DOCSLIB.ORG

Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Public Access Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing This DEIS $178,000 [Inside Front Cover] Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Public Access Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex 64 Maple Street Burbank, Washington 99323 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 August 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS MAPS ........................................................................................................................................... iii-xviii 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Description of the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .................................................. 4 1.4 Public Involvement and Scoping ................................................................................................. 6 2. Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Actions Common to All Alternatives........................................................................................... 7 2.2 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 9 2.3 Alternative B – Expanded Public Access .................................................................................... 9 2.4 Alternative C – Enhanced Summit Access ................................................................................ 12 2.5 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated .................................................................................... 13 2.6 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................. 14 3. Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Methods and Sources of Information ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 17 3.4 Environmental Contaminants ..................................................................................................... 17 3.5 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 18 3.6 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 18 3.7 Geology and Geomorphology .................................................................................................... 18 3.8 Paleontology .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.9 Plants and Plant Communities ................................................................................................... 18 3.10 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 19 3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ 20 3.12 Special Status Species and Communities ................................................................................. 21 3.13 Noxious and Invasive Species.................................................................................................. 21 3.14 Cultural Resources – History and Physical Resources ............................................................ 21 3.15 Cultural Resources – Tribal Uses and Connection .................................................................. 22 3.16 Visual/Aesthetic Resources...................................................................................................... 22 3.17 Visitor Use and Experience...................................................................................................... 22 3.18 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 22 3.19 Socio-Economic Setting ........................................................................................................... 24 3.20 Special Area Designations ....................................................................................................... 26 Hanford Reach National Monument, Rattlesnake Unit • Draft SEIS i 4. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 27 4.1 Effects Severity Ratings ............................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Effects on Soils, Geological, and Paleontological Resources .................................................... 27 4.3 Effects on Biological Resources – Vegetation ........................................................................... 28 4.4 Effects on Biological Resources – Wildlife ............................................................................... 30 4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................................................... 32 4.6 Effects on Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 32 4.7 Effects on Interpretation and Education..................................................................................... 34 4.8 Effects on Recreation and Public Use ........................................................................................ 35 4.9 Effects on Aesthetics and Solitude............................................................................................. 36 4.10 Effects on Special Area Designations ...................................................................................... 37 4.11 Effects on Social, Economic, and Infrastructure Resources .................................................... 37 4.12 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 38 4.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................................... 39 4.14 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................. 39 5. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Outreach ....................................................................... 