Advertisement

The review process and the adequacy of geologic reports

  • Stewart R. M. 
  • Hart E. W. 
  • Amimoto P. Y. 
Section 13 Engineering Geology
  • 31 Downloads

Summary

Several statutes in California require either the preparation of a geologic report based upon site investigations or of a broader report, containing information on geologic conditions, prior to approval of specified types of development. This paper relates to compliance with the intent of statutes that govern construction of hospitals, construction of structures in hazardous fault zones, or projects that will have a significant effect upon the environment. Analysis of reviews of these reports indicates that initial reports tend to be inadequate for their intended purposes, and improvement is noted only after a review and feedback process.

Report inadequacies, as indicated during review by staff of the Division of Mines and Geology, led to the development and wide distribution of guidelines to assist in report preparation and of check sheets to further aid in the review and feedback process.

The review process has proved necessary to identify at least minimum standards of adequacy. The feedback process closes the information loop, leading to the requirement for acquisition of and reporting on geologic data adequate to the needs of the project. Thus the reviewer helps enforce the laws. Ultimate success depends upon complete communication among all concerned parties.

Keywords

Liquefaction Feedback Process Engineering Geology Geologic Hazard Geologic Factor 

La Procedure De Revue Et La Suffisance Des Rapports Geologiques

Résumé

Plusiers ordonnances en Californie requièrent ou bien la préparation d’un rapport géologique basé sur des investigations sur place ou celle d’un rapport plus étendu contenant des renseignements sur les conditions géologiques, avant l’approbation de certains types donnés de développement. Cet exposé traite de la manière de se conformer aux intentions d’ordonnances gouvernant la construction d’hôpitaux, la construction de structures dans des zones de failles dangereuses ou des projets ayant un effet significatif sur l’environnement. L’analyse des revues de ces rapports indique que les rapports initiaux ont tendance à ne pas être suffisants pour répondre aux intentions des ordonnances en question et cette situation ne s’améliore qu’à la suite d’une revue et d’une procédure rétroactive.

L’insuffisance des rapports, telle qu’indiquée au cours d’une revue faite par le personnel de la Division des Mines et de Géologie, a conduit au développement et à la distribution étendue de grandes lignes destinées à faciliter la préparation des dits rapports et de feuilles de vérifications destinées à faciliter leur revue et la procédure rétroactive.

La procédure de revue s’est avérée nécessaire pour identifier au moins les standards minimum de suffisance. La procédure rétroactive ferme la boucle des données informatives et conduit aux conditions d’acquisition et de reportage de données géologiques suffisantes pour répondre aux besoins des projets. Ainsi la procédure total de revue aide à respecter les intentions de la loi. La réussite finale dépend d’une communication totale entre tous les partis intéressés.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALFORS John T. — BURNETT John L. — GAY Thomas E. Jr. (1973) : Urban geology master plan for California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 198, 112 p.Google Scholar
  2. AMIMOTO Perry Y. (1974): Review of new hospital sites for seismic safety: California Geology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 110–113, California Division of Mines and Geology.Google Scholar
  3. AMIMOTO Perry Y. — SLOSSON James E. (1975) : Guidelines for geologic/seismic considerations in environmental impact reports: CDMG Note Number 46, California Division of Mines and Geology, 2 p.Google Scholar
  4. HART Earl W. (1975) : Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture and suggested outline for geologic report on faults, CDMG Note Number 49, California Division of Mines and Geology, 4 p.Google Scholar
  5. HART Earl W. (1976) : Fault hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with index to Special Studies Zones Maps: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Revised Edition, 27 p.Google Scholar
  6. HART Earl W. — WAGNER David L. (1975) : Investigations of surface faulting / a critique, Abstracts, 18th Annual Meeting, Association of Engineering Geologists, p. 24.Google Scholar
  7. HART Earl W. — WILLIAMS John W. (1976) : The geologic review process: Association of Engineering Geologists, San Francisco Section, Committee on Standards and Practices, unpublished draft guideline, 6 p.Google Scholar
  8. LEIGHTON F. Beach (1975): Role of geotechnical consultants and reviewers for the County of San Mateo: California Geology, v. 28, no. 8, p. 178–181, California Division of Mines and Geology.Google Scholar
  9. MURPHY George H. (1976): Geologists and environmental impact reports: California Geology, v. 29, no. 1, p. 22, California Division of Mines and Geology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Engineering Geology 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stewart R. M. 
    • 1
  • Hart E. W. 
    • 2
  • Amimoto P. Y. 
    • 3
  1. 1.California Division of Mines and GeologySan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.California Division of Mines and GeologySan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.California Division of Mines and GeologySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations