DOCSLIB.ORG

Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis of Washington State Prospects: Phase 1 Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geothermal Play-Fairway Analysis of Washington State Prospects: Phase 1 Technical Report GEOTHERMAL PLAY-FAIRWAY ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON STATE PROSPECTS: PHASE 1 TECHNICAL REPORT MOUNT ST. HELENS SEISMIC ZONE WIND RIVER VALLEY MOUNT BAKER by David K. Norman1, Corina Forson1, Jessica L. Czajkowski1, Michael W. Swyer2, Trenton T. Cladouhos2, Gima M. Shcmalzle3, and Nicholas, Davatzes4 from 1Washington State Department of Natural Resources Geology and Earth Resources Division, 2AltaRock Energy, Inc., 3BOS Technologies, LLC, and 4Temple University under contract to U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Program Award no. DE-EE0006728 DE-EE0006728 Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Phase 1 Technical Report Table of contents: Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Objectives and Downselect Criteria ............................................................................................... 4 1.2. Summary of Project Activities ....................................................................................................... 5 2. Geologic Background ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Site Geologic Settings .................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1. Mount St. Helens Seismic Zone (MSHSZ) ............................................................................ 7 2.1.2. Wind River Valley (WRV) .................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3. Mount Baker (MB) ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Conceptual Resource Models ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1. MSHSZ ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.2. MB ........................................................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3. WRV ..................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1. Play-Fairway Methodology and Assumptions .............................................................................. 14 3.2. The Analytical Hierarchy Process ................................................................................................ 15 3.3. Heat Potential Modeling Methodology ........................................................................................ 16 3.4. Permeability Potential Modeling Methodology ............................................................................ 17 3.5. Combining the Heat and Permeability Potential Models.............................................................. 21 3.6. Utility of Methods for Applications at Other Sites ....................................................................... 21 3.7. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Modeling Methodology.................................................................... 21 4. Results.................................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1. Geothermal Favorability Modeling .............................................................................................. 26 4.1.1. Geothermal Favorability Models of MSHSZ ....................................................................... 26 4.1.2. Geothermal Favorability Models of WRV ........................................................................... 27 4.1.3. Geothermal Favorability Models of MB............................................................................... 28 4.2. Uncertainty and Risk Modeling .................................................................................................... 29 4.2.1. Uncertainty Model of MSHSZ ............................................................................................. 29 4.2.2. Uncertainty Model of WRV ................................................................................................. 30 4.2.3. Uncertainty Model of MB..................................................................................................... 31 5. Areas of Interest for Future Exploration Based on Risk Mapping................................................ 33 5.1. Risk Maps ..................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1.1. Risk Maps for MSHSZ ......................................................................................................... 34 5.1.2. Risk Maps for WRV ............................................................................................................. 35 5.1.3. Risk Maps for MB ................................................................................................................ 36 6. Commercial Viability of the Play-Fairways ..................................................................................... 37 6.1. Presence of a Resource ................................................................................................................. 37 6.2. Local Factors Supporting Development ....................................................................................... 37 6.3. Land Status ................................................................................................................................... 37 6.4. Potential Industry Partners ............................................................................................................ 38 7. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 39 8. Recommendations for Future Exploration ...................................................................................... 39 8.1. Description of Phase 2 Objectives and Outcomes ........................................................................ 