7-2 Final Project
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
103
Subject
Geology
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
27
Uploaded by JusticePartridge3696
7-2 Final Project: Preliminary Report of Environmental Findings
Emily Durkin
PHY 103 Southern New Hampshire University
Executive Summary
This preliminary report of the geological and environmental findings is for the proposed
subdivision development in Waterville, Oregon. This report will go over a geological analysis
including the types of rocks present, an analysis of the soil profiles for the proposed sites, any
tectonic hazards including the presence of fault lines, an analysis of the fluvial process, potential
plate movement and
resulting seismic or volcanic activity in the area, as well as any climate
concerns, an analysis of
storm hazards, precipitation, and temperature considerations for the
development site near Camp Creek Cemetery in Waterville Oregon.
After a review of the proposed development sites data, the three proposed sites all are not
recommended for development as they are not stable geologically enough or propose a great risk
for property damage and potential loss of life. The most concerning hazards are instability from
erosion, an active fault line running through site B and threatening sites A and C with a history of
producing a large amount of earthquake activity of 6.2 or greater on the Richter scale, the
development sites closeness to Mt. Jefferson, which is an active stratovolcano, and flooding of
the development site and it’s access roads, all of which are expected to be recurring events based
on analysis of Historical data for the area which will be provided and referenced through this
report. Other hazards include mudslides due to the developments site’s location at the base of the
mountain, and the potential of being in a floodplain of Camp Creek as the meanders of the creek
erode and move closer to the sites. These hazards would pose issues with the roads in and out of
the development, possibly cutting off access to the sites during a flood.
Basic Geology
In the stratigraphy and cross section, figure 1, we can see a breakdown of the types of
rock present at the proposed development site throughout the nine rock layers which does not
include the organic material layer. These rocks include limestone, sandstone, coal, siltstone,
schist, granite, and andesite.
Limestone is in layers A and C. It is an organic sedimentary rock formed from animal
waste as well as the debris from coal, algae, and shells being broken down. This is made up
mostly of calcite, a form of calcium carbonate. The presence of limestone indicates that when
those layers were forming, there was a river or freshwater lake at the site, or it was a part of the
sea floor.
Sandstone is found in layers B and G. Sandstone is a clastic sedimentary rock that is
formed from the binding of sand sized particles leftover from the weathering of rocks, organic
material, or other minerals grouping together with the minerals quartz or calcite and being
compressed. The presence of sandstone indicates the deposition from lakes, rivers, or the ocean
floor.
Coal is found on layers D and F. It is a fossil fuel and an organic sedimentary rock
formed when plants are preserved from decaying within low oxygen conditions, such as swamps,
then buried in the sediment and compressed and compacted over time in warm environment. The
presence of coal tells us that there was once a swampy climate in this area when layers were
formed.
Siltstone is a clastic sedimentary rock that forms in a similar fashion as sandstone,
however, it is made through the compaction of silt sized particles and is commonly reddish or
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
grayish in color. It is found in layer E. The presence of siltstone indicates there was once a delta
or glacier in this area.
Schist is in layer H and is a foliated metamorphic rock that forms when long flat minerals
are put under extreme pressure, heat, and chemical activity. Schist must first be metamorphosed
through a slate step and then a phyllite step. If any more immense pressure happens after the
schist forms, it can turn into gneiss. The presence of schist indicates it is on the continental side
of a convergent plate boundary.
Granite is found in layer I. It is an intrusive igneous rock that forms when molten
material cools and solidifies over millennia or more inside of the Earth’s crust. The passage of
such a long amount of time allows the visible, large mineral crystals to be seen in granite to
form. It is mostly made of quartz and feldspar, which are bonded through heat with other
materials. The presence of granite is a result of an underground magma chamber and shows that
there is a subduction zone where the continental rocks are being melted.
Andesite is found in layer J. Andesite is an extrusive igneous rock typically found in thick
lava flows from stratovolcanoes. The presence of andesite indicates that a stratovolcano has
erupted in the area, creating andesitic lava flows and a subduction zone along the Juan de Fuca
and North American plates in the area which forms the entire Cascade Range.
