Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

W. J. Kockelman

Publications and source records attributed to W. J. Kockelman.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1988

Assessing the earthquake hazards in urban areas

Major urban areas in widely scattered geographic locations across the United States are a t varying degrees of risk from earthquakes. the locations of these urban areas include Charleston, South Carolina; Memphis Tennessee; St.Louis, Missouri; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle-Tacoma, Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Anchorage, Alaska; even Boston, Massachusetts, and Buffalo New York, have a history of large earthquakes. Cooperative research during the past decade has focused on assessing the nature and degree of the risk or seismic hazard i nthe broad geographic regions around each urban area. The strategy since the 1970's has been to bring together local, State, and Federal resources to solve the problem of assessing seismic risk. Successfl sooperative programs have been launched in the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles regions in California and the Wasatch Front region in Utah.

Earthquakes & Volcanoes (USGS)↗
USGS1985

Reducing losses from earthquakes through personal preparedness

Actions to reduce earthquake hazards can be divided into five phases:two occur before the event, one during the event, and two after the event. The phases are: (1) Mitigation techniques taken anywhere from 1 to 20 years before the event, (2) preparedness measures taken 1 to 20 weeks before the event, (3) response during the actual event, (4) recovery operations over 1 to 20 weeks, and (5) reconstruction activities taken from 1 to 20 years. The magnitude of the earthquake and the resources available to communities and individuals will very these times. A prerequisite to personal preparedness is familiarity with and concern about the other hazard-reduction phases. Strengthening the structure of the home, storing water, and showing family members how to shut off utility-supply lines are only a part of personal preparedness. Equally important are other phases such as picking up children from an evacuated school, securing heavy objects at the work palce as well as in the home, and retrofitting the commuter-highway overpasses needed to reunite a family.

Earthquake Information Bulletin (USGS)↗
USGS1984

The use of geologic and seismologic information to reduce earthquake Hazards in California

Five examples illustrate how geologic and seismologic information can be used to reduce the effects of earthquakes Included are procedures for anticipating damage to critical facilities, preparing, adopting, or implementing seismic safety studies, plans, and programs, retrofitting highway bridges, regulating development in areas subject to fault-rupture, and strengthening or removing unreinforced masonry buildings. The collective effect of these procedures is to improve the public safety, health, and welfare of individuals and their communities. ?? 1984 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Environmental Geology and Water Sciences↗
USGS1983

Two examples of earthquake- hazard reduction in southern California.

Because California is seismically active, planners and decisionmakers must try to anticipate earthquake hazards there and, where possible, to reduce the hazards. Geologic and seismologic information provides the basis for the necessary plans and actions. Two examples of how such information is used are presented. The first involves assessing the impact of a major earthquake on critical facilities in southern California, and the second involves strengthening or removing unsafe masonry buildings in the Los Angeles area. -from Authors

California↗
USGS1981

Two examples of seismic zonation in the San Francisco Bay region

The science of earthquakes in complex, requiring data and research in seismology, geology, soil mechanics, geophysics, hydrology, and engineering. Nevertheless, if earthquake hazards are to be reduced, earth science information must be translated from scientific and technical language into a form that can be effectively used by planners and decisionmakers. Out of the need to use earth science information in local and regional planning and decisionmaking came an experimental program-the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study. the study, begun in 1970, was jointly supported by the U.S Geological Survey and the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Association of Bay Area Governments and the planning firm of William Spangle and Associates, Inc., participated in the study and provided a liaison and communication link with other regional agencies and with local governments. Since 1975, the composition of the core group within the U.S Geological Survey concerned with seismic zonation has evolved to include seismoloists and engineers concerned with probabilistic approaches to earthquake damage and a planner to assist in the information transfer from scientists and engineers to city, county, and regional planning staffs. Three events have encouraged communities to attempt seismic zonation: passage of the Alquist Priolo Act by the California Legislature requiring special studies in zones encompassing potentially and recently active faults, preparation and adoption of seismic safety plan elements by cities and counties as required by California statute, and further development of a seismic zonation method. The method has four steps: postulating an earthquake of a given size and location; grouping geological materials with similar physical properties; predicting effects of the postulated earthquakes for each geologic unit by type of hazard of failure, namely surface rupture, ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction potential, and landsliding; and combining geologic effects by zones on the map (fig. 1). Examples of seismic zonation at various scales by cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay region show that scientific information can be used effectively in avoiding earthquake hazards and mitigating damage. Six examples were presented at the Second International Conference on Microzonation in 1978 and reprinted in a Survey Circular on the progress on seismic zonation. The method has been used in California by the cities of Mountain View, Novator, and San Francisco and the counties of Marin, Santa Clara, and San Mateo to develop zones which were used as a basis for their general plans, seismic safety plans, development policies or odrinances. Two of these examples, a city and a county, are described here.

