DOCSLIB.ORG

Peat Resources of Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Peat Resources of Washington State of Washington ALBERT D. ROSELLINI, Governor Department of Conservation EARL COE, Director DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MARSHALL T. HUNTTING, Supervisor Bulletin No. 44 PEAT RESOURCES OF WASHINGTON By GEORGE B. RIGG STATE. PR I NTING PLANT, OLYMPI A . WASH, ,ue For sale by Department of Conservation, Olympi.a, Washington. Price, $4.00. LIBRARY DEPARTMtNT OF NATURAL RESOURCE!) GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES DIVfSt0"'1 OLYMPIA, WASHfNGTQN 9850A ~E 1'1-~ k3 eB 4-4 lo?'-/ l- LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To His Excellency, Albert D. Rosellini Governor of the State of Washington Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith Washington Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin No. 44, "Peat Resources of Washington," by George B. Rigg. Washington for many years has been one of the leading states in value of peat production. The wealth of information contained in this report will be found most useful to those who seek peat deposits as sources of ma­ terial to be excavated for sale. As several farm crops in this state are grown almost exclusively on peat soils, farmers who are interested in growing these, as well as other farm crops, will also find this information of par­ ticular value. It is believed, therefore, that the publication of this report will serve a distinct public need. Respectfully yours, EARL COE, Director, Department of Conservation June 15, 1958 III FOREWORD For many years the Division of Mines and Geology has received in­ quiries regarding the availability of peat in Washington. When it was determined in 1949 that a survey of the state's peat resources should be made, the Division was fortunate in obtaining the services of Dr. George B. Rigg, Professor Emeritus, Botany Department, University of Washington. Dr. Rigg is a recognized authority on peat and has spent many years in the study of the deposits of the Northwest. He first began examining sphagnum bogs in Washington in 1909, and between that time and 1949 he had studied some 50 bogs in Washington as well as many in other parts of the country. He had studied the ecology and the physiology of the plants growing on the surface of the bogs and had examined the layers of peat underlying the surface. He was thus the one expert who was most familiar with Wash­ ington peat and was best qualified to conduct a survey of the peat resources of the state. Dr. Rigg was employed by the Division to do the field work on which this report is based, but the results of his many years of past experience are also included in this bulletin, and the many months of work in drawing profiles and writing the report have been contributed by him without pay. Dr. Rigg's valuable contribution will be appreciated not only by those who seek information on peat as a resource to be excavated and marketed but also by agriculturists who are interested in peat lands for growing crops, by botanists, by limnologists, and by students of Pleistocene geology. It is believed that this report will fill a definite need, giving detailed information on a little-known resource that is becoming of increasing commercial value. MARSHALL T. HUNTTING, Supervisor Division of Mines and Geology June 15, 1958 V CONTENTS Page Pnge Letter of Transmittal. III Chapter IV. The peat deposits-Continued Foreword . V Distribution by counties- Continued Abstract . ... .. .......... ......... .. ... ... .. ..... t Jefferson County deposits. 67 King County deposits. 69 Chapter I. Introduction .......... ..................... 1 Kitsap County deposits............... 95 Aims and scope of the investigation . .... 1 Kittitas County deposits . 107 Field work . ... .... ....... ... ....... 2 Klickitat County deposits ... .. ....... 108 Earlier work ......................... 2 Lewis County deposits .... .. .. .... 108 Sources of information on the location of Lincoln County deposits. 109 peat deposits ..... .. .... ..... .. .. 3 Mason County deposits ............... 110 Definitions .... .............. .. .. .... 3 Okanogan County deposits . .. .. .. .. .. 120 Bog .... .. ....... .... .. ..... 3 Pacific County deposits . ...... ... .. 122 Marsh .......... .. .. .. ..... 3 Pend Oreille County deposits . .. .... 128 Swamp . .... ....... ..... 3 Pierce County deposits. 137 Meadow .. ....... ....... 3 San Juan County deposits ... .. .. .. 151 Acknowledgments ................ ... .. 3 Skagit County deposits . .... .... .. 162 Chapter II. Kinds of peat and associated materials ........ 