39 i DE-EE0006728 Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Phase 1 Technical Report 8.2. Summary of Proposed Activities for Phase 2 ............................................................................... 40 8.3. Description of Planned Activities (SOPO Tasks) ........................................................................ 45 8.4. Partners Identified and Roles ........................................................................................................ 46 8.5. Preliminary Timeline ................................................................................................................... 46 8.6. Preliminary Phase 2 Budget Information ..................................................................................... 47 8.6.1. High-Cost Proposal Budget Sheets and Justification .......................................................... 47 8.6.2. Low-Cost Proposal Budget Sheets and Justification .......................................................... 50 8.7. Anticipated Permitting Requirements and Barriers to Address .................................................... 52 9. Catalog of Supporting Files Used in the Analysis ............................................................................ 53 10. Technology Transfer Activities ......................................................................................................... 56 11. References Cited ................................................................................................................................. 57 12. Appendix A: Data Processing for the Heat Potential Models ............................................................. 61 13. Appendix B: Data Processing for the Permeability Potential Models................................................. 66 14. Appendix C: Analytical Hierarchy Process ........................................................................................ 84 15. Appendix D: Analysis of High Precision GPS Time Series and Strain Rates .................................... 86 16. Appendix E: Data Processing for the Uncertainty and Risk Models .................................................. 87 17. Appendix F: Preliminary USGS Work Plan and Budget for Proposed Phase 2 Collaboration .......... 93 Figures: 1. Statewide resource model ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. MSHSZ Regional setting ........................................................................................................................ 7 3. WRV Regional setting ............................................................................................................................ 9 4. MB Regional setting ............................................................................................................................. 10 5. Conceptual resource models ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carson - Wind River Valley Water Supply by Ivan Donaldson Skamania County Historical Society Carson - Wind River Valley Water Supply
    Irrigation flume wends way from Panther Creek toward yet-to-be-built High Bridge over Wind River. Carson - Wind River Valley Water Supply By Ivan Donaldson Skamania County Historical Society Carson - Wind River Valley Water Supply By Ivan Donaldson Skamania County Historical Society E. J. Weigle home north of Carson. (This and other photos presented to Skamania County Historical Museum by Paul Boyd.) Much of the soil of the Carson Valley is a shallow sandy layer deposited on top of the geologically recent Trout Creek Olivine basalt lava flow. This is the lava flow which filled the Wind River canyon to a considerable depth, dammed the Columbia River, and created the Panther Creek reef or lava dike which is described later in this article. The soil, while fertile and productive, dries out quickly and crops grown in this valley require frequent watering in the summertime. Contra to this statement is the knowledge that the early strawberry fields produced well with no irrigation water. During the first decade of the 1900s, entrepreneur and promoter, B. M. Hawley of Home Valley, Washington, and his associates began action upon their dream to convert the heavily timbered Carson Valley into an agricultural paradise. These gentlemen indulged their expensive fantasy to inititate construction of an irrigation flume which to exrend from Panther Creek six to eight miles to the semi-level Carson Valley plain as we know it now in 1984. Carson Water Supply — Page 2 Skamania County records show that on 1 April 1907 B. M. Hawley filed for a water right on Panther Creek, tributary to Wind River, for 60 cubic feet per second of water, giving the point of diversion and stating it was for irrigation, power, and domestic use.
    [Show full text]
  • ªª47 ªª47 ªª63 ªª85 ªª85 ªª84 ªª84 ªª48 ªª45 ªª26 ªª56 ªª21 ªª22 ªª22 ªª55 ªª55
    Gifford Pinchot National Forest Special Forest Products Map: North Half R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. 11 E. Puyallup Point Lower C edar Lake N Aurora Peak Ceda r Lake 6 1 . Swa mp Lake 8 1 6 3 2 Bald Hill Glacier V8 iew 2 . 6 2 1 Alder T Shriner Peak Cou gar Lake Green Hill &M Alder Reservoir 2 6 7 2 Gla4cier View Wilderness 5 8 G 9 obblers Knob 7 2 . 0 4 Reliance H 9 ill 0 Mount Beljica 0 N Mount Wow 0 .1 9 4 0 2 5 Elbe Crag Mountain 1 7409017 &M Ashford . &M 706 5900037 T 0 0 5 Stahl Mountain Tumtum Peak 0 2 0 0 Bald Mountain 0 0 28 4 8 BIG CRE E K 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 7400000 0 52 0 6 0 7 Ladd Mou ª 42 4 ntain 5 Mineral Lake Fry "2 ingpan Moun 0 tain 0 9 9 0 Butter 3 0 4 85 Creek RNA 4 0 0 7 5 ª 2 Huckle ª berry Mountain 2 5 7 Roundtop Mo 2 4 untain 2 0 5 2 0 4 Cougar Mo 5 5 2 7 untain 0 .1 &M 5 8 1 2 4 8 50 0 O 0 L 1B 5 sborne Mountain 4 ookout Mountain 16 4 00 7 Jug Lake 41 0 Mineral 0 ª52 0 0 1 1 6 44 9 2 1 5 0 0 84 0 4 4 0 0 A .
