DOCSLIB.ORG

Enter Filename

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enter Filename CA PDF Page 1 of 110 Energy East Pipeline Ltd. Energy East Project Consolidated Application Volume 4: Pipeline Design Appendix 4-4 Golder Associates Inc. Summary of Geohazards April 2016 CA PDF Page 2 of 110 PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT NEW BUILD PORTION OF THE ENERGY EAST SYSTEM ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN, MANITOBA, ONTARIO, QUÉBEC, AND NEW BRUNSWICK CANADA Prepared For: TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TCPL) REPORT 450 – 1st Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2P 5H1 Prepared By: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA July 24, 2014 Project No. 14-00899 A world of capabilities delivered locally Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 3 of 110 July 2014 i 14-00899 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Phased Approach to Geologic Hazards Assessment .................................................................. 2 1.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Development of Hazard Identification and Classification Criteria ................................................ 7 2.2.1 Landslides ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.2 Seismic (Ground Shaking) ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Seismic (Liquefaction) ............................................................................................................ 12 2.2.4 Seismic (Surface Fault Rupture) ............................................................................................ 13 2.2.5 Subsidence (Karst) ................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.6 Subsidence (Underground Mining) ........................................................................................ 16 2.2.7 Subsidence (Fluid Withdrawal) .............................................................................................. 17 2.2.8 Collapsible or Expansive Soils ............................................................................................... 19 3.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, LANDSLIDE, AND SEISMIC SETTING ................................... 22 3.1 Western Portion.......................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Eastern Portion........................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 25 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Landslide Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.1 Alberta Centreline .................................................................................................................. 27 4.1.2 Cromer Lateral ....................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.3 Ontario Centreline .................................................................................................................. 27 4.1.4 Québec Segment 1 ................................................................................................................ 28 4.1.5 Québec Segment 2 ................................................................................................................ 28 4.1.6 Saint John Extension ............................................................................................................. 28 4.2 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................ 29 4.2.1 Alberta Centreline .................................................................................................................. 29 4.2.2 Cromer Lateral ....................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Ontario Centreline .................................................................................................................. 30 EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 4 of 110 July 2014 ii 14-00899 4.2.4 Québec Segment 1 ................................................................................................................ 30 4.2.5 Québec Segment 2 ................................................................................................................ 30 4.2.6 Saint John Extension ............................................................................................................. 30 4.3 Subsidence Hazards .................................................................................................................. 30 4.3.1 Karst ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3.1.1 Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral .............................................................................. 31 4.3.1.2 Ontario Centreline .............................................................................................................. 31 4.3.1.3 Québec Segment 1 and Québec Segment 2 ..................................................................... 32 4.3.1.4 Saint John Extension ......................................................................................................... 32 4.3.2 Fluid Withdrawal..................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.3 Mining ..................................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.3.1 Cromer Lateral ................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.3.2 Saint John Extension ......................................................................................................... 34 4.4 Collapsible or Expansive Soils ................................................................................................... 34 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 35 5.1 Landslide Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 35 5.1.1 High Hazard Landslides ......................................