Using relative dating, we can determine the timeframe of when each layer was formed in
the stratigraphy. In figure 1 we can see that the layers formed oldest to youngest are J, H, G, F, E,
D, C, B, I, and then A. We know that the granite dike I is younger than all of the layers except
layer A, as it cuts through the other layers. This means they had already formed whereas A is
uncut by it so therefore it formed after and is the youngest. The fault line that runs through the
cross section formed last as it cuts through all layers after A was formed. The fault is a reverse
strike-slip fault that occurred once layer A was formed and then as it displaced the rock layers
upward on the right, layer A eventually eroded leaving no trace on that side of the fault and a
smaller, more eroded layer B as the top layer on that side.
All except for the granite layer have flat, horizontal horizons. The granite layer extruded
upward from the core, whereas the other layers above it were formed by various amounts of
pressure over long periods. It is possible that layers G and H formed simultaneously as the
pressure of the sandstone would have provided the weight on the long flat minerals allowing
schist to form. Swamp-like conditions likely prevailed in the area for a long period after the
sandstone formed, which is evident by the repeating layers of coal in the cross section which
forms from plant matter submerged in low oxygen environments and is then compacted with
pressure by heavy sediment layers. On top of the first coal layer, we see that a thick layer of
siltstone formed, meaning the sediment on top of the first layer of coal was very fine grained,
most likely consisting of clay and mud.
Another layer of coal formed with sediment that would
be made up of organic matter such as algae, coal, and shells as the next layer to form was
limestone. The formation of limestone as the next layer indicates that the oxygen levels likely
rose to have supported the survival of such organic matter from underwater organisms. Next, a
layer of sandstone formed from deposition in the body of water and then another layer of
limestone at the top indicating the continued presence of organic underwater organisms during
that period. Before this final layer of limestone formed, a dike of granite cut through the rock
layers. Sometime after layer A formed, a fault event occurred. After the fault formed, there was
significant erosion that occurred on the portion of the fault which was raised on the right side
causing layer A to be worn away and a portion of layer B to erode as well, which is why the layer
B is smaller on the right side of the fault.
In figure 2, we can see the soil profiles for each of the proposed development sites
labeled A, B, and C which corresponds to the labeled sites on the Waterville Topographic Map,
figure 3.
Sample A shows a layer of organic soil (O) on top of a slightly thicker layer of mineral
topsoil (A). A thicker layer of an accumulative mineral zone (B) is next beneath layer A, with an
even larger layer of parent material (C) before you reach a thin layer of the bedrock at the
bottom. Sample B has a much thinner layer of organic material (O) at the top along with a
thinner layer of topsoil (A) while the subsurface mineral layer (B) is much closer to the surface
and is only slightly smaller than sample A. The parent material (C) is similar in size to sample A
and takes up nearly 2/3 of the profile with only a small amount more bedrock present than the
previous sample. Sample C has only a thin layer of organic material decomposing at the top (O),
no layer A is present, and layer B has been heavily eroded leaving only a thin layer behind that is
only slightly thicker than layer A in the previous profile and is almost exposed. Horizon C is
similar in size to sample A but is significantly closer to the surface due to the erosion of layers A
and B. More than half of this profile is bedrock.
These samples show obvious erosion potential and very little room for excavation as the
bedrock is so close to the surface in some areas and so prominent in each profile. The presence of
limestone in the stratigraphy is also a case for concern as limestone can be dissolved by
groundwater which can lead to the formation of spaces and underground caverns and sinkholes
can develop as a result (Water Science School, 2018). As a result of these soil profiles and the
cross section showing so much erosion, bedrock close to the surface, and the recently active fault
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
system in all three of these locations would not be a good prospect for the development of a
subdivision.
Fluvial Process
At the proposed development site near Camp Creek Cemetery in Waterville, Oregon,
there are landscape features that are the direct result of stream processes such as the McKenzie
River to the south of the proposed site, Camp Creek immediately west of the site, as well as
multiple hills and valleys in the area (figure 3). Outside of the immediate area of the site, there is
evidence of stream erosion in the mountains near Mount Jefferson which is a stratovolcano, and
Mount Washington, which is a basaltic shield volcano, both of which are volcanos within sixty
miles of the proposed site belonging to the Cascade Range (figure 4), such as the deep valleys
between mountains caused by the downcutting of streams and rivers as they run from their
headwaters up higher in the mountains down towards baselevel.
