Land use and land cover and associated maps for Cape Flattery, Washington, U.S., and British Columbia, Canada (US portion only)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Open-File Report↗
SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “Washington Geology”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Aeromagnetic map of Mt. St. Helens, Washington: Post May 1980 eruption
No abstract available.
Washington↗
Quality of surface waters of the United States, 1964, Parts 12-15, Pacific slope basins in Washington and upper Columbia River basin to Alaska
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Water Supply Paper↗
Reported historic asbestos mines, historic asbestos prospects, and other natural occurrences of asbestos in California
The map (Plate.pdf), pamphlet (Pamphlet.pdf), and the accompanying datasets in this report provide information for 290 sites in California where asbestos occurs in natural settings, using descriptions found in the geologic literature. Data on location, mineralogy, geology, and relevant literature for each asbestos site are provided. Using the map and digital data in this report, the user can examine the distribution of previously reported asbestos and their geological characteristics in California. This report is part of an ongoing study by the U.S. Geological Survey to identify and map sites where asbestos mineralization occurs in the United States, which includes similar maps and datasets of natural asbestos localities within the Eastern United States (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1189/), the Central United States (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1211/), the Rocky Mountain States (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1182/), the Southwestern United States (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1095/), and the Northwestern United States (Oregon and Washington) (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1041/). These reports are intended to provide State and local government agencies and other stakeholders with geologic information on reported asbestos mineralization in the United States.
California↗
An instrument system for monitoring and sampling suspended sediment in the benthic boundary layer
An instrument system has been constructed that can monitor and sample suspended sediment distributions in the benthic boundary layer. It consists of miniature nephelometers and suspended sediment samplers placed within one meter of the seabed. The system is capable of continuously monitoring suspended sediment profiles at eight levels between 14 and 100 cm above the seabed and collecting suspended sediment samples at four levels (20, 50, 70 and 100 cm) at three times during a deployment period. The suspended sediment system is designed to fit onto the instrumented tripod GEOPROBE which contains four electromagnetic current meters, pressure sensor, bottom stereo camera, two temperature sensors, transmissometer, and a Savonius rotor current meter. Sensor operation, data recording, and sediment sampling events are synchronized. Thus detailed measurements of the near-bottom flow conditions are made concurrently with suspended sediment measurements. The combined system has been used in sediment transporting environments within San Francisco Bay, California, and Puget Sound, Washington.
Marine Geology↗
Vulnerability assessment of a port and harbor community to earthquake and tsunami hazards: Integrating technical expert and stakeholder input
Research suggests that the Pacific Northwest could experience catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis in the near future, posing a significant threat to the numerous ports and harbors along the coast. A collaborative, multiagency initiative is underway to increase the resiliency of Pacific Northwest ports and harbors to these hazards, involving Oregon Sea Grant, Washington Sea Grant, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, and the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science Policy. One element of this research, planning, and outreach initiative is a natural hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning process that combines technical expertise with local stakeholder values and perceptions. This paper summarizes and examines one component of the process, the vulnerability assessment methodology, used in the pilot port and harbor community of Yaquina River, Oregon, as a case study of assessing vulnerability at the local level. In this community, stakeholders were most concerned with potential life loss and other nonstructural vulnerability issues, such as inadequate hazard awareness, communication, and response logistics, rather than structural issues, such as damage to specific buildings or infrastructure.
