available for detailed analysis. These catalogs comprise over 500,000 revised earthquake hypocenters, and nearly 200,000 well-determined earthquake focal mechanisms since 1981. These extensive catalogs need to be carefully examined and analyzed, not only for the accuracy and resolution of the earthquake hypocenters, but also for kinematic consistency of the spatial pattern of fault slip and the orientation of 3D fault surfaces at seismogenic depths. -
IV.F GEOLOGY and SOILS 1. Introduction This Section of the EIR
IV.F GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Introduction This section of the EIR describes the current geologic and soil conditions underlying the project site and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with geological hazards related to seismic impacts and subsurface conditions. This analysis is based on a Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., and two Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigations prepared by Petra and LGC Inland. The geotechnical reports are included as Appendix F. 2. Environmental Setting a) Regulatory Environment 1) State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 established the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in order to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 2621) was passed in response to the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which caused extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. The primary purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to prevent the construction of buildings for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults, to provide the citizens with increased safety, and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting to strengthen buildings against ground shaking (PRC Section 2621.5). Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the state geologist is required to establish regulatory zones, known as Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps to assist cities and counties in planning, zoning, and building regulation functions. Maps are distributed to all affected cities and counties for the controlling of new or renewed construction and are required to sufficiently define potential surface rupture or fault creep. -
Explanitory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California
An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D. STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2010 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any given purpose. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 Compilation and Interpretation by CHARLES W. JENNINGS and WILLIAM A. BRYANT Digital Preparation by Milind Patel, Ellen Sander, Jim Thompson, Barbra Wanish, and Milton Fonseca 2010 Suggested citation: Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California INTRODUCTION data for states adjacent to California (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). The The 2010 edition of the FAULT ACTIVTY MAP aligned seismicity and locations of Quaternary OF CALIFORNIA was prepared in recognition of the th volcanoes are not shown on the 2010 Fault Activity 150 Anniversary of the California Geological Map. -
Seismic Hazards
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the 2003 SAFETY ELEMENT CITY of GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC HAZARDS 1.1 Introduction While Glendale is at risk from many natural and man-made hazards, an earthquake is the event with the greatest potential for far-reaching loss of life or property, and economic damage. This is true for most of southern California, since damaging earthquakes are frequent, affect widespread areas, trigger many secondary effects, and can overwhelm the ability of local jurisdictions to respond. Earthquake- triggered geologic effects include ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches, all of which are discussed below. Earthquakes can also cause human-made hazards such as urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases. These man-made hazards are also discussed in this document. In California, recent earthquakes in or near urban environments have caused relatively few casualties. This is due more to luck than design. For example, when a portion of the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland collapsed at rush hour during the 1989, MW 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, it was uncommonly empty because so many were watching the World Series. The 1994, MW 6.7 Northridge earthquake occurred before dawn, when most people were home safely in bed. Despite such good luck, California’s urban earthquakes have resulted in significant losses. The moderate-sized Northridge earthquake caused 54 deaths and nearly $30 billion in damage. Glendale is at risk from earthquakes that could release more than 10 times the seismic energy of the Northridge earthquake. Although it is not possible to prevent earthquakes, their destructive effects can be minimized.