The McKenzie River, with it’s headwaters on the western side of Mount Washington at
Clear Lake, winds through the landscape until it meets the Willamette River closer to Eugene,
Oregon. Because the river starts so high in elevation, there is significant downcutting happening
as it flows down to base level, which creates the steep V-shaped valleys in the mountains eat of
the proposed site. These valleys are deep closer to the headwaters due to the essentially straight
downcutting in this area and then as the river moves westward, the terrain flattens the closer it
gets to base level, causing the creation of meanders in the river and the relatively flat floodplains
as the river loses velocity coming out of the mountains. Camp Creek would have formed in a
similar way, it is just much smaller than the McKenzie River, and its floodplain ends just before
the proposed sites, which could cause issues as the stream erodes and moves closer to the site
over time, putting the development and the access roads in the floodplain. The meanders in the
McKenzie River that have been cut off by erosion will form oxbow lakes until they eventually
erode back into the river again (Lutgens, 2021). These lakes are created when the lower velocity
in the meanders causes the river to migrate and increased deposition from the lower velocity ion
the bends of the meanders cut it off from the rest of the river (Lutgens, 2021). The Waterville
Canal and Reservoir will also cause erosion and deposition in the area, as will the three tributary
creeks that feed into the canal to the east of the proposed site. The Waterville Reservoir could
also be prone to debris flow landslides from seismic activity and heavy rains in the area due to
the streams and mountains north. The area is also at risk of flooding due to both the Camp Creek
and the McKenzie River in the last hundred years, which could impact development projects in
areas A and B as well as the access roads. According to the historical data of the river elevation
above gauge (figure 8), they are just outside of the affected areas by these increasingly frequent
floods. The historical data (figure 8) shows that floods have been happening in the area several
times a year since 2012, all of which could threaten areas A and B.
The highest river stage occurred in 1917 when the river rose 34.11 feet above gauge and
shows a probability of 1 in 100 years of recurrence, making it overdue for another huge and
devastating flood in the area (figure 8). This kind of flooding can cause large amounts of erosion
and deposition to occur in and around the proposed development sites, with repetitive flooding
erosion could become an issue as the floodplain get closer to the development which could
deteriorate the soil making the area unsuitable for development. Flooding of the site would both
deposit and strip materials from the soil as well as erode the underlying bedrock with sites A and
B at the highest risk of this. The area also has lots of mass wasting event potential, such as
landslides, due to the history of high-magnitude earthquakes and heavy precipitation events in
the area and the sites proximity to both mountains and the rivers and streams in the area with site
C at the highest risk of damage and erosion from debris flow, landslides, and other mass wasting
events due to its location at the base of a mountain.
Tectonic Processes
Tectonic elements in the area include the potentially active stratovolcano Mount Jefferson
and the basaltic shield volcano Mount Washington which are part of the Cascade Range known
for its notable volcanos and are roughly sixty miles from the site (figure 4) putting them in the
danger zone if either were to erupt again. According to the historical data on past eruptions of
Mount Jefferson, it averages 610 years between eruptions making it overdue as the last eruption
was 631 years ago (figure 6). Historically, Mount Jefferson has had three eruptions that ranked at
a 5 or greater on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) similar to or greater than the 1980
eruption of Mount St. Helens, also located in the Cascade Range, which ranked at a 5 on the VEI
(volcanic explosivity index 2022). Another eruption of this scale would also include the risk of
threats from lahars as the glacial melt from the neighboring mountains run through the deep
valleys the local river system created in and around the development area. Increased erosion
would be a risk as well, as the eruption would cause ash and acid rain to fall up to hundreds of
miles from the eruption site (Lutgens 2021). There is also the possibility of landslides,
mudflows, increased earthquake activity, and flash floods following an eruption, all of which
would put the site at risk. While it may not be as imminent of a threat as potential seismic
activity, this still poses as serious risk to the proposed development and should be considered
when planning a development this close to an active volcano.
