Peat Resources of Washington
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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claims, the Tort Claimants’ Committee estimates that there are approximately 83,807 unique claims if the amended and superseded and multiple claims filed on account of the same survivor are removed.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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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). -
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 -
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 -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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.