AEG News April 2018 Vol. 61, No. 2

s w e N

Vol. 61, No. 2 – April 2018

Focus on

Natural Hazards

s w e N

Vol. 61, No. 2 – April 2018

AEG News (ISSN 0899-5788; USPS 954-380) is published five times a year by the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists (AEG), with the regular issues Nos. 1–3, published in April, July, and December, respectively.

The Annual Report and Directory issue is published in March. The Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts is published in September. Print copies are distributed at the meeting. Association members receive the electronic copy of all five issues of the AEG News as part of their dues. Print subscriptions for Association members, which includes all five issues of the AEG News, is $30 in addition to annual membership dues. Nonmember annual subscription is $40, and includes only the three regular issues (#1–3) of the News. The Annual Report and Directory issue is priced separately. Back issues of AEG News are $12 each. Inquiries should be sent to AEG Headquarters: Association Manager, 201 East Main St., Suite 1405, Lexington, KY 40507 859-469-5800.

Table of Contents

Periodical Postage paid at Lexington, KY, and additional mailing offices: POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AEG News, 201 East Main St., Suite 1405, Lexington, KY 40507, USA. AEG News is printed by Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, 66044, USA.

News of the Profession 13 Op-Ed: The Missouri “Near-Miss” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Proactive Outreach to MO Legislators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 IAEG Has Successful Conference in Kathmandu, Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Radon: A Major Geological Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

© 2018 Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists—All Rights Reserved Views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those officially representing the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists except where expressly stated.

AEG News Co-Editors Anna Saindon Chrissey Villeneuve Geotechnology, Inc. chrissey.aeg@gmail.com 11816 Lackland Road, Suite 150 Ashley Wachhaus St. Louis, MO 63146 ashley.aegnews@gmail.com 314-581-6286 General Submissions: news@aegweb.org news@aegweb.org

Managing Editor/Production Andrea Leigh Ptak Communicating Words & Images 6542 52nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98118 206-300-2067 www.andrealeighptak.com andrealeighptak@me.com

Submission Information In order of preference: 1. Send files via email, preferably as attachments, to both email addresses above. Optimum file format is MSWord 2011. Users of other software programs should convert their file to ASCII or text only.

2. Images should be sent as high-resolution jpeg or tiff files. Questions? Contact Andrea Ptak at 206-725-9169/andrealeighptak@me.com.

3. The policy of AEG News editorial staff is to limit the credentials of an individual to two. For example, if John Smith has a MS, a PhD and a PG plus a CEG and a CGWP, his credentials would be limited to John Smith PhD, PG, the two principal credentials. BS/BA and MS degrees will not be recognized. No effort will be made by the AEG News editorial staff to determine if individuals whose credentials are missing from the submitted copy actually have academic or professional credentials, nor will the staff verify the existence or correctness of the credentials submitted.

For detailed guidelines visit: www.aegweb.org/?page=SubmitToAEGNEWS

News of the Association 4 The President’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Treasurer’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Secretary’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Headquarter’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Come to the AEG/IAEG Congress in San Francisco in September . . . . . . . .8 Student Spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Women of AEG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 California AEG Leaders Meet with State Legislative Committees . . . . . . . .11 AEG Member Memorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Professional Contributions–Natural Hazards 16 Action Thresholds for Landslide Emergency Response Monitoring . . . . . .16 Assessing Potential Hazard from Surface Faulting at New Nuclear Power Plant Sites at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission . .20 Don’t Build on Ancient Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Landslide Threatens Historic Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Issues in Professional Licensure

29

The HomeFront

31

Index to Advertisers

On the Cover Engineering geologists are essential in determining when natural hazards can impact a construction site. Few sites are as critical for the assessment of natural hazards as a nuclear power facility. See the story on page 20.