    [Show full text]
  • IC-62, Heat Flow Studies in the Steamboat Mountain-Lemei Rock
    ,. \\ :\ .J ~\ .... 7 \; t,6 i u2 W~~fnffl:RY u.no C ';I, .... DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES i n BERT L. COLE, Commissioner of Public Lands ; RALPH A. BESWICK Supervisor I: s DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES VAUGHN E. LIVINGSTON, JR., State Geologist INFORMATION CIRCULAR 62 HEAT FLOW STUDIES IN THE STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN-LEMEI ROCK AREA, SKAMANIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON BY J. ERIC SCHUSTER, DAVID D. BLACKWELL, PAUL E. HAMMOND, and MARSHALL T. HUNTTING Final report to the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION on sponsored proiect AER75 ... 02747 1978 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BERT L COLE, Commissioner of Public Lands RALPH A. BESWICK Supervisor DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES VAUGHN E. LIVINGSTON, JR., State Geologist INFORMATION CIRCULAR WA He<1.t iluw 33.J. -7 stu.diei::,; ln the .M6 t> i Stean, l:on. t --- bJ. ~uu,i ta i u-.Lem~ i 1970 Jiuck d.rea, Skaina11ia Cuunt),, W a i'ii1 i u ~ton HEAT FLOW STUDIES IN THE STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN-LEMEI ROCK AREA, SKAMANIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON BY J. ERIC SCHUSTER, DAVID D. BLACKWELL, PAUL E. HAMMOND, and MARSHALL T. HUNTTING Final report to the NATIONAL SC !ENCE FOUNDATION on sponsored project AER75-02747 1978 CONTENTS Abstract ................. , . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 Introduction ..................................................................... , • . 2 Acknowledgments • • • • • • . • • . • . • • . • . • . • . • . • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • . 3 Geo logy • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • . • • . • . • . • • . • . 4 Genera I features ............................
    [Show full text]
  • NEON Site-Level Plot Summary Wind River Experimental Forest (WREF)
    NEON Site-Level Plot Summary Wind River Experimental Forest (WREF) Document Information Date March 14, 2019 Author Erik Dahlke, Senior Regional Soil Scientist Soil Survey Region 1, Portland, OR Site Background The Wind River Experimental Forest NEON site (WREF) site is approximately 60 kilometers northeast of Vancouver in Skamania County, Washington. The WREF site is at the United States Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Northwest Research Station – Wind River Experimental Station in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF). WREF covers roughly 10,360 acres within Major Land Resource Area 3 (MLRA 3) – Olympic and Cascade Mountains. Most of the area lacks a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey; a small portion occurs within the 1990 Soil Survey of Skamania County, Area, Washington (WA659). A USFS Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) is available for GPNF. This product, produced at a smaller scale than NRCS soil maps, provides inventory information for geology, landform, and slope, as well as general soil groupings. Site Information The WREF site has varied relief. Elevation and slope ranges were derived from a digital elevation model (DEM), and range from slightly less than 300 meters to over 1275 meters; slope gradients range from 0 to more than 90 percent. Mean annual precipitation is between 2200 millimeters to about 3000 millimeters based on data from the PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model) Climate Group at Oregon State University. The WREF site consists of two distinct land areas referred to here as the ‘East Unit’ and ‘West Unit’. The West Unit contains the NEON instrument tower and all but six of the NEON distributed plots.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Setting of the Wind River Old-Growth Forest