5 Skamania County deposits ..... .. .. 169 General description . .............. .. .. 5 Snohomish County deposits ........ .. 169 Peat .. .................. .......... 5 Spokane County deposits. 196 Moss (sphagnum) peat . ........... 5 Stevens County deposits . .. .. ...... 206 Fibrous peat .. .................. 7 Thurston County deposits . .......... 216 Woody peat .. .................. .. 7 Whatcom County deposits. 230 Sedimentary peat . .... ........... 7 Chapter V. Chemical analyses . 246 Salt-marsh peat . ........ ........ 8 Collection of samples . ........... ... .. 246 Other kinds of peat ............. .. 8 Methods of analysis. 246 Rates of accumulation of peat ....... .... 9 Analytical data . 246 Peat soils .... .. ........ ............. 9 Water . ...... .. .. .. ... .. .... 247 Muck . .. ............... ........ 10 Ash . ... .... ...... ... ... 247 Mineral matter .... ......... ... ... .. 10 Acidity . 248 Marl . ... ........... ... ... .. 10 Nitrogen . 249 Diatom.He . .. .. .. .... .. .. ... 12 Phosphorus . 249 Pumicite ................... ... .. 13 Potassium . 249 Chapter III. Origin and development of peat deposits.. .... 15 Calcium .. ..... ............. 249 Depressions . 15 Silica .... ... ..... ............. 249 Peat accumulation . 16 Chlorine . 250 Sulphur . 250 Chapter IV. The peat deposits... .. ......... ........ 19 Replaceable bases . 250 General statement . 19 Spectrographic determinations . 252 Distribution by physiographic provinces. 19 Physiography of counties- by MARSHALL General considerations . 252 T. HUNTTING . 23 Chapter VI. Utilization . 257 Distribution by counties. 37 Methods of improving peat lands . 257 Chelan County deposits... ......... 38 Agricultural utilization of peat lands ..... 257 Clallam County deposits . 40 Other in situ uses for peat lands. 259 Clark County deposits......... .. 45 Peat removal and utilization. 259 Cowlitz County deposits...... .. .. .... 48 Peat industry in the United States. 261 Ferry County deposits...... .. ..... ... 51 Bibliography . 262 Grant County deposits. ...... .. 51 Grays Harbor County deposits..... .. 53 Appendix . 265 Island County deposits... .. .. .... 56 Index . .......... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .... .. ... 267 VII ILLUSTRATIONS Page Page PLATE 1. Peat areas and physiographic provinces in Wash-. 42. Map, profile, and graphic log of a hole in Cottage ington ................ .............. facing 36 Lake peat area No. 1. 74 FIGURE 1. Ejecting sample of peat from New American peat 43. Map and profile of Cottage Lake peat area No. 2. 75 borer . 2 44. Map and profile of Otter Lake peat area. 76 2. Form and structure of Sphagnum............... 6 45. Map, profile, and graphic log of a hole in Coving- 3. Map and profile of Fish Lake peat area, Chelan ton peat area. 76 County . 38 46. Map and profile of Shadow Lake peat area. 77 4. Map and profile of Winton peat area. 39 47. Map and profile of Miller Creek peat area...... 78 5. Map and profile of Wessler peat area. 41 48. Map, profile, and graphic logs of tlu:ee holes in 6. Map and profile of Sooes River peat area. 43 Aries Farm peat area... ................... 79 7. Making a boring in Sooes River sphagnum bog... 43 49. Map and graphic log of a hole in Dolloff Lake 8. Map and profile of Crown Zellerbach peat area. 44 peat area. 79 9. Map and graphic log of hole in Sequim Game 50. Map and graphic logs of two holes in Beaver Lake Reserve peat area. 44 peat area . 80 10. Map and profile of Fargher Lake peat area...... 45 51. Map and graphic logs of five holes in Ravenna 11. General view of Fargher Lake peat deposit..... 46 peat area . 80 12. Map and profile of Orchards peat area. 47 52. Map and profiles of Steel Lake peat areas....... 81 13. Bean field in peat soil on C. Deffenbaugh farm, 53. Map and graphic logs of two holes in Moss Lake in Orchards peat area ...................... 48 peat area . 81 14. Harvesting mint from a field on peat soil on C. 54. Map, profile, and graphic log of a hole in Bow Deffenbaugh farm in Orchards peat area. 48 Lake peat area. 82 15. Map and graphic logs of two holes in Manor peat 55. Excavating peat with clamshell shovel, Bow Lake areas . 48 Humus Company . 82 16. Map of Silver Lake peat areas, Cowlitz County.. 49 56. Map and profile of Lake Twelve peat area. 83 17. Map and graphic logs of seven holes in Crab Lake 57. Map and profile of Cedar Mountain peat area. 83 peat area . 52 58. Map and profile o! Panther Lake peat area. 84 18. Map and graphic logs of nine holes in North Bay 59. Map and profile of Lakota peat area............ 85 peat areas . 53 60. Map, profile, and graphic logs of two holes in 19. Map, profile, and graphic logs of three holes in Sunnydale peat area. 85 Carlisle Lakes peat area. 55 61. Map and profile of Ronald peat area. 86 20. Map and profile of MacAfee muck and peat area. 55 62. Map, profile, and graphic log of a hole in Malmo 21. Map and profile of Cranberry Lake peat area, peat area . 87 Island County ......· . 57 63. Map and profile of Paradise Lake peat area No. 1, 22. Map and profile of Swantown peat area.. 58 King County . 87 23. Map, profiles, and graphic log of a hole in 64. Map,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims in Chapter 11 Cases of Boy Scouts of America
    Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims in Chapter 11 Cases of Boy Scouts of America There are approximately 101,135sexual abuse claims filed. Of those claims, the Tort Claimants’ Committee estimates that there are approximately 83,807 unique claims if the amended and superseded and multiple claims filed on account of the same survivor are removed. The summary of sexual abuse claims below uses the set of 83,807 of claim for purposes of claims summary below.1 The Tort Claimants’ Committee has broken down the sexual abuse claims in various categories for the purpose of disclosing where and when the sexual abuse claims arose and the identity of certain of the parties that are implicated in the alleged sexual abuse. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a chart that shows the sexual abuse claims broken down by the year in which they first arose. Please note that there approximately 10,500 claims did not provide a date for when the sexual abuse occurred. As a result, those claims have not been assigned a year in which the abuse first arose. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a chart that shows the claims broken down by the state or jurisdiction in which they arose. Please note there are approximately 7,186 claims that did not provide a location of abuse. Those claims are reflected by YY or ZZ in the codes used to identify the applicable state or jurisdiction. Those claims have not been assigned a state or other jurisdiction. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a chart that shows the claims broken down by the Local Council implicated in the sexual abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of the Seattle Uplift, Washington, As a Passive-Roof Duplex by Thomas M
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 1379–1401, August 2004 Interpretation of the Seattle Uplift, Washington, as a Passive-Roof Duplex by Thomas M. Brocher, Richard J. Blakely, and Ray E. Wells Abstract We interpret seismic lines and a wide variety of other geological and geophysical data to suggest that the Seattle uplift is a passive-roof duplex. A passive- roof duplex is bounded top and bottom by thrust faults with opposite senses of vergence that form a triangle zone at the leading edge of the advancing thrust sheet. In passive-roof duplexes the roof thrust slips only when the floor thrust ruptures. The Seattle fault is a south-dipping reverse fault forming the leading edge of the Seattle uplift, a 40-km-wide fold-and-thrust belt. The recently discovered, north-dipping Tacoma reverse fault is interpreted as a back thrust on the trailing edge of the belt, making the belt doubly vergent. Floor thrusts in the Seattle and Tacoma fault zones, imaged as discontinuous reflections, are interpreted as blind faults that flatten updip into bedding plane thrusts. Shallow monoclines in both the Seattle and Tacoma basins are interpreted to overlie the leading edges of thrust-bounded wedge tips advancing into the basins. Across the Seattle uplift, seismic lines image several shallow, short- wavelength folds exhibiting Quaternary or late Quaternary growth. From reflector truncation, several north-dipping thrust faults (splay thrusts) are inferred to core these shallow folds and to splay upward from a shallow roof thrust. Some of these shallow splay thrusts ruptured to the surface in the late Holocene.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey Research 1962