The association 2017–18 Officers President: GREGORY (GREG) L. HEMPEN Geophysical Consultant, 314-608-5843, president@aegweb.org Vice President/President Elect: DAVID F. FENSTER Retired, 301-520-6507, rockpic001@gmail.com Treasurer: CYNTHIA PALOMARES Texas Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&M University, cynthiapalomarescon@gmail.com Secretary: WILLIAM GODWIN Consulting Geologist, 831-884-3308, aegodwin312@gmail.com Past President: DALE C. ANDREWS Carmeuse Lime & Stone, 412-995-1036, dale.andrews@carmeusena.com

Association Contacts

Advertising in the News Submission Deadlines

Headquarters: AMR Management Services 201 East Main St., Suite 1405 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-469-5800 manager@aegweb.org

www.aegweb.org/?page=SubmitToAEGNEWS

AEG Foundation—President: KERRY CATO, president@aegfoundation.org

Canada Agreement number: PM40063731; Return Undeliverable Canadian Addresses to: Station A, PO Box 54; Windsor, ON N9A 6J5; Email: returnsil@imex.pb.com

Communications Co-Directors: MATT BRUNENGO, 503-534-0414, mbrunengo@aol.com, and RYAN MARSTERS, marsters.ryan@gmail.com

Contact AEG Headquarters at manager@aegweb.org.

April 2018

4

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

3

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

We Serve During Times of Change Greg Hempen, AEG 2017–18 President

N

o professional understands catastrophism better than geologists. We coined the term! Yet we need to still accept change.

Sometimes change is slow or imperceptible, but occasionally it is upheaval from the norm. Change is happening within our association, to our profession, and in our ability to interact with the public.

New AEG Headquarters None of the AEG Executive Council (EC) expected any change to Offinger Management Company’s (OMC’s) services when we were elected. Surprise! You may be aware already of the change of management firms to AMR Management Services (AMR). For most AEG members, there will be little to notice except improvements to AEG services through our new headquarters (HQ). The EC delayed in notification until the contract with AMR was completed and the transition from OMC had begun. Yes, there will be some inefficiencies—temporarily. In the near future, the EC expects you will recognize website improvements and simpler functionality. Should you have any problems or concerns with this transition, please contact me, or our HQ Executive, DeLaine Bender, whose contact info is on page 3.

Your Profession Do you consider your livelihood a job, or an occupation, or a profession? Certainly, you are a professional by definition (a person whose work requires a long period of training and some formal qualification). The qualification could be your degree, but most states determine the need for applied geologists, who impact the public’s health, safety and welfare, to be registered or licensed. AEG certainly pursues the need for geologic registration in every state is the US. At the time of writing this narrative, there are opponents of geologic registration in the states of Arizona, Florida, and Washington. Opponents of licensure believe that government improperly restricts individuals from entering many occupations, and thereby restricts those occupations from easy entry, increases costs of services by those occupations, possibly limits related activities of those occupations, and increases governmental intrusions and those costs. Notice the number of times that occupation was used? So, do you have a job, or an occupation, or a profession?

Society needs your professional practice individually and our profession’s involvement for the public’s health, safety, and welfare. AEG will continue to actively pursue and defend geologic registration.

Your Legislators Do you vote in every election after an evaluation of the candidates for each office? Do you know your state and local

4

legislators by name? Have you ever contacted them?

Your state and local legislators need to hear from you, whether or not they were the persons for whom you voted. You cannot assist with legislation without being known individually by your legislators. Just an occasional email, particularly after they begin their term, would suffice to introduce yourself and offer your assistance (or help from your profession) on issues for new bills, for your firm’s or industry’s views of certain regulations, and to answer questions from their constituents.

Your proactive contact with your legislators allows you to request assistance from them with attacks on our profession.

You would be educating them that applied geology is an important profession for the public’s health, safety and welfare. Ours is a profession, not an occupation.

United AEG is Stronger Regardless of the issue, AEG is only as strong as our membership in numbers and our members’ actions. AEG provides you an excellent return on your dues and time investment. Recognize all of AEG’s benefits and avail yourself of some of those benefits. Encourage your office mates and your professional contacts to become AEG members or to renew their memberships. Bring a non-member to a Chapter meeting for some camaraderie and networking.

“Think Globally, Act Locally” about how the AEG may serve you AND how you may serve your communities.