41 5.1 Agency Consultation and Coordination ..................................................................................... 41 5.2 Consultation with Native American Governments .................................................................... 41 5.3 Formal Scoping .......................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A. Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix B. List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 47 Appendix C. Scoping Report ............................................................................................................... 49 Appendix D. Species List .................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix E. References ....................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix F. Distribution List .............................................................................................................. 69 ii Hanford Reach National Monument, Rattlesnake Unit • Draft SEIS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ! Hanford Reach National Monument Map 1 - Location of the Hanford Reach Adams, Benton, Franklin and Grant Counties, Washington National Monument within the Northwest ! ! ! Edmonton ! ! Saskatoon British Alberta Saskatchewan ! ! ! Columbia ! Calgary ! Regina ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Vancouver ! ! Victoria ! Washington ! ! ! ! ! Seattle ! ! Hanford Reach Montana ! ! ! ! ! National Monument ! ! ! ! Helena ! ! ! ! ! Portland ! ! Salem ! ! Idaho ! ! Oregon ! ! Pacific ! Boise Wyoming ! ! ! ! Ocean ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Salt Lake City ! ! ! ! Colorado Carson City Nevada Utah ! Sacramento ! ! !! Oakland ! San Jose ! ! California ! ! Santa Fe ! ! New Mexico ! Arizona ! ! ! Los Angeles ! Phoenix ! ! ! ! San Diego! Mexicali ! El Paso ! ! Columbia River Basin ! ! Sonora Chihuahua ! ! PRODUCED
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Periodically Spaced Anticlines of the Columbia Plateau
    Geological Society of America Special Paper 239 1989 Periodically spaced anticlines of the Columbia Plateau Thomas R. Watters Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560 ABSTRACT Deformation of the continental flood-basalt in the westernmost portion of the Columbia Plateau has resulted in regularly spaced anticlinal ridges. The periodic nature of the anticlines is characterized by dividing the Yakima fold belt into three domains on the basis of spacings and orientations: (1) the northern domain, made up of the eastern segments of Umtanum Ridge, the Saddle Mountains, and the Frenchman Hills; (2) the central domain, made up of segments of Rattlesnake Ridge, the eastern segments of Horse Heaven Hills, Yakima Ridge, the western segments of Umtanum Ridge, Cleman Mountain, Bethel Ridge, and Manastash Ridge; and (3) the southern domain, made up of Gordon Ridge, the Columbia Hills, the western segment of Horse Heaven Hills, Toppenish Ridge, and Ahtanum Ridge. The northern, central, and southern domains have mean spacings of 19.6,11.6, and 27.6 km, respectively, with a total range of 4 to 36 km and a mean of 20.4 km (n = 203). The basalts are modeled as a multilayer of thin linear elastic plates with frictionless contacts, resting on a mechanically weak elastic substrate of finite thickness, that has buckled at a critical wavelength of folding. Free slip between layers is assumed, based on the presence of thin sedimentary interbeds in the Grande Ronde Basalt separating groups of flows with an average thickness of roughly 280 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Umatilla Ped-Bike Plan
    U m a t i l l a Pedestrian & Bicycle MASTER PLAN June 3, 2003 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Umatilla Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan 1 (UMAT0001) This project is partially funded by the Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM), a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Development and Conservation. This TGM grant is fi nanced, in part, by federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), local government, and the State of Oregon Funds. Neither the City of Umatilla nor ODOT guarantee funding to complete any project described in this document. Historic Umatilla River bridge David Evans and Associates, Inc. Umatilla Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan 2 (UMAT0001) Contents Chapter 1 — Scope . 5 Chapter 2 — Background Research . 6 2.1 Sources . 6 2.2 Area Description . 6 2.3 Jurisdictions . 6 2.4 Nonmotorized Traffi c Generators . 7 2.5 Implementation Plan . 9 Chapter 3 — Inventory . 10 3.1 Street System . 10 3.2 Pedestrian Facilities . 11 3.3 Bicycle Facilities . 12 Chapter 4 — Systemwide Factors . 14 4.1 Natural and Manmade Barriers . 14 4.2 Development Pattern . 14 4.3 Street Standards and Development Codes . 15 4.4 Funding . 17 Chapter 5 — Neighborhood Analysis . 23 5.1 Project Evaluation Criteria . 23 5.2 South Hill Projects . 26 5.3 Downtown Umatilla Projects . 36 5.4 Central Area Projects . 41 5.5 McNary Projects . 45 Chapter 6 — Capital Improvement Program . 49 Appendix A — Glossary . A-1 Appendix B — Pedestrian & Bicycle System Maps . B-1 Appendix C — Transportation SDC Example . C-1 Appendix D — General Plan and Code Amendments D-1 Appendix E — Inter-Jurisdictional Agreements .
