DOCSLIB.ORG

My Name Is Rob Ahlschwede and I Live at 3726 Wesley Loop NW, Olympia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
My Name Is Rob Ahlschwede and I Live at 3726 Wesley Loop NW, Olympia From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD -- FW: Comment to the Planning Commission on the SMP draft Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:04:53 AM From: robert ahlschwede [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:02 AM To: Shoreline Update Subject: Comment to the Planning Commission on the SMP draft My name is Rob Ahlschwede and I live at 3726 Wesley Loop NW, Olympia. Living outside of the city limits and the UGA, I have concerns about what this draft suggests Olympia may allow to happen on the shorelines within the city. The city that I consider my city!! My main area of concern is the listed setback distances and the heights allowed within those distances. The setbacks and heights in the draft are completely out of line with what the community and the council have indicated they want. In fact, the city council recently voted and you dealt with the down zoning to the historic 35' within the first 200 feet. The 42' in the first 100' and 65' in the next 100 is not what this community is trying to do. In fact, if you allow these figures to go forward, you are, in effect, allowing a rezone of the whole waterfront to what was just down zoned. If you allow these setbacks and heights to remain at those values it is more than possible the council will send it back to you expecting that change anyway. They did vote 7-0 on the above mentioned down zone. The other thing I am concerned about is that even at 35' the document allows(current zoning does also) for "sheds" and the like atop buildings . It is my suggestion that the heights be "the heights" allowed and that there be no extra heights allowed for HVAC, elevators, etc. Those allowances would actually take the proposed heights of 42' and 65' to 42+16= 58" and 65+16= 81'---that just cannot stand!!! I close with something else to consider. If we are to divide the first 200' in half, I suggest that we lower the heights below 35' inside the first 100' (maybe 20') and making sure that the second 100' does not go above 35' for any reason. Our shorelines are the most valuable amenities of our communities and should be protected and kept free of any buildings. Respectfully, Rob Ahlschwede -- Rob Ahlschwede 3726 Wesley Loop NW Olympia, Washington 98502 360-866-1935 From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD FW: dock construction Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:44:37 PM From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:58 PM To: Shoreline Update Subject: dock construction Olympia Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, At last night's meeting I was asked a question regarding nearshore enhancement in conjunction with construction of a dock that I don't believe I entirely answered. The important thing is that the nexus between land and water not be broken. To accomplish this, we can place the dock a short distance offshore and parallel to the beach. The beach remains in-tact to the upper beach which is lined with salt marsh or overhanging vegetation. We have a phobia of structures over the water that I don't believe is entirely warranted, particularly in the intertidal zone and in comparison to loss of the upper beach that would occur with a traditional dock. Harry Branch 239 Cushing St NW Olympia WA 98502 (360) 943-8508 [email protected] From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: FW: Comments for shoreline planning Date: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:08:46 PM From: Ken and Katie Cameron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 12:19 AM To: Shoreline Update Subject: Comments for shoreline planning I am writing to contribute my thoughts to the shoreline plan for Olympia WA. I am currently caring for a grandchild in California, but am an Olympia resident, and follow this issue closely even when I am away. I believe that any future shoreline plan should contain a provision for maintaining view and access along the isthmus. Building heights should be limited to two stories by the water, and no more than three stories one block back from the water. Public walkways should be provided for along the water. The current tall vacant building (which used to be occupied by the Department of Corrections) is a blight and an eye sore and should be purchased and destroyed. I tell friends that Olympia is the “Santa Barbara of the Northwest” and could be a major tourist draw. Look at what citizens of Santa Barbara did: they instituted strong (low) building height standards, and that town has become one of the jewels of the West Coast. Olympia has the same opportunity, and should seize upon it. Katie Cameron 360-970-5143 [email protected] From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD -- FW: Comment on SMP Update Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:03:30 AM From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:43 AM To: Shoreline Update Subject: Comment on SMP Update I concur entirely with the comments submitted by Holly Gadbaw on behalf of Olympia 2012 dated November 15, 2010. Low rise buildings promote urban decay and push people out to the suburbs. Low Impact Development is better than no development. Those who advocate wider setbacks, lower building heights, and private view corridors are simply trying to preserve the status quo in Olympia and stop its further improvement as a viable and sustainable City. Clydia J. Cuykendall, 