Index of Advertisers AEG 2018 Annual Meeting........................Inside Front Cover AEG 2019 Annual Meeting................................................14 AEG Corporate Sponsors ..................................................39 AEG Store .........................................................................39 Geotechnology, Inc. ............................................................6 Penn Master of Science in Applied Geosciences .......................................Back Cover

For information on supporting AEG through sponsorship and/or advertising in AEG News, contact AEG Headquarters: headquarters@aegweb.org.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – TREASURER’S REPORT

2017 Was a Very Good Year

T

Cynthia Palomares, AEG 2017–18 Treasurer

he final numbers are in for 2017 and the news is great! It was a good year for AEG financially as an association! Our fiscal health is based on membership dues income, association-level professional meetings, sponsorships, licensure fund, Treasurer’s Reserve, and our annual meeting. We met our 2017 goal of investing an additional $10,000 in our Treasurer’s Reserve fund. We did great financially with our 2017 Annual Meeting and professional forum events, but we do need to place more effort on increasing membership revenue.

2017 Revenue In 2017, we met our goal to fund one year’s worth of operating expenses in the Treasurer’s Reserve by contributing an additional $10,000. As of the end of 2017, our balance in the Treasurer’s Reserve is approximately $350,000 (which is greater than one year’s cost of operating expenses). Our Fidelity investments (which hold the Treasurer’s reserve) are performing well. In 2017, our account balance increased by approximately $30,000 in interest alone.

Because of the hard work and dedication of many people, association-level professional meetings held in 2017 performed very well. The North American Symposium on Landslides (NASL) held in Roanoke,Virginia, on June 4–8, 2017 and The Executive organized by AEG netted Council (EC) and $26,946. Surplus from Headquarters is other meetings added to currently working on a the Association’s coffers plan to recruit new as well. members and to The 2017 Annual improve retention Meeting held in Colof existing orado Springs, Colorado members… in September was largely successful with a surplus of $32,400. This larger-thanexpected surplus is due to the popularity of the excellent meeting location and venue, the technical program, short courses, field trips, and other events.

Our Membership Revenue for 2017 was $213,100, down from $228,000 in 2016. The dues-paying membership total is approximately 1,700 members for 2017, down from 1,800 members in 2016. These numbers do not include student members, which do not pay dues.

“

”

and accessibility, the meeting location that has been selected is San Francisco. The venue costs for San Francisco will be higher than prior annual meeting locations. In addition, the longer format and the Congress' additions —four days of technical presentations, a Wednesday field course, digitally-provided six volumes of papers prepared for this meeting, evening poster sessions with receptions, plus the usual events, all included in the full registration— will cause registration costs to be higher than other annual meetings. Despite the higher cost, 1,000 registrants are expected. Thus, the proposed budget projects a larger surplus than prior annual meetings, but there is also a higher risk of a shortfall.

Going Forward…

As of February 1, AEG is now working with a new association management company. I’d like to thank our former management company, Offinger, for their diligent work for AEG over the last four years and welcome AMR to the AEG family. AMR is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.

Since we are a dues-paying organization, we rely largely on membership dues to fund our member benefits and provide value to our members. Our membership revenue this year is down approximately $15,000 from last year.

The Executive Council (EC) and Headquarters is currently working on a plan to recruit new members and to improve retention of existing members to hopefully reverse this downward trend. This initiative includes a plan to increase membership by 5 percent in 2018 and double our efforts in retaining student members as dues-paying members once they graduate and become geoprofessionals. In addition, $10,000 has been budgeted for 2018 to potentially improve AEG’s branding, with the goal to become more attractive as an association to geoprofessionals.

What You Can Do… We need your help. Invite a colleague to an AEG event (at both Chapter and Association levels). Promote the benefits of AEG membership to a potential member. Become a mentor to a student member. And by all means invite your colleagues to the 2018 Annual Meeting in San Francisco. If you have any additional thoughts or ideas, please discuss these with an EC member. We would love to hear from you.