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Moderate Hazard Landslides ................................................................................................. 36 5.1.3 Low Hazard Landslides .......................................................................................................... 37 5.2 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................ 37 5.3 Subsidence Hazards .................................................................................................................. 38 5.4 Collapsible/Expansive Soils ....................................................................................................... 38 6.0 CLOSING ....................................................................................................................................... 39 7.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 40 7.1 Alphabetical References ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is available here: https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library This is an open-access database that archives thousands of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and maintained by the Innovation and Development Committee of ISSMGE. CASE STUDY AND FORENSIC INVESTIGATION OF LANDSLIDE AT MARDOL IN GOA Leonardo Souza,1 Aviraj Naik,1 Praveen Mhaddolkar,1 and Nisha Naik2 1PG student – ME Foundation Engineering, Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi Goa; [email protected] 2Associate Professor – Civil Engineering Department, Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi Goa; [email protected] Keywords: Forensic Investigations, Landslides, Slope Failure Abstract: Goa, like the rest of India is undergoing an infrastructure boom. Many infrastructure works are carried out on hill sides in Goa. As a result there is a lot of hill cutting activity going on in Goa. This has caused major landslides in many parts of Goa leading to damage and loss of property and the environment. Forensic analysis of a failure can significantly reduce chances of future slides. The primary purpose of post failure slope and stability analysis is to contribute to the safe and economic planning for disaster aversion. Western Ghats (also known as Sahyadri) is a mountain range that runs along the west coast of India. Most of Goa's soil cover is made up of laterites rich in ferric-aluminium oxides and reddish in colour. Although such laterite composition exhibit good shear strength properties, hills composing of soil possessing low shear strength are also found at some parts of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Method for Large-Scale Landslide Classification from Satellite Radar
    Article A New Method for Large-Scale Landslide Classification from Satellite Radar Katy Burrows 1,*, Richard J. Walters 1, David Milledge 2, Karsten Spaans 3 and Alexander L. Densmore 4 1 The Centre for Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics, Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, DH1 3LE, UK; [email protected] 2 School of Engineering, Newcastle University, NE1 7RU, UK; [email protected] 3 The Centre for Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics, Satsense, LS2 9DF, UK; [email protected] 4 Department of Geography, Durham University, DH1 3LE, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44‐0191‐3342300 Received: 10 January 2019; Accepted: 17 January 2019; Published: 23 January 2019 Abstract: Following a large continental earthquake, information on the spatial distribution of triggered landslides is required as quickly as possible for use in emergency response coordination. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) methods have the potential to overcome variability in weather conditions, which often causes delays of days or weeks when mapping landslides using optical satellite imagery. Here we test landslide classifiers based on SAR coherence, which is estimated from the similarity in phase change in time between small ensembles of pixels. We test two existing SAR‐coherence‐based landslide classifiers against an independent inventory of landslides triggered following the Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake, and present and test a new method, which uses a classifier based on coherence calculated from ensembles of neighbouring pixels and coherence calculated from a more dispersed ensemble of ‘sibling’ pixels.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability Reference Guide for National Forests in the United States
    United States Department of Slope Stability Reference Guide Agriculture for National Forests Forest Service Engineerlng Staff in the United States Washington, DC Volume I August 1994 While reasonable efforts have been made to assure the accuracy of this publication, in no event will the authors, the editors, or the USDA Forest Service be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from any defect in, or the use or misuse of, this publications. Cover Photo Ca~tion: EYESEE DEBRIS SLIDE, Klamath National Forest, Region 5, Yreka, CA The photo shows the toe of a massive earth flow which is part of a large landslide complex that occupies about one square mile on the west side of the Klamath River, four air miles NNW of the community of Somes Bar, California. The active debris slide is a classic example of a natural slope failure occurring where an inner gorge cuts the toe of a large slumplearthflow complex. This photo point is located at milepost 9.63 on California State Highway 96. Photo by Gordon Keller, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program informa- tion (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Mice of Communications at 202-720-5881(voice) or 202-720-7808(TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6. Cumulative Effects of Fuel Treatments on Channel Erosion and Mass Wasting
    Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States CHAPTER 6. Cumulative Effects of Fuel Treatments on Channel Erosion and Mass Wasting Leslie M. Reid, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Arcata, CA Introduction Controversy over fuel treatments on public forestlands often focuses on the potential for such treatments to contribute to cumulative watershed impacts. If a fuel treatment project modifies the production or transport of water, sediment, or woody debris through a channel network, downstream habitats and aquatic resources may respond adversely to the changes. If these changes augment impacts from previous or on-going activities, the fuel treatment project will have increased the overall level of impact—the cumula- tive impact—to downstream resources. As currently applied, “fuel treatments” include a variety of practices, such as pre- scribed burning, removal of sub-canopy “ladder fuel” and downed wood, thinning of canopy trees, thinning of understory trees, conversion of fire-susceptible stands, clear- ing of shaded fuel breaks, post-fire salvage logging, and logging of insect-damaged or at-risk stands. Many of these activities are not economically self-supporting, so they are often bundled with standard timber sales to offset costs. Such projects tend to be sub- jected to particularly intense public scrutiny, and questions are often raised concerning the extent to which fuel treatments influence erosion. Considerable research has been carried out on channel erosion and mass-wasting processes, but few studies explore the effects of fuel treatments on such processes. Wondzell (2001) reviewed the literature available as of 2001. However, the scarcity of literature that specifically addresses the issue is not a critical problem.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 2329, Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-2329 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SHOWING INVENTORY AND REGIONAL SUSCEPTIBILITY FOR HOLOCENE DEBRIS FLOWS AND RELATED FAST-MOVING LANDSLIDES IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES By Earl E. Brabb, Joseph P. Colgan, and Timothy C. Best INTRODUCTION Debris flows, debris avalanches, mud flows, and lahars are fast-moving landslides that occur in a wide variety of environments throughout the world. They are particularly dangerous to life and property because they move quickly, destroy objects in their paths, and can strike with little warning. U.S. Geological Survey scientists are assessing debris-flow hazards and developing real-time techniques for monitoring hazardous areas so that road closures, evacuations, or corrective actions can be taken (Highland and others, 1997). According to the classifications of Varnes (1978) and Cruden and Varnes (1996), a debris flow is a type of slope movement that contains a significant proportion of particles larger than 2 mm and that resembles a viscous fluid. Debris avalanches are extremely rapid, tend to be large, and often occur on open slopes rather than down channels. A lahar is a debris flow from a volcano. A mudflow is a flowing mass of predominantly fine-grained material that possesses a high degree of fluidity (Jackson, 1997). In the interest of brevity, the term "debris flow" will be used in this report for all of the rapid slope movements described above. WHAT CAUSES DEBRIS FLOWS? Debris flows in the Appalachian Mountains are often triggered by hurricanes, which dump large amounts of rain on the ground in a short period of time, such as the November 1977 storm in North Carolina (Neary and Swift, 1987) and Hurricane Camille in Virginia (Williams and Guy, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Mapping and Monitoring Using Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) Technique in the French Alps
    remote sensing Article Landslide Mapping and Monitoring Using Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) Technique in the French Alps Gokhan Aslan 1,* , Michael Foumelis 1, Daniel Raucoules 1 , Marcello De Michele 1, Severine Bernardie 1 and Ziyadin Cakir 2 1 Natural Risk Department, French Geological Survey (BRGM), 45000 Orléans, France; [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (M.D.M.); [email protected] (S.B.) 2 Department of Geological Engineering, Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Istanbul 34467, Turkey; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-789-786-233 Received: 23 March 2020; Accepted: 14 April 2020; Published: 20 April 2020 Abstract: Continuous geodetic measurements in landslide prone regions are necessary to avoid disasters and better understand the spatiotemporal and kinematic evolution of landslides. The detection and characterization of landslides in high alpine environments remains a challenge associated with difficult accessibility, extensive coverage, limitations of available techniques, and the complex nature of landslide process. Recent studies using space-based observations and especially Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) techniques with the integration of in-situ monitoring instrumentation are providing vital information for an actual landslide monitoring. In the present study, the Stanford Method for Persistent Scatterers InSAR package (StaMPS) is employed to process the series of Sentinel 1-A and 1-B Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images acquired between 2015 and 2019 along ascending and descending orbits for the selected area in the French Alps. We applied the proposed approach, based on extraction of Active Deformation Areas (ADA), to automatically detect and assess the state of activity and the intensity of the suspected slow-moving landslides in the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol for Identification of Areas Sensitive to Landslide Hazards in Vermont