4203 Amber Ct SE, Olympia, WA 98501 From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD -- FW: Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:05:37 AM From: Tim Dickey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:17 AM To: Shoreline Update Cc: Tim Dickey Subject: Mr. Horn, I am concerned about the Shoreline Master Plan. There are ways to build that are environmentally safe in shoreline and other areas of water concern. Most waterfront lots could not be developed under the new proposed guidelines making the land useless to the owner. Many other tracts of land with waterways and bogs are destined to suffer the same problem. Additionally, we are not an agrarian state. Forcing land to remain “agricultural” will take away land owner rights to sell and develop that land which may have been their retirement or inheritance to their children. My observation is that yes, we want to preserve our natural beauty and be ecologically sound. Right now I see the people who already have their waterfront home and the people who will never have anything substantial making the most noise on this issue. Let’s preserve for the future, but do so in a way that does not harm our environment while allowing land owners the right to build to new environmental standards. I’ve never been happy with my “knee jerk” decisions—have you? Sincerely, Tim Dickey Dickey’s, Incorporated Remodel & Repair for your Home & Business P.O. Box 6250 Olympia, WA 98507 Voice: (360) 705-9957 Fax: (360) 705-1047 Toll Free: (866) 705-9957 “We Care…and It Shows!” Four-Time Olympia Master Builder Remodeler of the Year From: Shoreline Update To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD -- FW: Shoreline Master Plan draft feedback Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:04:03 AM From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:20 AM To: Shoreline Update Subject: Shoreline Master Plan draft feedback Dear Ms. Hornbein, I've been reading the draft Shoreline Master Plan, and am very pleased to see these issues being addressed. The turmoil over the isthmus properties last year makes it clear that new ground rules, which really reflect the public's best interest, have to be made. Without this document, other divisive shoreline development battles would surely erupt. I was impressed with how comprehensive and thorough the SMP draft is. I have only a two suggestions: 1. None of the uses on the Development Standards Table 6.2A should be allowed to exceed the 35 foot height limit. 2. I think it's important to citizens who are evaluating this draft to see a brief table, which shows how it differs from from the previous SMP. Thank You, Jay Elder November 15, 2010 Olympia Community Planning and Development Department PO Box 1967 Olympia, WA 98607-1967 RE: Shoreline Master Plan View Provisions I am writing in support of protecting and preserving shoreline views. I believe the results of the public controversy this past year over building heights reflected clear policy direction for protecting water and shoreline views. Proposed section 5.10.2B eliminates view protection for existing property owners. I request that you reject this proposed section. The proposal should strengthen rather than eliminate shoreline and view protections. Existing property owner views and shoreline protections should not be destroyed, and Section 5.10.2B should be replaced with current law and regulation which states “residential development shall be arranged and designed to protect views, vistas, aesthetic values to protect the character of the shoreline environment and the views of neighboring property owners”. Unrestricted construction on privately or publicly owned shorelines is not in the public’s best interests and is not good public policy. The proposed revision to Section 5.10.2B reverses a longstanding policy that provides for a more fair and balanced approach. I do not think that is right. Again, I request that the proposed revision to proposed Section 5.10.2B be rejected and the current regulation be retained.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forest Regions of Washington
    What are the Major Geographic Regions of Washington? Geographic Regions of Washington Okanogan Highlands Puget Basin Columbia Plateau The Rivers of WA & the 5 Geographic Regions Okanogan Highlands Columbia Puget Basin Plateau Direction of flow for WA rivers? Direction of flow for WA the rivers: Okanogan Highlands Puget Basin Columbia Plateau Where does the water end up? All water in WA eventually makes it into the Pacific, but there are 5 main drainage points in WA. The 5 Drainage Points Puget Columbia Pacific Ocean Pacific Sound River Snake River Columbia River Describe: 5 Drainage Points of Washington 1. Snake River -drains rivers in SE WA before it empties into Columbia 2. Columbia River -drains rivers E of Cascades and in S WA, and flows to the Pacific 3. Pacific Ocean - drains rivers W of Coast Range 4. Strait of Juan de Fuca – drains rivers N of Coast Range 5. Puget Sound - drains rivers E of Coast Range & W of Cascade Crest Where does the water end up? Puget Columbia Pacific Ocean Pacific Sound River Snake River Columbia River 5 Regions Descriptions Okanogan Highlands • Forested hills, grassy lowlands – Dry, inland forest. • Climate: Moderately hot, dry summers; cold winters with measurable snowfall • Elevation: 1,000‘ – 6,000’. – Cities: Spokane, Okanogan, Colville – Rivers: Okanogan, Kettle River, Okanogan Spokane, Pend Oreille, Highlands Upper Columbia Okanogan Highlands Okanogan Highlands Columbia Plateau • Semi-desert – Shrub & grasslands. Trees along some stretches of local rivers • Climate: Hot, dry summers; cold winters with occasional snowfall. – Rivers: Columbia, Snake, Yakima, Wenatchee, Palouse – Cities: Yakima, Wenatchee, Tri-Cities, Moses Lake, Ephrata – Hanford Nuclear Reservation Columbia Plateau Columbia Plateau Columbia Plateau Coast Range Olympic Mtns Black Hills Willapa Hills Coast Range • Olympic Mountains, Black Hills, & Willapa Hills – Rain forest on western side of range.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating River Profile Geometries to Identify Evidence of Active Deformation Associated with the Doty Fault Zone in Southwest Washington