2018 Budget

AEG News Disclaimer

The 2018 budget is similar to the 2017 budget except for a few differences. One of the main differences is the projected budget for the 2018 Annual Meeting—a joint venture between AEG and IAEG. Because of the international appeal

Authors alone are responsible for views expressed in signed articles.

Advertisers and their agencies are solely responsible for the content of all advertisements printed and also assume responsibility for any claims arising therefrom against the publisher. AEG and AEG News reserve the right to reject any advertising copy.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

5

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – SECRETARY’S REPORT

Who Me, Mentor?

W

William Godwin, AEG 2017–18 Secretary

hy should I mentor someone in geology when all they’ll do is move on?” I have heard that question quite often in my career. It is related to a similar question, “Why should I train them; they’ll only take my job?” This type of thinking completely misses the point, which I’ll get to later.

In my opinion, the first five years of professional work out of school (I do not address university-level mentorship here as I have worked in the private sector all my career, and thus can’t speak specifically to that environment) are the most important from the standpoint of choosing a career path. One of the key factors to developing professionally as a geologist is being able to ask questions without recrimination or “losing face” with your colleagues or supervisor. Identifying a trusted mentor and relying on them for guidance and encouragement is key. A mentor can also be a coach, but must understand the subject matter and business exceptionally well. They don’t have to be working for the same firm as the aspiring geologist, but should have similar skills and perspective.

My impetus to be a mentor is to help junior members of my profession gain respect, clients, and licensure. At this

point in my career, being a mentor is rewarding in that it provides me with satisfaction that I am giving back to the profession. It also reminds me of the few, yet special people who shaped my career. To me it may be as simple as providing a letter of recommendation on an application or a letter of introduction to a potential client or colleague. Reviewing a work plan (for no charge), providing advice on a career change, or lending perspective (when asked) on pursuing a career goal are all examples of mentorship.

Back to my earlier point of “Why should I mentor or train a subordinate?”… regardless of how hard you worked to obtain your position within a firm, change does happen, and sometimes not necessarily for the better. There is always the possibility that someone you mentored could eventually be your boss or could be asking you questions from across the table during a future job interview.

Two Important AEG Mentoring Opportunities: 1. Annual Meeting Mentor Program The Student and Young Professional Support Committee (SYPSC) is developing an Annual Meeting Mentor Program to pair professionals who will be attending the 2018 Annual Meeting in San Francisco with interested student attendees.

If you are planning to attend and are interested in supporting student attendees please contact Kevin Mininger, SYPSC Co-chair, at kmininger@rjh-consultants.com.

2. Outstanding Mentor Award The AEG Karl and Ruth Terzaghi Outstanding Mentor Award was established in 2008 to recognize “individuals who have made lifelong efforts in providing professional, ethical and technical mentoring for environmental and engineering geologists.” http://www.aegweb.org/?page=TerzaghiMentorAward Most of the award recipients have held teaching positions at well-recognized universities. I respect the selections made by the award committee but I also encourage consulting geologists working in the private sector to step up and make a difference in someone’s career. It is truly rewarding.

Interesting Facts: What Geologists Do Have you ever wondered how to tell your non-geologist friends what you do and why? Here is a great link found on the AEG Website. AEG Foundation works toward providing support for students and professionals. Check it out! c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.aegweb.org/resource/resmgr/ Additional_Resources/what_geologists_do.pdf

6

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – HEADQUARTERS’ HEADER REPORT HERE

A

AEG Welcomes AMR As Its Management Team

EG is pleased to welcome a new association management company, AMR Management Services (AMR), to help our association progress in achieving strategic goals and initiatives.

AMR was founded in 1997 and has grown rapidly over the past 20 years to more than 80 employees in four locations. Headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky, AMR supports associations and professional societies all over the country, most of which are national or international in scope.

The company’s core services include association management, conference and event management, marketing and creative services, and technology management. In addition to its success with association clients, AMR has been named among the “Best Places to Work in Kentucky” for the past four years running.