The topographic map (figure 3) also indicates that site B sits almost directly on top of a
fault line known to produce high- magnitude earthquakes averaging eighty-five years apart,
according to the historical data shown in figure 7, with the last being eighty-five years ago.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
These earthquakes are the result of the pressure building as the North American plate shifts on
top of the mantle below the Earth’s crust and grinds against the neighboring Juan De Fuca plate.
Once enough pressure builds, slippage will occur resulting in these high-magnitude earthquakes
(Lutgens, 2021). As the last seven earthquakes recorded along this fault all registered higher than
6.0 on the Richter scale, with two registering higher than 7.0, making them major earthquakes
(figure 7), this fault poses a significant threat to all three of the sites. Depending on the size of
the subdivision, another earthquake of these magnitudes could cause significant loss of life and
potentially billions in property damage to the entire area, not to mention the risk of seismic
activity triggering a volcanic eruption with an earthquake greater than 6.0 on the Richter scale
(Lutgens, 2021).
The presence of mountains nearby also indicates the presence of a subduction zone,
which is supported by the cross-section image (figure 1) showing that one side of the fault rose
on top of the other at one time making it a reverse strike-slip fault. An oceanic continental
convergence boundary occurred in this area when the Juan De Fuca plate met the North
American plate’s continental crust. Because of this, the denser oceanic plate subducted
underneath the lighter continental plate, causing the lithospheric material to return to the mantle
melting the rock, this causes the material to become less dense, eventually giving it the potential
to force it’s way to the surface, resulting in volcanic eruptions and forming continental volcanic
arcs such as the Cascade Range which Mount Jefferson is part of (Lutgens, 2021).
Special attention must be paid to the building codes for both earthquakes and floodplains
when considering developing the proposed sites as special permits may be required and
structural requirements exist. Due to the history of earthquakes strong enough to bend railroad
rails, 7.0 on the Richter scale, on the last two consecutive earthquakes, consideration of
earthquake-specific designs for buildings to help prevent loss of life and property damage should
be considered if the area is developed (Judson, 2012).
Weather Analysis
According to the provided climograph (figure 5), the average temperature for the area is
roughly 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the average precipitation is about 5 inches. The area tends to
be warm and dry in the summer and the rest of the year tends to be cooler and wetter. The
average temperature range is about fifty degrees Fahrenheit based on the information provided in
the climograph (figure 5). By looking at the climograph we can see the seasonal variation in
precipitation where it is significantly wetter during the late fall, winter, and early spring months.
The average precipitation drops significantly during the summer months when the temperature is
hottest, bordering on draught-like conditions.
This seasonal variation implies the presence of a polar front. A polar front is defined as a
stormy frontal zone that separates air masses of polar origin from air masses of tropical origin
(Lutgens, 2021). This means that during the summer months, the polar front moves northward as
evidenced in the warmer regional temperatures and low precipitation in the summer months and
during the winter months, the polar front moves into the region accounting got the lower
temperatures and increased precipitation found during those months, and because of this, you are
likely going to experience extremes in excessive seasonal precipitation and the yearly
temperature fluctuations (Lutgens, 2021). This is to be considered when making building plans
for the area as it will affect the type and amount of insulation needed in buildings as well as
things like excess precipitation having the potential to cause flooding in low-lying areas.
Based on the polar front Boundary causing the warm and cold air to collide, cyclones are
likely to develop in this area bringing the potential for multiple types of storms depending on
what season it is, such as supercell storms capable of producing severe thunderstorms with the
potential for tornadoes, rain, lightning, and hail during the warmer spring and summer months
(Lutgens, 2021). However, as the average monthly low temperature does not fall below the
freezing point of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, snow and sleet are possible but less likely than rain
based on the information provided in the climograph during the winter months (figure 5). There
is potential for high-magnitude precipitation events every 9.8 years in this area, which brings
with it the risk of flooding and mudslides to the development sites with all the top ten high-
magnitude events happening during the months of January, November, and December (figure 9).
When we look at the data in figure 9, it is obvious that these precipitation events happen
frequently, wile the recurrence interval is currently a high-magnitude event every 9.8 years, the
historical data shows that these storms are happening almost yearly in the past six years.