    Geological Survey Research 1962 Synopsis of Geologic, Hydrologic, and Topographic Results GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 450-A Geological Survey Research 1962 THOMAS B. NOLAN, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 450 Asynopsis of results ofgeologic, hydro logic, and topo­ graphic investigations for fiscalyear 1962, accom­ panied by short papers in the fields of geology, hydrology, topography, and allied sciences. Pub­ lished separately as Chapters A, B, C, D, and E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 FOREWORD The reception accorded the 1960 and 1961 Annual Reviews of Geological Survey research has encouraged us to prepare this volume, "Geological Survey Research, 1962," in a con­ tinuing effort to publish more quickly the significant results of our current investigations. We continue to consider these reports as experimental and have again this year modified the content, format, and frequency of release of chapters in an attempt to serve better the interests of the users of the reports. The comments and suggestions of these users are here solicited and will be considered carefully as future volumes are planned. The current Annual Review consists of five chapters (Chapters A through E) of Pro­ fessional Paper 450. As in the preceding two Annual Reviews, Chapter A is a synopsis of recent findings in the many and varied lines of study pursued by Survey personnel. Chap­ ters, B, C, D, and E of this volume are collections of short articles in geology, hydrology, topography, and allied fields. These articles are numbered as follows: Prof. Paper 450-B Articles 1-59 Prof. Paper 450-C Articles 60-119 Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering America's Wildlife
    Business and Conservation Interests Support Dedicated Funding to Recover America’s Fish and Wildlife We, the undersigned, support preventing fish, wildlife , and plants from becoming endangered by cre- ating a dedicated federal fund for proactive conservation efforts, led by the states, territories, and tribal nations, to address the nation’s looming wildlife crisis. We support this concept as initially rec- ommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources, comprised of national business and conservation leaders. Our nation has been blessed with a diverse array of flora and fauna. While some of these species are thriving, many more are facing increasing challenges and are in steep decline – increasing their pos- sibility of becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife agencies have identified 12,000 species na- tionwide in need of proactive conservation action. At the request of Congress, every state has developed a State Wildlife Action Plan to assess the health of their state’s fish and wildlife and outline conservation actions necessary to sustain them. Collec- tively, these action plans have identified these 12,000 species and formed a nationwide strategy to prevent them from becoming endangered. However, the current federal State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is funded at only a fraction of what states need to conserve these species. State fish and wildlife biologists estimate that it would cost $1.3 billion annually to implement 75 percent of these actions. In addition, our nation’s tribes need similar funds ($97.5 million/annually) to address the hundreds of species and millions of acres of lands they steward.
    [Show full text]
  • Index to Geologic and Geophysical Mapping of Washington, Part II—Theses
    Index to Geologic and Geophysical Mapping of Washington, Part II—Theses, RESOURCES 1901 to 2001 compiled by Connie J. Manson WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Revised July 7, 2003 NATURAL Index to Geologic and Geophysical Mapping of Washington, Part II—Theses, 1901 to 2001 compiled by Connie J. Manson WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Revised July 7, 2003 ii Contents Introduction........................................... 1 Howtousethisindex....................................1 Howtoobtainthemaps...................................1 Acknowledgments ....................................... 1 Referencescited........................................ 1 Bibliography.......................................... 2 PLATES Plate 1. Geologic mapping—scale 1:480–1:23,760...................22 Plate 2. Geologic mapping—scale 1:24,000–1:29,000 .................23 Plate 3. Geologic mapping—scale 1:31,250–1:60,000 .................24 Plate 4. Geologic mapping—scale 1:62,500–1:63,360 .................25 Plate 5. Geologic mapping—scale 1:71,280–1:274,000 ................26 Plate 6. Geophysical mapping .............................. 27 iii iv Index to Geologic and Geophysical Mapping of Washington, Part II— Theses, 1901 to 2001 compiled by Connie J. Manson Revised July 7, 2003 Note: This index will be periodically revised as new maps become available. The index to published and open-filed mapping has been released separately as Part I of this index. INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first index to thesis mapping of Washington State was pre- We are gratified that this map index project continues to be pared by William H. Reichert in 1969. That work was updated highly valued by the geoscience community. They deserve no to included thesis mapping through 1985 (Manson, 1986), and less than our best efforts. a supplement was issued to cover thesis mapping 1986 to 1998 Because this has been a long-term project, there are many (Manson, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3187