    Ecosystems (2004) 7: 427439 DOI: 10.1007/~10021-004-0135-6 0 2004 Springer-Verlag - Ecological Setting of the Wind River Old-growth Forest David C. shaw,ly2* Jerry F. ~ranklin,'~'Ken ~ible,'.' Jeffrey ~lo~atek,~ Elizabeth Freeman, Sarah ~reene,~and Geoffrey G. parker5 wind River Canopy Crane Research Facility, University of Washington, Carson, Washington 98610, USA; 'college of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-2100, USA; '~epartmentof Plant Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1601, USA; 4PacificNorthwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, US Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA; 5~mithsonianEnvironmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland 21037-0028, USA The Wind River old-growth forest, in the southern cific yew (86 trees ha-'), western red cedar (30 trees Cascade Range of Washington State, is a cool (av- ha-'), and Pacific silver fir (47 trees ha-'). The av- erage annual temperature, 8.7"C), moist (average erage height of Douglas-fir is 52.0 m (tallest tree, annual precipitation, 2223 mm), 500-year-old 64.6 m), whereas western hemlock averages 19.0 m Douglas-fir-westem hemlock forest of moderate to (tallest tree, 55.7 m). The regional disturbance re- low productivity at 37 1-rn elevation on a less than gime is dominated by high-severity to moderate- 10% slope. There is a seasonal snowpack (Novem- severity fire, from which this forest is thought to ber-March), and rain-on-snow and freezing-rain have originated. There is no evidence that fire has events are common in winter. Local geology is occurred in the forest after establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Forests and Ranges of the USDA Forest Service
    United States Department of Experimental Forests and Ranges Agriculture Forest Service of the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE-321 Revised Abstract The USDA Forest Service has an outstanding scientific resource in the 79 Experimental Forests and Ranges that exist across the United States and its territories. These valuable scientific resources incorporate a broad range of climates, forest types, research emphases, and history. This publication describes each of the research sites within the Experimental Forests and Ranges network, providing information about history, climate, vegetation, soils, long-term data bases, research history and research products, as well as identifying collaborative opportunities, and providing contact information. The Compilers MARY BETH ADAMS, soil scientist, LINDA H. LOUGHRY, secretary, LINDA L. PLAUGHER, support services supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Timber and Watershed Laboratory, Parsons, West Virginia. Manuscript received for publication 17 November 2003 Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road September 2004 Delaware, OH 43015-8640 Revised March 2008 Fax: (740)368-0152 Revised publication available in CD-ROM only Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Experimental Forests and Ranges of the USDA Forest Service Compiled by: Mary Beth Adams Linda Loughry Linda Plaugher Contents Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Wind River Research Natural Area Was Standard Road Which Leads North from Forest Established on March 28, 1934, to Exemplify the Road N417 About 0.8 Km
    Federal Research Natural Areas in Oregon and Washington A Guidebook for Scientists and Educators. 1972. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. the south via the Columbia River (U.S. Highway 830), Carson, and the Wind River valley, following Forest Highway 30 and Forest Road N411 to Hemlock Ranger Station (Wind River Ranger District). Just west of the ranger station Old-growth Douglas-fir - western turn onto Forest Road N417, which crosses the hemlock stands growing in a valley in southwestern corner of the natural area about 3.2 the southern Washington Cascade km. (2 miles) from the station (fig. WR-1). The Range. eastern edge of the natural area can be reached and is crossed by Forest Road N400, a low The Wind River Research Natural Area was standard road which leads north from Forest established on March 28, 1934, to exemplify the Road N417 about 0.8 km. (0.5 mile) west of the old-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) - ranger station. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forests A trail crosses section 20 and follows the which originally covered many valleys in western northern edge of section 21, connecting Forest Washington's Cascade Range. The 478-ha. Roads N417 and N400 and providing access to (l,180-acre) tract is located in Skamania County, the southern half of the natural area. The Washington, and is administered by the Wind northern half is probably easiest to reach by River Ranger District (Carson, Washington), cross-country travel from Forest Road N 46 Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It is also a part which climbs the eastern slopes of Trout Creek of the Wind River Experimental Forest, a 4,380- Hill just west of the natural area boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadside Geology of Mount St. Helens National Volcanic