To calculate this recurrence interval for extreme precipitation events in this location, you
would use the equation R=n+1/m where R is the recurrence interval, n is the number of years,
and m is the number of events (Clark, 2019). Using the data provided in figure 2, there are 10 of
these highest magnitude precipitation events occurring from 1917 to 2014, a total of ninety-seven
years. So, our equation would be R= (97+1)/10 which when solved for R would equal 9.8. This
means that a high magnitude precipitation event is likely to occur every 9.8 years in our
proposed location. This is a concern to address when considering the development of these sites
as it increases the risk of property damage and potential loss of life from flooding or mass
wasting events caused by these strong storms.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
According to the historical weather data in figure 9, the maximum precipitation event
occurred on November 2
nd
, 1917, with 12.09 inches of precipitation falling in a 24-hour period
because of a snowstorm that affected much of the west coast. The historic extreme high
temperature occurred on both July 29
th
, 2009, and August 9
th
, 1981, when both hit 104 degrees
Fahrenheit (figure 10). The historic extreme low temperature happened on January 1
st
, 1979, with
a temperature of -8n degrees Fahrenheit (figure 10).
The monthly average stream discharge (figure 11) follows closely with what would be
expected when considering the weather conditions seasonally. You have higher rates of discharge
in the wettest months with the highest precipitation occurring in January and December, an
average amount of discharge during the spring and fall months when an average amount of
precipitation occurs, and significantly less discharge in the hottest and driest summer months of
July, August, and September. The month with the highest average river discharge is January with
an average of 5,430 ft3/s and the month with the lowest average river discharge is September
with an average of 1,190 ft3/s. The overall yearly average river discharge is roughly 3,017.5
ft3/s. This seasonal variation in river discharge will affect the overall landscape as you would
expect to see more flooding in January and December when the river is moving more water on
average than the rest of the year, which will cause more erosion and a more rapid current. In the
summer months when the river level is lower and less water is being moved by the river, you’re
going to see more depositi0on in the river and surrounding riverbanks as the velocity slows with
the decrease in level. This seasonal variation also is consistent with the cyclonic activity that
occurs during these months expected due to the presence of a polar front (Lutgens, 2021). This
can cause issues for the subdivision if flooding causes the access roads to wash out or become
flooded as well as possible property damage from the flooding during the winter months. Then
drought-like conditions when the water level drops during the hotter summer months can be an
issue as well in the events of wildfires or water shortages.
Analysis of Findings
Throughout this report, it has been shown repeatedly that this location is not ideal for the
development of a subdivision. It has high levels of erosion with very shallow bedrock and small
A and B horizons within the soil profiles. The area has an active fault running directly through it,
known for producing significant earthquakes on an almost regular basis, which would have the
potential for property damage and loss of life. The stream processes in the area are the cause of
much of this erosion as a direct result of the regular rising and lowering of water levels from the
heavy precipitation and storms that the area experiences. While the flooding can be mitigated
through measures such as dams, natural disasters such as strong earthquakes and volcanic
activity and the resulting hazards of these disasters that the area experiences regularly suggest
more will occur in the future. This is a cause of great concern. There is a potential for the
development to eventually be in the floodplain because of the river eroding its banks and
migrating the floodplain closer as it continues to develop wider meanders. Even if the
development itself isn’t in the floodplain though, the access roads have the potential to become
flooded or washed out, leaving the residents trapped. As a result of these preliminary findings,
proceeding with the development of a subdivision at any of these three sites near Camp Creek
Cemetery in Waterville, Oregon, is not recommended due to the risk to the development and to
the residents.