California↗
USGS1980

Examples of the use of earth-science information by decisionmakers in the San Francisco Bay region, California

In the six examples discussed and illustrated here, innovative decisionmakers -- public and private -- have used earth-science information to avoid areas with geologic hazards, protect natural resources, and reduce possible property damage in the San Francisco Bay region. The examples show how: 1) development in fault-rupture areas is regulated, 2) potential waste-disposal sites are identified, 3) aquatic and wildlife habitats are protected, 4) site investigations are required in hazardous areas, 5) supplemental building standards can be applied to unstable baylands, and 6) hazards are disclosed to real-estate buyers.

California↗
USGS1977

Flood-prone areas and land-use planning; selected examples from the San Francisco Bay region, California

The common goal of flood-plain regulation and use is protecting life, minimizing public expenditures, and reducing flood loss. A comprehensive program combining structural and nonstructural measures can yield substantial benefits and may present a practical approach for managing a flood plain. A review of flood-plain planning, management, and regulation in the San Francisco Bay region, Calif., as shown by a study of Napa County , demonstrates complex multijurisdictional involvements. (Woodard-USGS)

Professional Paper↗
USGS1975

Use of USGS earth science products by city planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, plan implementation devices, and other planning-related activities was completed for the ninety-one cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 85 earth science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). This inventory showed that: (1) three-fourths of the cities had planning staffs who were familiar with SFBRS products, or had made use of such products; (2) over half of the cities had prepared planning documents which contained references to SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies; seismic safety, public safety, conservation, and open-space plan elements; general reference; and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) almost 90 percent of all 85 SFBRS products were used at least once for a city planning activity, and one product was used at least 67 times for various city planning activities; and (5) at least forty-five other other USGS products were also used for various city planning activities. All of the seven SFBRS products that were used 30 or more times for city planning activities were small-scale, large-areal-coverage, hazard-type products. Each product is interpretative and contains additional data which makes it more relevant or more interesting. The planning staffs of each city were also interviewed and asked to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to recommend improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth science data. The responses showed that: (1) the map scales commonly used by cities were much larger than 1:12,000; (2) few cities had planning staffs with training or experience in the earth sciences or engineering; (3) less than one-fourth of the cities failed to use SFBRS products-primarily because their staffs were unaware of the SFBRS, unfamiliar with its products, or lacked adequate capability; (4) almost two-thirds of the cities expressed some problems in using the products-primarily scale and detail; (5) over two-thirds of the cities expressed an interest in continuing to use, or planning to use, the SFBRS products in the future, and a need or desire for additional earth science, engineering or other data; and (6) over one-half of the cities suggested improvements-primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretative products. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the cities in the Bay region have considerable familiarity with, and have made substantial use of, SFBRS products. This use was made by many cities despite their small size, limited staff capability, and the design of the products which was intended primarily for regional planning at a regional scale. Suggestions are made to ensure more familiarity with, and more effective use of, earth science data in the future. These suggestions include: (1) providing engineering interpretations and land-use capability ratings to make earth science data more readily usable; (2) monitoring and analyzing new state laws and regulations to better anticipate and respond to local earth science data needs; (3) including technical assistance with any earth science data designed for planners and decision-makers; (4) providing larger scale and greater detail earth science data on a demonstration basis; (5) giving priority to urban and urbanizing areas so as to conserve limited staff resources; and (6) ensuring product distribution to all potential users.

California↗