    Lidar-Revised Geologic Map of the Wildcat Lake 7.5’ Quadrangle, Kitsap and Mason Counties, Washington By Rowland W. Tabor, Ralph A. Haugerud, Peter J. Haeussler, and Kenneth P. Clark Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3187 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Viginia: 2011 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS Suggested citation: Tabor, R.W., Haugerud, R.A., Haeussler, P.J., and Clark, K.P., 2011, Lidar-revised geologic map of the Wildcat Lake 7.5’ quadrangle, Kitsap and Mason Counties, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investiga- tions Map 3187, scale 1:24,000, 12 p., and GIS data, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3187/. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Recipient Codes
    Recipient Codes ALASKA Arizona (cont’d) Arizona (cont’d) Arizona (cont’d) A024 Alakanuk Sch R126 Arizona Academy of Science and Tech A592 Continental Elem Dist R231 Griffin Foundation Inc A057 Alaska Christian College R127 Arizona Agribusiness & Equine Ctr R174 Coolidge HS Success Ctr R232 HaSan Prep & Leadership A041 Alaska Gateway Sch Dist A921 Arizona Autism Charter Schools A593 Coolidge Unified Dist A622 Hackberry Sch Dist A039 Aleutians East Sch Dist R128 Arizona Call-A-Teen Youth Resources R175 Cornerstone Charter School Inc R233 Happy Vly Sch Inc A056 Annette Island School District R129 Arizona Career Acad R176 Cortez Park Charter Mid Sch R234 Harvest Power Comm Development A017 Bering Strait Sch Dist R130 Arizona Comm Development Corpo A594 Cottonwood-Oak Creek Elem Dis A623 Hayden-Winkelman Unified Dist A054 Brevig Mission Sch A938 Arizona Junior/Senior HS R177 Country Day Acad A776 Hearn Acad A939 Bristol Bay Borough Sch Dist R131 Arizona Montessori Charter Schools R178 Country Gardens Educational Service A624 Heber-Overgaard Unified Dist A040 Chatham Sch Dist R132 Arizona Sch For Arts A595 Crane Elem Dist R235 Heritage Academy Inc A059 Chugach School District A830 Arizona State Sch Dist A596 Creighton Elem Dist A794 Heritage Elem Glendale A012 Craig City Sch Dist A555 Arlington Sch Dist A597 Crown King Elem Dist A798 Heritage Elem Williams A007 Delta/Greely Sch Dist R133 Ascending Roots Scholastic & Athlete R157 Ctrl Arizona Vly Inst R236 Hermosa Montessori Charter A004 Denali Borough Sch Dist A556 Ash Creek Elem Dist R179 DW
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Between Physiographic Units and Highway Design Factors
    NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 1 32 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS AND HIGHWAY DESIGN FACTORS HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES- NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD 1972 Officers ALAN M. VOORHEES, Chairman WILLIAM L. GARRISON, First Vice Chairman JAY W. BROWN, Second Vice Chairman W. N. CAREY, JR., Executive Director Executive Committee HENRIK E. STAFSETH, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio) RALPH R. BARTELSMEYER, Federal Highway Administrator (Acting), U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) CARLOS C. VILLARREAL, Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ERNST WEBER, Chairman, Division of Engineering, National Research Council (ex officio) D. GRANT MICKLE, President, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility (ex officio, Past Chairman 1970) CHARLES E. SHUMATE, Executive Director-Chief Engineer, Colorado Department of Highways (ex officio, Past Chairman 1971) HENDRIK W. BODE, Professor of Systems Engineering, Harvard University JAY W. BROWN, Director of Road Operations, Florida Department of Transportation W. J. BURMEISTER, Executive Director, Wisconsin Asphalt Pavement Association HOWARD A. COLEMAN, Consultant, Missouri Portland Cement Company DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Highways WILLIAM L. GARRISON, Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh ROGER H. GILMAN, Director of Planning and Development, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey GEORGE E. HOLBROOK, E. I. du Pont de Ne,nours and Company GEORGE KRAMBLES, Superintendent of Research and Planning, Chicago Transit Authority A. SCHEFFER LANG, Office of the President, Association of American Railroads JOHN A. LEGARRA, Deputy State Highway Engineer, California Division of Highways WILLIAM A.