Reference Figures
Figure 1 Stratigraphy and Cross Section
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final
Project Stratigraphy and Cross Section)
Figure 2 Soil Profiles
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project Soil Profiles)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Figure 3 Waterville Topographic map
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Waterville
Topographic Map)
Figure 4 Site Topographic
Map
(Southern New
Hampshire University,
n.d., Site Topographic
Map)
Figure 4 Site Topographic Map
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Site Topographic
Map)
Figure 5 Climograph
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project Climograph)
Figure 6 Mount Jefferson
Eruption History (VEI
Rank) (Southern New
Hampshire University,
n.d., Final Project
Historical Data)
Figure 6 Mount Jefferson Eruption History
(VEI Rank) (Southern New Hampshire
University,n.d., Final Project Historical Data)
Rank
VEI
Years Before Present
1
6
2,402
2
5
3,752
3
5
1,214
4
4
4,903
5
4
631
6
3
3,120
7
3
1,809
8
3
4,189
Figure 7 Fault History
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project Historical
Data)
Rank
Magnitude (Richter Scale)
Years Before Present
1
7.3
170
2
7.0
425
3
6.9
600
4
6.9
85
5
6.8
510
6
6.5
255
7
6.2
350
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Figure 8 Project Site
Stream Data (Southern
New Hampshire
University, n.d., Final
Project
Historical Data)
Figure 8 Project Site Stream Data
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project
Historical Data)
Rank of
Annual
Highest River
Stage
Year of Last
Rank
River
Elevation
Above Gauge
(Feet)
Gauge
Elevation
Above Sea
Level
River
Elevation
Above Sea
Level
Probability of
Occurring in
Any Given
Year
1
1917
34.11
255.83
289.9
1 in 100
2
1970
27.40
255.83
283.2
1 in 50
3
1985
26.05
255.83
281.9
1 in 33.3
4
1990
26.00
255.83
281.8
1 in 25
5
2000
25.20
255.83
281.0
1 in 20
20
2009
21.30
255.83
277.1
1 in 5
30
2012
20.60
255.83
276.4
1 in 3.4
40
2012
19.30
255.83
275.1
1 in 2.3
50
2013
18.50
255.83
274.3
1 in 2
60
2013
17.70
255.83
273.5
1 in 1.8
70
2013
17.25
255.83
273.1
1 in 1.5
80
2013
14.76
255.83
270.6
1 in 1.3
90
2014
13.00
255.83
268.8
1 in 1.1
100
2014
8.99
255.83
264.7
1 in 1
Figure 9 24-Hour Highest
Magnitude Precipitation
Events
From Last Event
(Southern New
Hampshire University,
n.d., Final Project
Historical Data)
Figure 9 24-Hour Highest Magnitude Precipitation Events From Last Event
(Southern New
Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project Historical Data)
Rank
Date
PPT Amount (Inches)
1
11/2/1917
12.09
2
11/16/1966
10.02
3
12/4/1990
9.52
4
11/16/2003
8.66
5
1/2/2009
6.75
6
12/7/2012
4.36
7
1/6/2014
4.20
8
11/14/2012
4.01
9
12/3/1918
3.86
10
11/2/2006
3.54
Figure 10 Project Site: Monthly Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Data
(Period of
Record: 1940–2014) (Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final ProjectHistorical Data)
(Ta = oF, PPT = in.)
Month
Ta High
Date
Ta Min.
Date
PPT Max.
Year
PPT Min.
Year
Jan.
63
1/19/05
–8
1/1/79
19.84
1953
0.29
1985
Feb.
73
2.27/86
2
2/2/50
15.50
1999
0.22
1993
Mar.
79
3/29/04
9
3/3/89
11.79
1997
0.48
1965
Apr.
87
4/27/87
23
4/2/08
7.80
1991
0.37
1956
May
96
5/28/83
25
5/1/54
5.83
1948
0.15
1947
Jun.
98
6/18/82
30
6/3/76
6.48
1946
0.04
1945
Jul.
104
7/29/09
35
7/3/62
3.00
1983
0
2013
Aug.
104
8/9/81
33
8/18/73
5.45
1968
0
1946
Sep.
98
9/2/88
25
9/27/72
9.36
2013
0
2012
Oct.
90
10/1/87
14
10/31/02
10.72
2003
0.39
1987
Nov.
74
11/4/49
15
11/12/15
19.68
2006
1
1976
Dec.
64
12/10/1
4
–7
12/23/83
14.32
1970
2.02
2013
Figure 11 Stream Discharge Data
(Southern New Hampshire University, n.d., Final Project
Historical Data)
Discharge, cubic feet per second Monthly mean in f3/s (Calculation period: 10/01/89 – 5/31/18)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1989
682.
8
1,36
3
1,249
1990
3,893
2,480
2,56
5
3,36
7
2,76
6
2,35
5
1,19
6
963.
8
648.
2
1,18
2
2,98
8
2,266
1991
3,657
1,890
2,28
5
3,33
3
3,13
2
1,23
0
1,10
0
1,00
1
942.