    LEGA: WESTERN APPROACH-TOUTLERIVER VALLEY 59 (3) The slide-block material was followed closely by the main surge from the blast, which moved at speeds greater than 650 mi/hr (286 m/ s). The blast left a sandy, rubbly deposit containing abundant blast dacite, remnants of the cryptodome that had intruded the mountain and pushed out the bulge. This flow deposit formed a veneer on the surfaces of some of the hummocks and was plastered on valley walls. (4) Within minutes after the blast swept across Johnston Ridge and into South Coldwater Creek valley, the hot, freshly deposited material started to slide off many of the slopes steeper than about 25 degrees and flowed to the valley bottom as a secondary pyroclastic flow, covering many of the deposits mentioned in (3) with a layer of sand and rocks 3.5 to 7 ft (1-2 m) thick. The surface of this redeposited blast material is fairly flat and is banked up against the valley walls and fills the swales between the hum­ mocks of the underlying debris avalanche. The blast may have consisted of two separate explosions. Eyewitnesses north of the volcano reported two distinct pulses that were more than a minute apart (Hoblitt, 1990). If so, the first was probably magmatic and the second phreatomagmatic (a reaction of the magma with the water contained in the mountain). (5) All of the above deposits were then covered by a layer of accretionary la­ pilli that fell from the great mushroom cloud (p. 32) (including mudballs reported by some eyewitnesses) and, in areas nearer the volcano, by ash fallout from the ongoing pyroclastic flows as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 16 Wind River Subbasin
    Volume II, Chapter 16 Wind River Subbasin TABLE OF CONTENTS 16.0 WIND RIVER SUBBASIN ...................................................................................... 16-1 16.1 Subbasin Description............................................................................................. 16-1 16.1.1 Topography & Geology................................................................................. 16-1 16.1.2 Climate .......................................................................................................... 16-1 16.1.3 Land Use/Land Cover.................................................................................... 16-1 16.2 Focal Fish Species ................................................................................................. 16-5 16.2.1 Spring Chinook—Wind Subbasin .................................................................. 16-5 16.2.2 Fall Chinook—Wind Subbasin ...................................................................... 16-8 16.2.3 Mid-Columbia Bright Late Fall Chinook—Wind Subbasin ........................ 16-11 16.2.4 Chum—Wind Subbasin................................................................................ 16-14 16.2.5 Summer Steelhead—Wind Subbasin............................................................ 16-16 16.2.6 Winter Steelhead—Wind Subbasin.............................................................. 16-19 16.3 Potentially Manageable Impacts.......................................................................... 16-21 16.4 Hatchery Programs .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notice Concerning Copyright Restrictions
    NOTICE CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS This document may contain copyrighted materials. These materials have been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study, but may not be used for any commercial purpose. Users may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material. The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. 5061 Geology and Gravimetry of the Quaternary Basaltic Volcanic Field, Southern Cascade Rangel Washington - .........- ... ......... .-.St . .1 . -, ..,. ., 036........--.-I---:--- PAUL E. HAMMOND STEVEN A. PEDERSEN Department of Earth Sciences, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA KENNETH D. HOPKINS Department of Earth Sciences, university of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80631, USA DAN AIKEN Department of Geology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA DAVID S. HARLE Department of Geology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA Z. F. DANES DANIELA L. KONICEK CLAUDE R. STRICKLIN Department of Physics, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416, USA ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION A late Quaternary basaltic field, of about 2200 sq km, Hot springs and the High Cascade stratovolcanoes are lies east of Mount St.