    [Show full text]
  • Ringold For111ation and Associated Deposits
    LI.I u The Miocene to Pliocene Ringold For111ation and Associated Deposits 0 of the Ancestral Columbia River System, South-central Washington and North-central Oregon by Kevin A. Lindsey WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY I- AND EARTH RESOURCES Open File Report 96-8 c( November 1996 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Jennifer M. Belcher· Commissioner of Public Lands Kaleen Cottingham· Supervisor CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 Setting 3 Structural geology 4 Late Neogene depositional framework 6 The Ringold Formation 6 Previous studies 8 Age 8 Stratigraphy 10 Methods 10 Sediment facies associations 14 Facies association I 21 Facies association II 22 Facies association Ill 26 Facies association IV 26 Facies association V 26 Facies association distribution 27 Informal member of Wooded Island 33 Informal member of Taylor Flat 34 Informal member of Savage Island 35 Top of the Ringold Formation 37 Ringold correlatives outside the Pasco Basin 38 Conclusions 40 Acknowledgments 41 References cited Appendices A-D: Measured sections, core geologic logs, cross sections, and isopach and structure contour data, respectively ILLUSTRATIONS 2 Figure 1. Map showing regional geographic setting of the Columbia Basin and Hanford Site, south-central Washington, and north-central Oregon. 4 Figure 2. Map showing geographic setting of the Pasco Basin and Hanford Site, Washington. 5 Figure 3. Maps showing geologic structures in and near the Pasco Basin, and . Hanford Site. 7 Figure 4. Generalized surficial geologic map of the Pasco Basin. 9 Figure 5. Diagram showing late Neogene stratigraphy of the Pasco Basin emphasizing the Ringold Formation. 15 Figure 6. Outcrop photo of facies association I.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Grape Site Selection Gis for the Inland
    DEVELOPING A GRAPE SITE SELECTION GIS FOR THE INLAND PACIFIC NORTHWEST By IAN-HUEI YAU A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SOIL SCIENCE WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Crop and Soil Sciences DECEMBER 2011 To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of IAN-HUEI YAU find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. Joan R. Davenport, Ph.D., Chair Markus Keller, Ph.D. Richard A. Rupp, Ph.D. Wade H. Wolfe, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family for their unwavering encouragement. My mother, father, brother and sister have largely made me who I am, regardless of how different we may be. I would like to thank my committee for their expertise and support on this project. First and foremost, my committee chair Dr. Joan Davenport whose faith in my ability and tireless responsiveness carried me much of the way. To Dr. Richard Rupp whose mutual love of learning through teaching absolutely made my working days in Pullman. To Dr. Markus Keller and Dr. Wade Wolfe whose viticultural prowess and accomplishments lend my inaugural foray into the world of grapes much needed credibility. I would like to thank my fellow graduate students in the Crop and Soil Sciences Department and others at Washington State University for the diversity of perspectives the academic environment offers. I would especially like to thank those who regularly nourished me, physically and mentally, with tabbouleh or a receptive ear.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6-1 3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy
    3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy Center would most likely affect traffic flow on McNary Beach Access Road, U.S. Highway 730, and U.S. Highway 395/State Route 32. Up to 600 workers would travel to the facility site during construction, 100 to the natural gas supply/wastewater discharge pipeline routes, and 120 to the transmission line route. During operation, 30 workers would work at the facility. 3.6.1 Affected Environment Major highways accessing the project study area include U.S. Highway 730 (i.e., U.S. Highway 730; the Columbia River Highway), U.S. Highway 395/State Route (SR) 32 (i.e., SR 32; the Umatilla-Stanfield Highway), Interstate 82 (I-82), and State Route 207 (i.e., the Hermiston Highway). U.S. Highway 730 is a 2-lane west-east highway that generally runs along the south side of the Columbia River. U.S. Highway 395/SR 32 is a 2-lane northwest-southeast highway that runs from U.S. Highway 730 in the north; through Umatilla, Hermiston, and Stanfield; and then to I-84/U.S. 30 in the south. I-82 is a 4-lane highway running north-south from the Tri-Cities in Washington until it intersects with I-84/U.S. 30. SR 207 is a 2-lane highway that runs southwest- northeast, starting at I-82 in the west, through Hermiston, and then intersecting with U.S. Highway 730 in the east. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the average daily traffic (ADT) and accident counts by milepost and location for these major roadways for 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis, "Structure and Evolution of the Horse Heaven Hills in South