    Evaluating River Profile Geometries to Identify Evidence of Active Deformation Associated with the Doty Fault Zone in Southwest Washington Varqa Tavangar A report prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Earth and Space Sciences: Applied Geosciences University of Washington June, 2019 Project mentor: Dr. Lydia Staisch, United States Geological Survey Reading committee: Dr. Alison Duvall, University of Washington Dr. Juliet Crider, University of Washington MESSAGe Technical Report Number: 076 ©Copyright 2019 Varqa Tavangar Page 2 of 45 Executive Summary In 1996, 2007, and 2009, flooding of the Chehalis River near the Town of Chehalis in southwest Washington severely impacted infrastructure and property. Damage was such that Interstate 5, the major transportation throughway in this region, was closed for several days. In 2012, the Washington State Geological Survey and United States Geological Survey began an assessment of the seismic hazards posed by the regional and local geologic systems on proposed construction of a dam near the Town of Pe Ell, Washington. Of these structural systems, the Doty Fault Zone is of interest as; (1) its level of activity is not well known, (2) its geometry is not described in detail, (3) it extends along a portion of the Chehalis River, and (4) would pose a hazard to the construction of the dam if it were active. The Doty Uplift (DU) is one of several basement uplifts in southwest Washington, and the western extent of the Doty Fault Zone bounds the southern boundary of the DU. In this report, the morphology of streams draining the DU are studied and characterized to identify topographic evidence of active deformation associated with the Doty Fault Zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report
    COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cathy Wolfe District One Sandra Romero District Two Karen Valenzuela District Three DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP Cliff Moore Director MEMORANDUM Date: March 2, 2009 To: Thurston County Roads and Transportation From: Mark Biever, L.P.G., L.P.E.G. Water Resources Unit Nadine Romero, L.P.G., L.P.H.G. Environmental Health Subject: Rock Candy Mountain Landslide – Kennedy Creek North Fork, January 9, 2009 Purpose On Friday, January 16, 2009, Thurston County personnel Mark Biever, Ryan Langan and Nadine Romero of The Department Environmental Stewardship and Environmental Health, assisted Roads and Transportation staff on a preliminary landslide assessment of the Rocky Candy Mountain area above State Highway 8 in the Capitol Forest. It was a fact finding mission to evaluate the slide and to determine if additional failures were possible and discuss impacts to Kennedy Creek Road (County Road) at the lower limits of the slide debris. The initial site visit revealed an unexpectedly massive slide of a very complex and violent nature. On January 23, 2009 a second site visit was conducted by representatives of Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Thurston County and GeoEngineers (private consultant). The purpose of the second site visit was to assess the area in a broad scope and discuss options among the multiple parties involved with landslide in one way or another. The second visit involved walking the failure surface from the midway point of the slide (approx El. 1200 ft) to the head scarp and discuss the potential for future slides and the potential impairment of the highways and businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington's Not-So-Common Loon
    Black Hills Audubon Society Olympia, Washington Volume 40, Number 1 January/February 2009 Participate in In this issue of The Echo Environmental Lobby Day .............................. 1 Environmental Lobby Thurston Co Mineral Lands, Asphalt Plants .... 2 Dave McNett–In Memoriam ........................... 3 Day, February 19 Dave McNett Education Award ....................... 3 Black Hills Audubon is a co-sponsor of the eighteenth Spring Birding Class ....................................... 4 annual Environmental Priorities Lobby Day, Thurs- BHAS Annual Dinner ...................................... 4 day, February 19, 2009, in Olympia. We have joined Field Trips and Events .................................... 5 other leading conservation groups and hundreds of Summit for Planning Field Trips ...................... 5 citizen lobbyists across Washington State to push for New WDFW Wildlife Website ........................ 6 the passage of the Environmental Priorities legislative Observations from the Window ...................... 7 package. These four priorities are legislation for: BHAS Calendar ............................................... 8 Birding in Earnest ........................................... 9 • Cap greenhouse gas emissions by setting real limits Conservation Updates ...................................10 on global warming pollution Bird Book Review........................................... 11 • Promote super-efficient, low-energy-use buildings BHAS Roster ................................................. 12 • To create