5
1,31
2
4,45
0
4,698
1992
1,181
1,778
1,40
8
3,60
3
1,61
5
1,11
9
1,11
9
1,01
8
902.
5
1,22
9
2,73
0
3,471
1993
2,399
1,216
6,88
0
7,13
3
4,84
1
3,10
4
1,07
6
1,07
1
1,08
2
1,23
1
1,38
9
1,466
1994
3,022
1,901
2,34
1
2,62
1
1,42
0
1,11
7
1,11
7
1,11
2
1,11
2
1,40
7
2,07
8
4,281
1995
5,550
7,129
2,43
8
3,37
1
3,16
2
1,35
9
1,69
2
2,29
5
1,80
7
1,29
2
5,57
7
10,61
0
1996
8,544
12,56
3,01
5,46
4,72
1,38
1,11
1,12
1,13
1,96
7,81
13,64
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
0
3
6
3
5
4
4
2
7
6
0
1997
10,03
0
5,833
7,07
9
4,96
3
3,35
6
1,72
8
1,26
5
1,26
4
1,41
0
2,75
6
3,55
6
2,475
1998
7,822
3,097
3,59
9
2,35
9
2,85
8
1,72
9
1,16
1
1,15
7
1,27
1
1,36
8
5,50
0
8,790
1999
8,253
5,371
4,54
6
2,90
7
4,98
9
3,37
7
1,40
1
1,15
6
1,12
6
1,37
1
4,07
3
6,818
2000
5,618
4,264
3,88
6
3,99
4
2,88
7
1,65
8
1,13
9
1,21
4
1,24
2
1,18
3
1,56
5
1,934
2001
1,071
1,281
1,66
9
2,57
1
1,92
2
1,20
8
1,09
1
1,07
7
1,07
4
1,10
6
2,95
1
7,204
2002
4,830
3,350
4,46
6
6,98
0
5,15
7
3,65
8
2,23
1
1,96
9
1,83
4
1,99
5
2,16
6
3,584
2003
6,285
4,218
6,65
7
4,48
3
2,49
5
1,38
2
1,15
1
1,55
9
1,34
1
1,12
8
1,57
4
6,429
2004
6,816
5,048
2,36
4
1,77
7
2,12
4
2,00
7
1,29
8
1,12
2
1,15
8
1,41
1
1,37
8
3,801
2005
1,301
1,164
1,84
6
2,02
4
2,32
4
1,38
4
1,21
8
1,13
5
1,07
3
1,07
4
2,60
5
4,851
2006
14,61
0
4,924
1,49
4
2,72
4
2,45
1
2,74
5
1,01
6
1,15
8
1,06
4
1,08
5
5,60
4
7,776
2007
5,240
3,126
3,58
5
2,11
9
2,18
0
1,98
1
1,11
2
1,10
3
1,05
0
1,53
2
3,51
3
4,896
2008
4,437
2,342
3,66
6
2,54
6
5,84
1
5,99
3
1,55
7
1,05
5
1,10
4
1,24
2
3,23
6
3,096
2009
8,979
1,644
2,72
6
3,25
6
4,33
4
2,75
8
1,17
2
1,14
4
1,19
0
1,32
1
2,87
3
2,278
2010
4,978
1,427
1,76
4
3,00
0
3,57
4
5,82
2
1,72
8
2,20
7
1,49
7
2,01
3
3,61
4
8,548
2011
7,713
1,871
4,15
1
5,76
3
4,41
4
4,69
0
2,92
6
2,18
7
1,08
2
1,23
5
2,19
0
2,607
2012
10,50
0
3,713
6,65
5
7,12
8
4,39
5
3,60
6
1,24
3
1,11
3
1,11
0
1,92
3
5,83
0
8,378
2013
2,836
2,007
2,03
0
3,40
4
2,05
8
1,99
2
1,05
3
1,08
2
1,56
3
2,15
1
2,73
9
1,715
2014
2,374
10,15
0
9,03
8
3,95
0
3,36
1
2,53
9
1,25
1
1,08
3
1,08
0
1,47
7
4,70
8
8,908
2015
3,996
2,935
1,22
3
1,28
3
1,08
0
1,52
2
1,07
4
1,06
2
1,05
9
1,23
9
2,19
1
9,398
2016
4,824
4,787
5,90
0
2,35
4
1,26
4
1,83
7
1,08
2
1,08
3
1,08
0
2,77
6
2,44
7
4,751
2017
2,625
5,030
8,46
3
5,36
3
4,61
2
2,84
1
1,19
4
1,31
4
1,22
6
3,21
9
6,29
3
2,101
2018
4,027
2,067
1,93
1
3,37
2
2,10
3
Mean of
Monthly
5,430
3,740
3,78
0
3,70
0
3,15
0
2,43
0
1,31
0
1,28
0
1,19
0
1,55
0
3,41
0
5,240
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Discharg
e
Sources:
Building Codes Division, & Judson, S., A Summary of Requirements in the State of Oregon
(2012). State of Oregon Building Codes Division. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from
https://www.oregon.gov/bcd/codes-stand/Documents/inform-2012-oregon-sesmic-codes-
history.pdf
Lutgens, F. K., Tarbuck, E. J., Tasa, D. G.