    [Show full text]
  • Galerina Vittaeformis (Fr.) Singer ROD Name Galerina Vittaeformis Family Cortinariaceae Morphological Habit Mushroom
    S3 - 66 Galerina vittaeformis (Fr.) Singer ROD name Galerina vittaeformis Family Cortinariaceae Morphological Habit mushroom Description: CAP 5-12 mm diam., broadly conic, campanulate to nearly plane, broad umbo, distinctly striate, sulcate, crenulate margin, moist but strongly hygrophanous, not fibrillose but appearing almost cellular; tan with red-brown tones. Occasional veil fragments adhering to edge of cap in younger specimens. GILLS adnate to toothed-decurrent, moderately broad, tan to yellow-brown, with serrate edges. STEM 20-30 mm long x 1 mm in diam., equal, flexuous, pruinose from caulocystidia along its full length when young, but only along upper half as it ages. ODOR AND TASTE not distinct to mildly farinaceous. BASIDIA 22-36 x 8-9.5 µm, 4 spored. CHEILOCYSTIDIA fusoid-ventricose with rounded, subcapitate apex, some branched near apex, 36-80 x 6-17 µm, 2.5-5 µm in diam at apex, hyaline, with some darkening in age. PLEUROCYSTIDIA scattered, same or longer length, more slender necks and undulating. CAULOCYSTIDIA similar to cheilocystidia. PILEOCYSTIDIA absent. CLAMP CONNECTIONS present. SPORES amygdaliform, 8-10.5 x 5.5-7.5 µm, ornamentation finely punctate, pale brown. Distinguishing Features: Galerina vittaeformis can be distinguished from all other species by the abundant cystidia on the stem and gills and the small spores. Distribution: Widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. Known from many dozens of locations throughout the range of the Northwest Forest Plan. Substrate and Habitat: Single to gregarious, can be found with a variety of mosses, mostly on soil, but also on moss-covered logs. Season: Summer and autumn.
    [Show full text]
  • BERT L. COLE, Commissioner of Public Lands
    CHEMISTRY OF THE QUATERNARY LAVAS 41 20 High-alumina basalt, Big Lava Bed, youngest flow; in notch along Carson-Guler road. Wind River quadrangle. 23 Porphyritic high-alumina olivine basalt, Red Mountain lavas; along Panther Creek road ½ mile south of junction with Carson-Guler road. Wind River quadrangle. 25 High-alumina olivine basalt; Trout Creek Hill along Wind River valley (Waters, 1961b). Wind River quadrangle. 29 High-alumina platy olivine basalt flow from East Crater; on Falls Creek at end of Panther Creek road. Wind River quadrangle. 33 Olivine basalt of Berry Mountain; along ridge at north end of Berry Mountain. Wind River quadrangle. (WB) Warner Basalt of northern California (Yoder and Tilley, 1962) . Locations of analyzed samples are shown on Figure 10. Analysts: Samples 18, 19, and 20, W. S. Wise; samples 23 and 29, H. Asari; sample 25, V. C. Smith; sample 33, T. Asari. The basalts of Berry Mountain and the Cedar Creek flow are chemically different from the other lavas, for they contain less alumina (Table 7, no. 33). The chemical differences are reflected in the amount of normative diopside and alkali feldspars. On the basis of th7 one analysis presented here (Table 7, no. 33), a genetic connection with high-alumina basalt is not apparent. SUMMARY OF VOLCANIC HISTORY The history of volcanism, sedimentation, and intrusive igneous activity, as recorded in the rocks of the Wind River area, is summa­ rized in Figure 14. The oldest exposed rocks of the Wind River area show that by early Tertiary time the area of the present Cascade Mountains was occupied by a submerged trough.
    [Show full text]