    [Show full text]
  • SOIL SURVEY of MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Report by A
    This is a scanned version of the text of the original Soil Survey report of Mason County, Washington issued September 1960. Original tables and maps were deleted. There may be references in the text that refer to a table that is not in this document. Updated tables were generated from the NRCS National Soil Information System (NASIS). The soil map data has been digitized and may include some updated information. These are available from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Please contact the State Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) for additional information. SOIL SURVEY OF MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Report by A. 0. Ness, Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and R. H. Fowler, Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations Soil Survey by R. H. Fowler and R. G. Parvin, Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations Correlation by Ray C. Roberts, Soil Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations Thurston County. It included the western part of Thurston General Description of the County County to the Hood Canal. The county seat was first established where Shelton is now located. Shortly MASON COUNTY is in the southeastern part of the thereafter, it was moved to Oakland and remained Olympic Peninsula in northwestern Washington. there for 34 years. In 1864 the name was changed to Shelton, the counts seat, and the only incorporated town Mason County, in honor of the first secretary of the in the county, is northwest of Olympia, the State capital, Territory of Washington. In 1888 the county seat was and southwest of Bremerton.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustal Structure and Relocated Earthquakes in the Puget Lowland, Washington, from High-Resolution Seismic Tomography T
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. B12, 2381, doi:10.1029/2001JB000710, 2002 Crustal structure and relocated earthquakes in the Puget Lowland, Washington, from high-resolution seismic tomography T. M. Van Wagoner,1 R. S. Crosson, K. C. Creager, G. Medema, and L. Preston Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA N. P. Symons Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA T. M. Brocher U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA Received 13 June 2001; revised 19 July 2002; accepted 21 August 2002; published 31 December 2002. [1] The availability of regional earthquake data from the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network (PNSN), together with active source data from the Seismic Hazards Investigation in Puget Sound (SHIPS) seismic experiments, has allowed us to construct a new high- resolution 3-D, P wave velocity model of the crust to a depth of about 30 km in the central Puget Lowland. In our method, earthquake hypocenters and velocity model are jointly coupled in a fully nonlinear tomographic inversion. Active source data constrain the upper 10–15 km of the model, and earthquakes constrain the deepest portion of the model. A number of sedimentary basins are imaged, including the previously unrecognized Muckleshoot basin, and the previously incompletely defined Possession and Sequim basins. Various features of the shallow crust are imaged in detail and their structural transitions to the mid and lower crust are revealed. These include the Tacoma basin and fault zone, the Seattle basin and fault zone, the Seattle and Port Ludlow velocity highs, the Port Townsend basin, the Kingston Arch, and the Crescent basement, which is arched beneath the Lowland from its surface exposure in the eastern Olympics.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonprofit Coalition
    Urgent Nonprofit Policy Priorities in Reforms to CARES Act July 13, 2020 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Mitch McConnell Speaker Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Chuck Schumer Minority Leader Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Leader McCarthy, and Leader Schumer: The charitable nonprofit community appreciates that several key relief programs in the various COVID-19 relief laws enacted by Congress extend eligibility to some nonprofit organizations. These bipartisan efforts recognize both that the American people rely extensively on charitable nonprofits for important services and supports and that charitable nonprofits play a significant role in our nation’s economy as the third largest employer. These programs have been a lifeline for many nonprofits during this difficult time and it is clear that every dollar granted, donated, or earned has been leveraged immediately to address clear and present challenges. However, nonprofits – like the people we serve throughout the country – still face significant challenges. As we continue to provide relief and begin the process of reopening, these challenges will only grow. As you work on the next COVID-19 relief package this month, the charitable nonprofit sector urges you to address four specific issues to ensure we can continue to provide frontline services to those in need, and are able to help our communities recover. The following key areas have garnered widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and will be covered in depth at virtual briefings during the #Relief4Charities “week of action” beginning July 13: 1.
    [Show full text]