Oregon↗
Description of Existing Data for Integrated Landscape Monitoring in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington
This report summarizes existing geospatial data and monitoring programs for the Puget Sound Basin in northwestern Washington. This information was assembled as a preliminary data-development task for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Puget Sound Integrated Landscape Monitoring (PSILM) pilot project. The PSILM project seeks to support natural resource decision-making by developing a 'whole system' approach that links ecological processes at the landscape level to the local level (Benjamin and others, 2008). Part of this effort will include building the capacity to provide cumulative information about impacts that cross jurisdictional and regulatory boundaries, such as cumulative effects of land-cover change and shoreline modification, or region-wide responses to climate change. The PSILM project study area is defined as the 23 HUC-8 (hydrologic unit code) catchments that comprise the watersheds that drain into Puget Sound and their near-shore environments. The study area includes 13 counties and more than four million people. One goal of the PSILM geospatial database is to integrate spatial data collected at multiple scales across the Puget Sound Basin marine and terrestrial landscape. The PSILM work plan specifies an iterative process that alternates between tasks associated with data development and tasks associated with research or strategy development. For example, an initial work-plan goal was to delineate the study area boundary. Geospatial data required to address this task included data from ecological regions, watersheds, jurisdictions, and other boundaries. This assemblage of data provided the basis for identifying larger research issues and delineating the study-area boundary based on these research needs. Once the study-area boundary was agreed upon, the next iteration between data development and research activities was guided by questions about data availability, data extent, data abundance, and data types. This report is not intended as an exhaustive compilation of all available geospatial data, rather, it is a collection of information about geospatial data that can be used to help answer the suite of questions posed after the study-area boundary was defined. This information will also be useful to the PSILM team for future project tasks, such as assessing monitoring gaps, exploring monitoring-design strategies, identifying and deriving landscape indicators and metrics, and visual geographic communication. The two main geospatial data types referenced in this report - base-reference layers and monitoring data - originated from numerous and varied sources. In addition to collecting information and metadata about the base-reference layers, the data also were collected for project needs, such as developing maps for visual communication among team members and with outside groups. In contrast, only information about the data was typically required for the monitoring data. The information on base-reference layers and monitoring data included in this report is only as detailed as what was readily available from the sources themselves. Although this report may appear to lack consistency between data records, the varying degree of details contained in this report are merely a reflection of varying source detail. This compilation is just a beginning. All data listed also are being catalogued in spreadsheets and knowledge-management systems. Our efforts are continual as we develop a geospatial catalog for the PSILM pilot project.
Open-File Report↗
Military geology unit of the U.S. Geological Survey during World War II
On June 24, 1942, the temporary Military Geology Unit of the U.S. Geological Survey was formalized after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested them to prepare terrain intelligence studies to meet wartime priorities. The entire Military Geology Unit wartime roster was 114 professionals, including 88 geologists, 11 soil scientists, and 15 other specialists; 14 were women. Assisting staff (illustrators, typists, photographers, and others) totaled 43. The unit produced 313 studies, including 140 major terrain folios, 42 other major special reports, and 131 minor studies. These reports contain about 5,000 maps, 4,000 photographs and figures, 2,500 large tables, and 140 terrain diagrams. Most products were designed in the beginning for general strategic planning in Washington and later for detailed strategic planning overseas; they utilized graphics and nontechnical, telegraphic-style tabular texts. The Military Geology Unit's principal effort was the preparation of the terrain folios titled Strategic Engineering Studies. They varied somewhat in content and format, but the key components usually were introduction, terrain appreciation, rivers, road and airfield construction, construction materials, and water resources. The folios, produced at an average rate of about one per week and at an average cost of $2,500, were compiled from scientific journals, books, maps, and photographs available in the Washington area by a team of 3 to 8 scientists; 8 to 12 teams might be working concurrently. MGU personnel took great pride in never having missed a delivery deadline.
Book chapter↗
Geotechnical soil characterization of intact Quaternary deposits forming the March 22, 2014 SR-530 (Oso) landslide, Snohomish County, Washington
During the late morning of March 22, 2014, a devastating landslide occurred near the town of Oso, Washington. The landslide with an estimated volume of 10.9 million cubic yards (8.3 x 10 6 m 3 ) of both intact glacially deposited and previously disturbed landslide sediments, reached speeds averaging 40 miles per hour (64 kilometers per hour) and crossed the entire 2/3-mile (~1100 m) width of the adjacent North Fork Stillaguamish River floodplain in approximately 60 seconds, resulting in the complete destruction of an entire neighborhood (Iverson and others, 2015). More than 40 homes were destroyed as the debris overran the neighborhood, resulting in the deaths of 43 people. Landslides in glacial deposits are common in the Pacific Northwest (for example, Baum and others, 2008), and in fact, the site of the March 22, 2014 SR-530 landslide had experienced significant reactivation several times in past decades, with the most recent event occurring in 2006 (for example, Miller and Sias, 1998). However, these previous landslides were of considerably less volume and mobility (Iverson and others, 2015), and debris had never reached the Steelhead Haven neighborhood. Further, no landslides with the type of mobility that the March 22, 2014 landslide underwent have been recorded in historic times within the North Fork Stillaguamish River valley. However, mapping performed immediately following the landslide indicates that several other slopes in the North Fork Stillaguamish River valley have experienced large-volume landslides exhibiting high mobility in prehistoric times (Haugerud, 2014). The presence of previous high-mobility landslides in the valley, and the now well-documented occurrence of one involving many fatalities, underscores both the hazard and risk for those that live and travel in this and other river valleys in the Pacific Northwest with similar glacial deposits and precipitation patterns. To understand the hazards posed by highly mobile landslides in the Pacific Northwest, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), together with its project partners, the University of California, Berkeley Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (UCB), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), is undertaking a critically needed study to identify the geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical conditions in which these large landslides initiate, as well as the processes responsible for the exceptional mobility of this, and potentially other, landslides in the region. One of the first study activities involves characterizing the stratigraphy and materials from which the landslide deposits are derived, so that the fundamental geotechnical nature of the soils can be understood. This understanding is required to begin identifying possible conditions leading to slope failure and their relation to the landslide's high mobility. In addition, detailed characterization of each stratigraphic unit encountered in initial geotechnical borings is needed to relate stratigraphy between borings for this study and as a part of ongoing investigations by WSDOT and other project partners. This report provides a description of the methods used to obtain and test the intact soil stratigraphy behind the headscarp of the March 22 landslide. Detailed geotechnical index testing results are presented for 24 soil samples representing the stratigraphy at 19 different depths along a 650 ft (198 m) soil profile. The results include (1) the soil's in situ water content and unit weight (where applicable); (2) specific gravity of soil solids; and (3) each sample's grain-size distribution, critical limits for fine-grain water content states (that is, the Atterberg limits), and official Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designation. In addition, preliminary stratigraphy and geotechnical relations within and between soil units are presented.
Washington↗
EAARL topography - George Washington Birthplace National Monument 2008
These remotely sensed, geographically referenced elevation measurements of Lidar-derived bare earth (BE) and first surface (FS) topography were produced as a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC), St. Petersburg, FL; the National Park Service (NPS), Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network, Kingston, RI; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Wallops Flight Facility, VA. This project provides highly detailed and accurate datasets of the George Washington Birthplace National Monument in Virginia, acquired on March 26, 2008. The datasets are made available for use as a management tool to research scientists and natural resource managers. An innovative airborne Lidar instrument originally developed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, and known as the Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL) was used during data acquisition. The EAARL system is a raster-scanning, waveform-resolving, green-wavelength (532-nanometer) Lidar designed to map near-shore bathymetry, topography, and vegetation structure simultaneously. The EAARL sensor suite includes the raster-scanning, water-penetrating full-waveform adaptive Lidar, a down-looking red-green-blue (RGB) digital camera, a high-resolution multi-spectral color infrared (CIR) camera, two precision dual-frequency kinematic carrier-phase GPS receivers, and an integrated miniature digital inertial measurement unit, which provide for submeter georeferencing of each laser sample. The nominal EAARL platform is a twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft, but the instrument may be deployed on a range of light aircraft. A single pilot, a Lidar operator, and a data analyst constitute the crew for most survey operations. This sensor has the potential to make significant contributions in measuring sub-aerial and submarine coastal topography within cross-environmental surveys. Elevation measurements were collected over the survey area using the EAARL system, and the resulting data were then processed using the Airborne Lidar Processing System (ALPS), a custom-built processing system developed in a NASA-USGS collaboration. ALPS supports the exploration and processing of Lidar data in an interactive or batch mode. Modules for presurvey flight line definition, flight path plotting, Lidar raster and waveform investigation, and digital camera image playback have been developed. Processing algorithms have been developed to extract the range to the first and last significant return within each waveform. ALPS is routinely used to create maps that represent submerged or first surface topography. Specialized filtering algorithms have been implemented to determine the 'bare earth' under vegetation from a point cloud of last return elevations.
Virginia↗
Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010
Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in the area of Pennsylvania. Coalbed methane, which is sometimes extracted using the same technique, is often located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and is frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Bradford County and Washington County, Pennsylvania, between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is used to quantify these changes and are included in this publication.