(20210127). Foundations of Earth Science, 9th
Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]].
Retrieved from vbk://9780135851616.
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Climograph. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/8trshczn18pnp71/climograph.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Site Topographic Map.
Retrieved from
http://snhu-
media.snhu.edu/files/course_repository/undergraduate/phy/phy103/phy103_final_project_walter
ville_topographic_map.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.-a). PHY 103 Final Project Historical Data. Retrieved
from
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fsnhu-media.snhu.edu
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
%2Ffiles%2Fcourse_repository%2Fundergraduate%2Fphy
%2Fphy103%2Fphy103_final_project_historical_data.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
The Stream Channel. (2022, May 10). Retrieved from
https://www.ecologycenter.us/ecology-
structure/the-stream-channel.html
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Historical Data. Retrieved
from
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fsnhu-media.snhu.edu
%2Ffiles%2Fcourse_repository%2Fundergraduate%2Fphy
%2Fphy103%2Fphy103_final_project_historical_data.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Site Topographic Map.
Retrieved from http://snhu-
media.snhu.edu/files/course_repository/undergraduate/phy/phy103/phy103_final_project
_site_topographic_map.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Soil Profiles. Retrieved
from https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8p3w6dnzo0ul7g/phy103_final_project_soil_profiles_v2.jp
g?dl=0
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Stratigraphy and Cross
Section. Retrieved from
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mh1emo9sy5ummwe/phy103_final_project_project_stratigra
phy_and_cross_section.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Waterville Topographic
Map. Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7efhwyd42asxi61/phy103_final_project_walterville_topogra
phic_map_v2.jpg?dl=0
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022, August 5). Volcanic explosivity index. National Parks
Service. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/volcanoes/volcanic-explosivity-index.htm
Water Science School. (2018, June 9). Sinkholes completed. Sinkholes | U.S. Geological Survey.
Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-
school/science/sinkholes#overview
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Site Topographic Map.
Retrieved from
http://snhumedia.snhu.edu/files/course_repository/undergraduate/phy/phy103/phy103_final_proj
ect_site_topographic_map.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Soil Profiles. Retrieved
from
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8p3w6dnzo0ul7g/phy103_final_project_soil_profiles_v2.jpg?
dl=0
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Stratigraphy and Cross
Section. Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mh1emo9sy5ummwe/phy103_final_project_project_stratigraphy_an
d_cross_section.jpg
Southern New Hampshire University. (n.d.). PHY-103, Final Project Walterville Topographic
Map. Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7efhwyd42asxi61/phy103_final_project_walterville_topographic_m
ap_v2.jpg?dl=0
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022, August 5). Volcanic explosivity index. National Parks
Service. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/volcanoes/volcanic-
explosivity-index.htm
Water Science School. (2018, June 9). Sinkholes completed. Sinkholes | U.S. Geological Survey.
Retrieved February 19, 2023, from
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-
school/science/sinkholes#overview
YouTube. (2007). Brief Soil Intro. YouTube. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJFksa9sJc
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
YouTube. (2011). How to Read a Geologic Map (3/3). YouTube. Retrieved January 15, 2023,
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EZbHCxv0NY
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help