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Michael Curtis Hagood for the Master of Science in Geology presented February 21, 1985. Title: Structure-and Evolution of the Horse Heaven Hills in South-Central Washington. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Marvin H. Beeson, Chairman Michael L. Cummings Gilbert T. Benson Stephen P. Reidel The Horse Heaven Hills uplift in south-central Washington con- sists of distinct northwest and northeast trends which merge in the lower Yakima Valley. The northwest trend is adjacent to and parallels the Rattlesnake-Wallula alignment (RAW; a part of the Olympic-Wallowa lineament). The northwest trend and northeast trend consist of aligned or en echelon anticlines and monoclines whose axes are gener- ally oriented in the direction of the trend. At the intersection, La 2 folds in the northeast trend plunge onto and are terminated by folds of the northwest trend. The crest of the Horse Heaven Hills uplift within both trends is composed of a series of asymmetric, north vergent, eroded, usually double-hinged anticlines or monoclines. Some of these "major" anti- clines and monoclines are paralleled to the immediate north by lower- relief anticlines or monoclines. All anticlines approach monoclines in geometry and often change to a monoclinal geometry along their length. In both trends, reverse faults commonly parallel the axes of folds within the tightly folded hinge zones. Tear faults cut across the northern limbs of the anticlines and monoclines and are coincident with marked changes in the wavelength of a fold or a change in the trend of a fold. Layer-parallel faults commonly exist along steeply- dipping stratigraphic contacts or zones of preferred weakness in intraflow structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Miocene Evolution of the Moscow-Pullman Basin, Idaho and Washington
    Miocene Evolution of the Moscow-Pullman Basin, Idaho and Washington John H. Bush Pamela Dunlap Stephen P. Reidel Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 18-3 Moscow, Idaho 83844-3014 December 2018 This Technical Report is a product of independent work from non-Idaho Geological Survey personnel. This report is published by the IGS to further future scientific studies. The IGS does not guarantee this report to be free of errors nor assume liability for interpretations made from this report, or decisions based thereon. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Stratigraphic Framework and Previous Work 4 History of Regional Stratigraphic Framework 11 Previous Work in the Moscow-Pullman Area 11 Well Chips and Columbia River Basalt Group Stratigraphy 11 Latah Formation 12 Structual Setting 14 Paleogeography 15 Introduction and Pre-basalt Topography 15 Grande Ronde Basalt R1 Interval 17 Grande Ronde Basalt N1 Interval 17 Grande Ronde Basalt R2 Interval 20 Grande Ronde Basalt N2 Interval 23 Vantage and Wanapum Intervals 25 Saddle Mountains Time 29 Summary and Conclusions 31 Acknowledgments 31 References Cited 32 Appendix A. Geochemical Identification of Flow Units in the Columbia River Basalt Group 37 Introduction 37 Oldest Flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group 37 Grande Ronde Basalt Members and Flows 37 Wanapum Basalt 38 References Cited 41 Appendix B Regional Rock Samples 42 Figures Figure 1. Map showing the areal extent of the Columbia River flood basalt province. 2 Figure 2 Map showing Moscow-Pullman Basin, wells,
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Fishes from the Miocene Ellensburg Formation, South Central Washington
    FISHES OF THE MIO-PLIOCENE WESTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN AND VICINITY IV. FOSSIL FISHES FROM THE MIOCENE ELLENSBURG FORMATION, SOUTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON by GERALD R. SMITH, JAMES E. MARTIN, NATHAN E. CARPENTER MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 204 no. 4 Ann Arbor, December 1, 2018 ISSN 0076-8405 PUBLICATIONS OF THE MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 204 no.4 WILLIAM FINK, Editor The publications of the Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, consist primarily of two series—the Miscellaneous Publications and the Occasional Papers. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. Occasionally the Museum publishes contributions outside of these series. Beginning in 1990 these are titled Special Publications and Circulars and each are sequentially numbered. All submitted manuscripts to any of the Museum’s publications receive external peer review. The Occasional Papers, begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, initiated in 1916, include monographic studies, papers on field and museum techniques, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, and are published separately. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fishes, Insects, Mollusks, and other topics is available.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project
    McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bonneville Power Administration February 2002 McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0332) Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department of Army: Corps of Engineers. States Involved: Oregon and Washington Abstract: Bonneville is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a 79-mile-long 500-kilovolt- transmission line in Benton and Klickitat Counties, Washington, and Umatilla and Sherman counties, Oregon. The new line would start at Bonneville’s McNary Substation in Oregon and would cross the Columbia River just north of the substation into Washington. The line would then proceed west for about 70 miles along the Columbia River. At the John Day Dam, the line would again cross the Columbia River into Oregon and terminate at Bonneville’s John Day Substation. The new line would parallel existing transmission lines for the entire length; mostly within existing available right-of-way. Presently, the existing transmission lines in the area are operating at capacity. These lines help move power from the east side of the Cascades to the west side, where there is a high need for electricity (cities along the I-5 corridor). Because the Northwest has only recently recovered from a shortfall in electric energy supply and a volatile wholesale power market in which prices reached record highs, there are many new proposals for facilities to generate new power.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Bridge Authority 1937-1977
    Guide to the Records of the Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 1 Guide to the Records of the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority 1937 - 1977 Compiled by Kathleen Waugh Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 2 INDEX History of Toll Bridge Authority . page 5 Scope and Content . page 8 Note on Arrangement . page 8 Toll Bridge Authority Subject Files . page 9 Files on Individual Bridges . page 13 History of Tacoma Narrows Bridge . page 37 Tunnels . page 63 Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road . page 64 3 4 TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY The Toll Bridge Authority was created by the Legislature in 1937. The state wanted to improve transportation routes by building bridges but had been hampered by restrictions regarding bonding in Article VIII of the state constitution. Therefore the Toll Bridge Authority was given the power to issue revenue bonds which were not limited by Article VIII. It was to select, fund, build and operate bridges which would probably not win approval in a statewide levy. The revenues from the operation of the bridges would pay off the bonds. The membership of the Authority originally consisted of the Governor, the State Auditor, the Director of the Public Service Commission, the Director of Highways, and the Director of the Department of Finance, Budget and Business. By the time the Authority was dissolved in 1977, the membership consisted of the Governor, two members of the State Highway Commission appointed by the Commission, and two other members appointed by the Governor.
    [Show full text]
  • Splay-Fault Origin for the Yakima Fold-And-Thrust Belt, Washington State 2 3 Thomas L
    1 Splay-fault origin for the Yakima fold-and-thrust belt, Washington State 2 3 Thomas L. Pratt, United States Geological Survey, School of Oceanography, Box 357940, 4 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98115 5 6 ABSTRACT 7 The Yakima fold-and-thrust belt (YFTB) is a set of anticlines above reverse faults in the 8 Miocene Columbia River Basalt (CRB) flows of Washington State. The YFTB is bisected by the 9 ~1100-km-long Olympic-Wallowa geomorphic lineament (OWL). There is considerable debate 10 about the origin and earthquake potential of the YFTB and OWL, which lie near six major dams 11 and a large nuclear waste storage site. Here I show that the trends of the YFTB anticlines relative 12 to the OWL match remarkably well the trends of the principal stresses determined from Linear 13 Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) modeling of the end of a vertical strike-slip fault. From this 14 comparison and the termination of some YFTB anticlines at the OWL, I argue that the YFTB 15 formed as splay faults caused by an abrupt decrease in the amount of strike-slip motion along the 16 OWL. If this hypothesis is correct, the OWL and YFTB are likely interconnected, deeply-rooted 17 structures capable of large earthquakes. 18 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 The Yakima fold and thrust belt (YFTB) of central Washington State is a set of 22 prominent anticlines in the Miocene Columbia River Basalt flows (CRB; figure 1). The YFTB 23 anticlines form three distinct sets (Riedel et al., 1989 and 1994; Watters, 1989).
    [Show full text]