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. Acknowledgements The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report. The Watershed Company June 2015 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # Readers Guide .................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework
    [Show full text]
  • Age and Volcanic Stratigraphy of the Eocene Siletzia Oceanic Plateau in Washington and on Vancouver Island
    RESEARCH Age and volcanic stratigraphy of the Eocene Siletzia oceanic plateau in Washington and on Vancouver Island Michael P. Eddy1,*, Kenneth P. Clark2, and Michael Polenz3 1EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC AND PLANETARY SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139, USA 2GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND, 1500 N. WARNER STREET, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98416, USA 3WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES, 1111 WASHINGTON STREET SE, MS 47007, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504, USA ABSTRACT Geophysical, geochemical, geochronologic, and stratigraphic observations all suggest that the basalts that underlie western Oregon and Washington (USA), and southern Vancouver Island (Canada) form a coherent terrane of Eocene age, named Siletzia. The total volume of basalt within Siletzia is comparable to that observed in large igneous provinces and several lines of evidence point toward the terrane’s origin as an accreted oceanic plateau. However, a thick sequence of continentally derived turbidites, named the Blue Mountain unit, has long been considered to floor the northern part of the terrane and its presence has led to alternative hypotheses in which Siletzia was built on the con- tinental margin. We present new high-precision U-Pb zircon dates from silicic tuffs and intrusive rocks throughout the basaltic basement of northern Siletzia, as well as detrital zircon age spectra and maximum depositional ages for the Blue Mountain unit to help clarify the volcanic stratigraphy of this part of the terrane. These dates show that northern Siletzia was emplaced between 53.18 ± 0.17 Ma and 48.364 ± 0.036 Ma, similar to the age and duration of magmatism in the central and southern parts of the terrane.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
    Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan For Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. March 17, 2009 Table of Contents Resolution No. 2009-51 of Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation to adopt CFHMP .............. Letter of Approval for CFHMP from Washington State Department of Ecology I. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 I. A. Authority and Funding............................................................................................................................ 1 I. B. Plan Development Process ................................................................................................................... 1 I. B. 1. Public Meetings and Advisory Group ........................................................................................... 2 I. B. 2. Determination of Need for Flood Control Work: Short-term and Long-term Goals of the CFHMP .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 I. B. 3. Project Approach ............................................................................................................................. 4 I. B. 4. Plan Organization ............................................................................................................................ 5 II.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARE HYDROCARBON SOURCE ROCKS BURIED BENEATH VOLCANIC FLOWS IN THE SOUTHERN WASHINGTON CASCADES? W. D. Stanley, W. J. Gwilliam*, Gary Latham*, and Keith Westhusing* U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS964, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 * Morgantown Energy Technology Center, Dept. of Energy, Box 880 Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 Open-File Report 91-119 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. ARE HYDROCARBON SOURCE ROCKS BURIED BENEATH VOLCANIC FLOWS IN THE SOUTHERN WASHINGTON CASCADES? W. D. Stanley, W. J. Gwilliam*, Gary Latham*, and Keith Westhusing* U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS964, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 * Morgantown Energy Technology Center, Dept. of Energy, Box 880 Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 ABSTRACT Geophysical studies in the southern Washington Cascades have outlined a possible, previously unrecognized sequence of sedimentary rocks. These postulated sedimentary units are interpreted as corresponding to at least the upper section of a low-resistivity package of rocks at depths of 1 to 10 km and with thicknesses up to 15 km that we call the southern Washington Cascades conductor (SWCC). The upper surface of this conductive package correlates in some places with anticlinal structures that bring Tertiary marine rocks near the surface. Subsurface details of these anticlinal structures have been imaged with deep reflection surveys. The conductive rocks have also been traced to the surface west of Morton, Washington, where they correlate with marine shales of the lower Eocene Mclntosh Formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes and Sources of Water Quality Impairment in the Upper Chehalis River, Washington