    Protocol for Identification of Areas Sensitive to Landslide Hazards in Vermont Prepared for the Vermont Geological Survey by Anne Eckert Clift Geological Consultant 53 Pinehurst Drive Jericho, VT 05465 (802) 899-9954 [email protected] George Springston Research Associate Department of Geology and Environmental Science Norwich University, 158 Harmon Drive Northfield, VT 05663 (802) 485-2734 [email protected] December 31, 2012 Disclaimer The use of trade product or firm names in this document is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by Norwich University or the State of Vermont. On the cover: A large landslide on the Missisquoi River, Sheldon, Vermont. Photo taken by George Springston, May, 2009. ii Executive Summary The purpose of this project is to advance the state of landslide mapping and landslide hazard assessment in Vermont by developing and testing a protocol to map potential hazard areas. The results of this project will be incorporated into the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, which will be updated in 2013. This project was divided into three parts. Part 1 involved set up of the project, creation of a landslide database, and selection of test sites. Part 2 involved development of the protocol. Part 3 involved preparation of the protocol for incorporation in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Seven site areas were selected in an attempt to represent conditions throughout Vermont. As a bare-earth lidar digital elevation model (DEM) was envisioned as being a key part of any resulting protocol (and the distribution of lidar data in Vermont was more limited when this study was conceived) the study sites are mostly within Chittenden County.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological and Engineering Analysis of Residual Soil for Forewarning Landslide from Highland Area in Northern Thailand
    Open Geosci. 2015; 1:637–645 Research Article Open Access Thanakrit Thongkhao, Sumet Phantuwongraj, Montri Choowong*, Thanop Thitimakorn, and Punya Charusiri Geological and engineering analysis of residual soil for forewarning landslide from highland area in northern Thailand DOI 10.1515/geo-2015-0059 Received Jan 14, 2015; accepted Aug 27, 2015 1 Introduction Abstract: One devastating landslide event in northern Landslide is a worldwide natural hazard, which in most Thailand occurred in 2006 at Ban Nong Pla village, Chiang cases, occurs as a debris flow and soil creep. In a tropi- Klang highland of Nan province after, a massive amount cal climate region, landslide is commonly caused by in- of residual soil moved from upstream to downstream, via tense and continuous heavy rainfall [1]. Therefore, a better creek tributaries, into a main stream after five days of un- understanding of landslide processes requires the precise usual heavy rainfall. In this paper, the geological and en- characterisation of the triggering factors and relationship gineering properties of residual soil derived from sedimen- among geological and engineering parameters. The trig- tary rocks were analyzed and integrated. Geological map- gering factors are often time dependent and for this reason ping, electrical resistivity survey and test pits were car- it is complicate to have a quantitative approach without a ried out along three transect lines together with system- permanent in-situ investigation measurement [2]. In most atic collection of undisturbed and disturbed residual soil of the landslide processes, loss of soil equilibrium caused samples. As a result, the average moisture content in soil by heavy rainfall is considered as one of the most impor- is 24.83% with average specific gravity of 2.68, whereas the tant triggering factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics and Modeling of Various Hazardous Landslides
    geosciences Article Physics and Modeling of Various Hazardous Landslides Jónas Elíasson * and Þorsteinn Sæmundsson Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +354-8998447 Abstract: In 2014, the Varnes classification system for landslides was updated. Complex landslides can still be a problem to classify as the classification does not include the flow type in the hydrody- namical sense. Three examples of Icelandic landslides are presented and later used as case studies in order to demonstrate the methods suggested to analyze the flow. The methods are based on the different physical properties of the flow types of the slides. Three different flow types are presented, named type (i), (ii), and (iii). Types (i) and (ii) do not include turbulent flows and their flow paths are sometimes independent of the velocity. Type (iii) include high velocity flows; they are treated with the translator wave theory, where a new type of a slope factor is used. It allows the slide to stop when the slope has flattened out to the value that corresponds to the stable slope property of the flowing material. The type studies are for a fast slide of this type, also a large slip circle slide that turns into a fast-flowing slide farther down the path and finally a large slide running so fast that it can run for a kilometer on flat land where it stops with a steep front. Keywords: landslides; landslide classification; soil properties; flow type; translatory wave; slope factor Citation: Elíasson, J.; Sæmundsson, Þ.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability Map of Massachusetts
