Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 16.2
Map of geological hazard potentials of the eastern Gulf of Finland and its coastal zone.
1,
sunken vessels;
2,
offshore oil platforms;
3,
dumps;
4,
sandpits;
5,
ports;
6,
anchorage;
7,
ship
channels;
8
, oil and gas pipelines;
9,
main cables;
10,
St. Petersburg Flood Protection Facility;
11,
ship channel “Marine Channel”;
12,
areas of hazardous technogenic impact;
13,
areas of pock-
mark occurrence;
14,
areas of oil geological exploration;
15,
spillways;
16,
water intake point;
17,
recreation zones;
18,
nature protected areas;
19,
assumed boundaries of different geological risk
areas;
20,
erosion;
21,
swamping;
22,
areas of high sedimentation rates;
23,
transit;
24,
under-
flooding;
25,
mud accumulation with overgrowing;
26,
landslides, landslips;
27,
buried valleys;
28,
sediment flows;
29,
geomorphic anomalies of high risk;
30,
geomorphic anomalies of medium
risk;
31,
deflation;
32,
active erosion valley (incised valley); tectonic faults:
33,
fixed;
34,
assumed;
35,
tectonic uplift;
36,
tectonic subsidence;
37,
earthquakes epicenters;
38,
gas seep;
39,
Ra seep;
40,
high;
41,
medium;
42,
low;
43,
hazardous coastal erosion;
44,
potentially hazardous coastal
erosion;
45,
stable coasts
≤
seismic intensity in this area is
I
5. However, the unexpected Kaliningrad earth-
quake on 21 September 2004, with a main shock of 5.0 magnitude, was stronger than
any other earthquake formerly instrumentally recorded within the Eastern European
earthquakes should also be considered as hazard potentials around the Baltic. Slow
neo and modern tectonic movements can be regarded as unfavorable geological pro-
cesses. It is possible to assume that the rate of coast sinking in the Kaliningrad area
genic geodynamics, which leads to hazardous erosion or, on the contrary, to silting
and embankment.