    Causes and Sources of Water Quality Impairment in the Upper Chehalis River, Washington by A. Craig Harper A Research Paper submitted to Oregon State University Department of Geosciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science April 1993 Directed by Dr. Keith W. Muckleston Acknowledgements I would like to thank Eric Aroner and Paul Pickett for their technical assistance and inspiration. Eric instructed me on the statistical aspects of water quality analysis, and encouraged me to dig deeply into techniques I knew very little about. Paul explained some of the intricacies of water chemistry, and led me to many of the references used in this rr Dr. Keith Muckleston has shown great faith in me all these many years since I began my graduate program, and his adept suggestions helped me sharpen the focus of my research. I would also like to thank my wife Theresa for her tremendous patience and kind encouragement. Now we can both compete for Dr. Science's job. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.......................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................2 BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 4 AMBIENT MONITORING AND ANALYSIS................................................5 Hydrologic Characteristics................................................................. 5 Temperature..................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Littlerock 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
    WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SERIES 2017-01 Geologic Map of the Littlerock 7.5-minute Quadrangle GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LITTLEROCK 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE, Geologic Map of the Littlerock 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Pamphlet accompanies map 123°07ƍ30Ǝ R4W R3W 05ƍ00Ǝ 02ƍ30Ǝ 123°00ƍ00Ǝ 47°00ƍ00Ǝ 47°00ƍ00Ǝ Thurston County, Washington Evc Qgt Evc Qgt Qaf Qls Qgo Qgog Qgo THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON G2 Evc Evc Qgt Michael Polenz, Jessica L. Vermeer, Gabriel Legorreta Paulín, Evc ? ? Qls T18N Download the G40-41,48 Qa Qoa Evc ? Evc Qgaf Jeffrey H. Tepper, Shannon A. Mahan, and Recep Cakir T18N Qa T17N Qgo T17N Qgo? Evc Qaf Qgic Qgog Qgt ? G10 Qa June 2017 Evc Qgo ? publication ? Qaf C19-20 G14 Qgic Michael Polenz—Washington Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources Evc Qgo ? Qgog? Qls Qa Qa G3 ? Qoa Qgic C26 Qgic Jessica L. Vermeer—Washington Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources Qgoaf Evc Qaf Qgag C4 Qoa Evc QEcf QEcf Qgo Qgic Gabriel Legorreta Paulín—Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria Del Coyoacán Qls Qa ? S1 Qaf MAJOR FINDINGS GEOLOGIC SYMBOLS G34 ? Qgoaf Qgog Jeffrey H. Tepper—University of Puget Sound G58-59 Qgo • A new ~47.4 Ma laser-ablation U-Pb date on zircon from a slightly reworked airfall tuff provides a close maximum Mass-wasting landforms (overlay pattern)—Landforms that suggest mass movement on unstable Magnetic 47°02' Evc ? Qaf Qgt limiting age for the McIntosh Formation. anomalies 122 Qge Qgo? slopes, but evidence for landslide deposits is inconclusive. Evc Qaf Qp (nanoteslas) Evc Qgo 40 39 ° Shannon A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petrography and Tectonic Significance of the Blue Mountain
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Summer 1987 The etrP ography and Tectonic Significance of the Blue Mountain Unit, Olympic Peninsula, Washington Jon M. Einarsen Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Einarsen, Jon M., "The eP trography and Tectonic Significance of the Blue Mountain Unit, Olympic Peninsula, Washington" (1987). WWU Graduate School Collection. 840. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/840 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shal’l make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature Date Bellingham, Washington 98Z25 □ (206) 676-3000 THE PETEDGRAPHY AND TECTCNIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN UNIT, OLYMPIC PENINSULA, WASHINGTON A Thesis Presented
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1–3, 2007
    1 Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1–3, 2007, RESOURCES in Western Washington by Isabelle Y. Sarikhan, Kelsay Davis Stanton, Trevor A. Contreras, Michael Polenz, Jack Powell, Timothy J. Walsh, and Robert L. Logan WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY NATURAL AND EARTH RESOURCES Open File Report 2008-5 November 2008 This report has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Division of Geology and Earth Resources standards and nomenclature Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1–3, 2007, in Western Washington by Isabelle Y. Sarikhan, Kelsay Davis Stanton, Trevor A. Contreras, Michael Polenz, Jack Powell, Timothy J. Walsh, and Robert L. Logan WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Open File Report 2008-5 November 2008 DISCLAIMER Neither the State of Washington, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em- ployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informa- tion, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or other- wise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the State of Washington or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the State of Washington or any agency thereof. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Doug Sutherland—Commissioner of Public Lands DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES David K. Norman—Acting State Geologist John P.
    [Show full text]