    Slope Stability Map of Massachusetts Compiled by Stephen B. Mabee and Christopher C. Duncan Prepared for the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation December 2013 This report is available on CD and online. Additional copies of this report and all accompanying documentation are available upon request by contacting the Massachusetts Geological Survey. Address: Department of Geosciences University of Massachusetts 611 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01003 Telephone: 413-545-4814 Fax: 413-545-1200 Email: [email protected] World Wide Web: http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist Authors: Stephen B. Mabee, State Geologist, University of Massachusetts – Amherst Christopher C. Duncan, Principal, GISmatters Acknowledgements: This work was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency under Interagency Service Agreement CT- CDA-ISACDAHM189561UMS12A. Authors wish to thank the Massachusetts Department of Transportation engineers in Districts 1 and 2 for their cooperation on this project. Authors also want to acknowledge Cody Jones from the Geotechnical Group at the University of Massachusetts Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for his help in researching and assembling the geotechnical data used in this study. Cover: View looking up one of the large translational debris slides that occurred along Route 2 in Savoy, Massachusetts during tropical storm Irene on August 27-28, 2011. Pictured (from top to bottom) is Pete Connors, MassDOT, Steve Mabee (MA State Geologist) and Mike Yako (GEI Consultants). Photo by Joe Kopera. ii Executive Summary The purpose of this project is to prepare an updated map of potential landslide hazards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Soils and Geomorphology in Camp Davis Quadrangle, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming
    LANDSLIDE SOILS AND GEOMORPHOLOGY IN CAMP DAVIS QUADRANGLE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, WYOMING BY Copyright 2008 Ashley B. Zung B.A., B.S., University of Kansas, 1998 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Geography and Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master’s of Arts ____________________________________ Dr. Curtis Sorenson Chairperson Committee Members Dr. Terry Slocum Dr. William Woods Date defended: _______________________ The Thesis Committee for Ashley B. Zung certifies that this is the approved Version of the following thesis: LANDSLIDE SOILS AND GEOMORPHOLOGY IN CAMP DAVIS QUADRANGLE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, WYOMING Committee: ____________________________________ Dr. Curtis Sorenson Chairperson Dr. Terry Slocum Dr. William Woods Date approved: _______________________ 1 ABSTRACT Landslide soils and geomorphology in Camp Davis Quadrangle, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming Ashley B. Zung University of Kansas, Department of Geography Active landslides are evident throughout Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), and northwestern Wyoming has one of the highest landslide densities in the country (Case, 1990 and Fallon, 1996). Land use changes and increased demands for infrastructure challenge BTNF to better understand landslide processes in order to make informed land management decisions. Landscape properties related to landslide occurrence were studied via field work and laboratory analysis on 18 landslides in Camp Davis quadrangle. Landslide activity level was characterized based on geomorphic features. Landslide soil characteristics including texture, shrink-swell potential, clay mineralogy and horizonation were studied. The results show that landslides are catastrophic to soil formation. Additionally, these results support the hypothesis that landslide occurrence here is related to geology.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Definition and Classification August 2019
    Landslide definition and classification August 2019 Background Landslides occurring in camps are reported on a daily basis through the Site Management Sector Daily Incident Assessment and Reporting System. The development of a detailed classification scheme, however, has proven challenging for the reporting staff. Landslides are therefore defined in broad terms as: “The usually rapid downward movement of a mass of rock, earth, or artificial fill on a slope”. As a result, the records include a range of both natural and man-made phenomena, which can lead to potential misinterpretations. This note does not intend to change the current reporting system, but rather seeks to provide a classification framework for actors working on the improvement of landslide documentation and, simultaneously, to illustrate the variety of phenomena that are included in the Site Management daily incident reports. Landslide Classification The proposed classification follows Cruden and Varnes’s (1996) revised version of the widely used Varnes classification system (Varnes, 1978). More recently, Hungr et al. (2014) proposed further modifications to Varnes’s system, in particular, to improve compatibility with geotechnical and geological terminology of rocks and soils. However, the recommended changes lead to a degree of detail that is beyond the scope of this note. Landslides are classified according to their forming materials and their type of movement (see Appendix 2). The forming materials in camps consist of sediments, which are predominantly loosely consolidated sandstones alternating with silt and minor interbedded claystone. Technically, these are considered rock formations, but due to the fact that they are loosely consolidated and generally heavily weathered at the surface, they are referred to as “earth” in Varnes’s terminology.
    [Show full text]