Pennsylvania↗
Colored shaded relief bathymetry and acoustic backscatter of Ozette Lake, Washington
Offshore of the Pacific Northwest of the United States is the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a 1,000-kilometer-long tectonic boundary defined by a large fault, called a megathrust, that extends from the Mendocino Junction off northern California to the Nootka Fracture Zone off Vancouver Island, Canada (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). The Juan de Fuca and Gorda oceanic plates to the west of this boundary subduct under the North America continental plate to the east. Several other smaller faults that cut through the North America plate crust also affect the region. Although their effects upon Ozette Lake are uncertain, geological evidence for past earthquakes, such as underwater landslides, may be found in Pacific Northwest lakes. Underwater landslides caused by past earthquakes should be well preserved in these relatively undisturbed lake environments. The floor of Ozette Lake, Washington, located along the Pacific coast of the United States, west of the Puget Sound region and about 140 kilometers east of the megathrust was mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey in July of 2019 to search for evidence of past earthquakes. Mapping was completed using a SWATHplus-M 234-kHz interferometric side scan sonar system pole-mounted on the U.S. Geological Survey research vessel San Lorenzo. The system collected full-coverage bathymetric and acoustic backscatter data that were processed to 2-meter spatial resolution (Dartnell and others, 2024). This two-map series displays the results of this mapping. A colored shaded relief bathymetry map (sheet 1) and an acoustic backscatter map (sheet 2) show the lake floor morphology and backscatter intensities, respectively, that can be analyzed for evidence of past earthquakes.
Washington↗
Foreward: Geology Field Trips in and around the U.S. Capital
The first annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) was held in 1888 in Ithaca, New York (Fairchild, 1932), but official Sections of GSA formed much later. During the spring of 1949, a symposium in Knoxville, Tennessee, on mineral resources of the southeastern United States became the catalyst for the creation of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America (King, 1964), and the first annual meeting of the Southeastern Section was held in 1952 in Roanoke, Virginia (Wilson, 1954). The Northeastern Section formed much later, and its first annual meeting was held in 1966 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Socolow, 1968). At all of these section meetings, field trips have been important venues for geologists and especially students to gather together, examine rocks in the field, and discuss ideas. These field trips have been especially important at combined section meetings because they provide settings for geologists who are experienced in one geographic region to examine and compare the geology of other regions. The first combined meeting of the Southeastern and Northeastern sections occurred in 1976 in Arlington, Virginia. Since then, the Southeastern and Northeastern sections have met together on numerous occasions, including 1982 in Washington, DC; 1991 in Baltimore, Maryland; 2004 in Tysons Corner, Virginia; and 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. Since the first combined section meeting in 1976, there has been a gradual increase in the role of technology in geology field studies. In fact, during the past several decades there has been an increase in emphasis in our society on the instrumental component of science, the goal of which is operational techniques to do or control things, and a corresponding decrease in emphasis on the natural philosophy component of science, the goal of which is a greater understanding of the natural world (Dear, 2006). The modern education acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), for example, is often used as a catch-all term that implies that science and technology are relatively synonymous, and implies that greater technology leads automatically to greater understanding of the natural world. This assumption, however, is not always valid (Dear, 2006), and technology should not be promoted as a substitute for field experiences. Technology can be a tool that leads to greater understanding of the natural world, but not all Science uses technology as a means of providing greater understanding. The benefits of new technologies include: (1) data of greater resolution; and (2) greater efficiency of capturing, storing, and visualizing data. The risks of new technologies include: (1) an overabundance of data, some of which may be of little value; (2) less time available for analysis of data, if geologists become occupied primarily with capturing and storing data; and (3) errors that arise from complacency and the perception that field-checking may not be necessary. In other words, there is a risk that a glut of data and vast amounts of time devoted to the capturing and storing of data may result in a reduced interest and (or) willingness to field-check data. In the spirit of the early GSA section meetings, we feel that there are still enormous advantages to conducting geology field trips in conjunction with traditional meeting presentations and posters. In 2020, with this current combined Southeastern and Northeastern section meeting in Reston, Virginia, we have assembled eight different field trips that cover a wide range of territory in and around the Nation’s capital. These field trip localities include the immediate vicinity of Washington, DC, as well as various locations in nearby areas of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. The physiographic provinces include Mesozoic Rift Basins, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge, and the Allegheny Plateau of the Appalachian Basin. The field trip sites exhibit a wide range of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, as well as rocks with a wide range of geologic ages from the Mesoproterozoic to the Holocene. We hope that this guidebook provides new motivation for geologists to examine rocks in the field, to discuss ideas with colleagues in the field, and to avoid becoming complacent. The editors of this volume would like to thank the authors of the different field trip guides, the field trip leaders, and all of the reviewers who made suggestions for improving the field trip manuscripts. The editors would also like to thank Elle Derwent of GSA for her logistical help and guidance regarding the field trips, and April Leo and the staff of the GSA Publications Department for seeing this book through to publication.
