Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Environmental and Engineering Geoscience   Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; February 2008; v. 14; no. 1; p. 43-51; DOI: 10.2113/gseegeosci.14.1.43
© 2008 Association of Engineering Geologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SEXTON, C. J.

Implementing the California Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: A Proposal for Change

CHRISTOPHER J. SEXTON1

1 GeoDynamics, Inc., 558 St. Charles Drive, Suite 116, Thousand Oaks, CA 91306

The California Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 prohibits building structures for human occupancy over active faults. This directive seems simple but in practice has proven difficult to follow. The language of the Act and the related policies and criteria allow for different interpretations. Some believe that the language provides a degree of latitude for the professional geologist to make judgments regarding the hazard associated with minor faults. Others believe the language requires stringent criteria with no such latitude and that all faults within the AP zones are potential hazards that must be avoided in the absence of clear evidence precluding Holocene ground rupture. The AP Act has been implemented for many years using the less stringent criteria. The GeoHazards Committee of the California State Mining and Geology Board recently recommended that the language be interpreted to mean that all faults within an AP zone are presumed to be active until demonstrated otherwise. This interpretation presents difficult challenges to consultants, reviewers, city officials, and developers. The stringent criteria probably cannot be met where tract developments are proposed in complex fault zones. Public safety and welfare is better served by a mitigation program that combines avoidance of well-defined faults with engineered mitigation applied to all other areas where construction is proposed within an AP Zone.

Key Words: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act • Engineering Geology • Ground Rupture Mitigation • Active Fault







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Association of Engineering Geologists