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia↗
Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center
As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.
Washington↗
Use of liquefaction-induced features for paleoseismic analysis
Liquefaction features can be used in many field settings to estimate the recurrence interval and magnitude of strong earthquakes through much of the Holocene. These features include dikes, craters, vented sand, sills, and laterally spreading landslides. The relatively high seismic shaking level required for their formation makes them particularly valuable as records of strong paleo-earthquakes. This state-of-the-art summary for using liquefaction-induced features for paleoseismic interpretation and analysis takes into account both geological and geotechnical engineering perspectives. The driving mechanism for formation of the features is primarily the increased pore-water pressure associated with liquefaction of sand-rich sediment. The role of this mechanism is often supplemented greatly by the direct action of seismic shaking at the ground surface, which strains and breaks the clay-rich cap that lies immediately above the sediment that liquefied. Discussed in the text are the processes involved in formation of the features, as well as their morphology and characteristics in field settings. Whether liquefaction occurs is controlled mainly by sediment grain size, sediment packing, depth to the water table, and strength and duration of seismic shaking. Formation of recognizable features in the field generally requires a low-permeability cap above the sediment that liquefied. Field manifestations are controlled largely by the severity of liquefaction and the thickness and properties of the low-permeability cap. Criteria are presented for determining whether observed sediment deformation in the field originated by seismically induced liquefaction. These criteria have been developed mainly by observing historic effects of liquefaction in varied field settings. The most important criterion is that a seismic liquefaction origin requires widespread, regional development of features around a core area where the effects are most severe. In addition, the features must have a morphology that is consistent with a very sudden application of a large hydraulic force. This article discusses case studies in widely separated and different geological settings: coastal South Carolina, the New Madrid seismic zone, the Wabash Valley seismic zone, and coastal Washington State. These studies encompass most of the range of settings and the types of liquefaction-induced features likely to be encountered anywhere. The case studies describe the observed features and the logic for assigning a seismic liquefaction origin to them. Also discussed are some types of sediment deformations that can be misinterpreted as having a seismic origin. Two independent methods for estimating prehistoric magnitude are discussed briefly. One method is based on determination of the maximum distance from the epicenter over which liquefaction-induced effects have formed. The other method is based on use of geotechnical engineering techniques at sites of marginal liquefaction, in order to bracket the peak accelerations as a function of epicentral distance; these accelerations can then be compared with predictions from seismological models.
Engineering Geology↗
Water budget of the upper Chehalis River Basin, southwestern Washington
Groundwater and surface water collectively supply the domestic, agricultural, and industrial needs of the 895-square mile upper Chehalis River Basin upstream of Grand Mound, Washington, while providing streamflow for fish and other aquatic species in the Chehalis River and its tributaries. To support sustainable water management decision-making, a water budget (including precipitation, interception, groundwater recharge, surface runoff, and groundwater pumping) was developed for the upper Chehalis River Basin during October 2001–September 2015. Water-budget components were estimated from the U.S. Geological Survey Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) model except for groundwater pumping, which was estimated from public water purveyor records, annual system data from the Washington State Department of Health, census population data, and water-use estimates. Groundwater recharge estimated from the SWB model was compared to base flow, a proxy for groundwater recharge, independently estimated from separation of the hydrograph recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage at the outlet of the basin. Mean annual precipitation for the basin was estimated at 72.6 inches, of which 35 percent was lost to evapotranspiration, 30 percent was recharged to groundwater, 30 percent was surface runoff, and 5 percent was lost to interception. SWB model estimates of groundwater recharge were 17 percent less than estimates of base flow from hydrograph separation. Groundwater pumpage in the basin was estimated at 1 percent of groundwater recharge estimated by SWB and 0.8 percent of base flow estimated by hydrograph separation. These estimates form a baseline for understanding future changes to components of water use and may be used to inform numerical groundwater models to support sustainable management of water resources in the upper Chehalis River Basin.
Washington↗