As we welcome AMR, we say goodbye to our friends at Offinger Management Company (OMC). When OMC announced it would be closing its doors on January 31st, the AEG Executive Council went into high gear to search for a new management partner. AMR won out over several qualified association management companies. With a short transition period, AMR quickly took the reins and on February 1, 2018, officially became AEG’s new association management partner.

The AEG staff team will be led by DeLaine Bender, CAE, as interim manager. Other members of the extended team include Autumn Phelps, Andrew Abernathy, Candace Lovejoy and Mary Hope Kramer.

According to Greg Hempen, AEG President, “The AEG Executive Council reviewed numerous proposing firms and after discovering AMR’s strategic guidance, professionalism and the ability to turn vision into action, the choice became clear.” Hempen continued, “AEG looks forward to our joint collaboration in 2018 to drive our mission, values and vision forward. We expect this collaboration to benefit the public’s health, safety and welfare with AEG at the forefront of the applied-geology industry.”

Nick Ruffin, CAE, AMR’s President and Chief Operating Officer, said, “For nearly 60 years, AEG has been the steward of excellence in environmental and engineering geology. We look forward to providing the tools and professional services that will allow AEG to continue to further its goals of expanding advocacy, leadership and education for members. I’m very excited to welcome AEG to the AMR family.”

A sincere thank you goes to the OMC team, especially departing Association Manager Yolanda Natividad, for their dedicated service over the past several years.

DeLaine Bender, CAE, (R) will be interim manager of the AEG team.

AMR brings a large and varied staff of professionals and services to AEG’s management.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

7

HEADER NEWS OFHERE THE ASSOCIATION – COMMITTEE REPORTS

Come to the AEG/IAEG Congress in San Francisco in September Attend an International Conference without Having to Fly Overseas!

T

Dr. Scott F. Burns, PhD, President of IAEG

his September we will have our 61st Annual Meeting, but with a new twist! AEG and IAEG will be combining their meetings into a congress! It will be an international meeting with most of the things one is accustomed to at annual AEG meeting. You can attend an international meeting and meet engineering geologists from all over the world without having to pay large airfares to fly overseas! It will be the first IAEG congress ever held in the United States in the 54-year history of IAEG. The meeting will be held at the wonderful Hyatt Regency in downtown San Francisco. It is right on the BART line so there is easy access from the airport. We will have an international format with a five-day meeting from September 17–21, 2018.

The local committee, headed by Sarah Kalika, has a wonderful set of field trips set up for Wednesday (included in registration) and also an exciting slate of pre- and post-conference field trips and short courses! There will be two keynotes leading off each

day (two from the US and six from overseas) and followed by oral presentations until 4:00 PM. We will have a two-hour session on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday with the poster sessions and committee meetings, along with cold beverages being served.

We will start off the week with the Exhibitors Luncheon on Monday, and Tuesday night there will be the optional social event with a boat ride on the Bay! AEG’s annual business luncheon will be held on Thursday, followed by the AEG banquet that evening. In addition to the award presentations by AEG at the banquet, there will also be a couple of awards presented by IAEG. A joint closing ceremony will be held on Friday afternoon.

I encourage you to sign up to come to this historic meeting in September! You will get a chance to meet many engineering geologists from around the world and we will get a chance to show off work we do in the United States to an international audience. See you in San Francisco!

Post-AEG Annual Meeting Opportunity:

Is a Panama Canal Transit on Your Bucket List?

Cruise from San Francisco to Miami, via the Panama Canal On Saturday, September 22, 2018, the Regency Seven Seas Mariner will leave from San Francisco for an 18-night cruise to Miami via the Panama Canal. Other ports of call include Los Angeles and Catalina Island, California; Cabo San Lucas and Acapulco, Mexico; Puerto Quetzal, Guatemala; Corinto, Nicaragua; Puntarenas, Costa Rica; Cartagena, Colombia; and Georgetown, Cayman Islands.

The cruise terminal in San Francisco, Pier 27, is less than a mile from the Hyatt Regency, the hotel hosting the 2018 IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting. The Closing Session for meeting is on Friday afternoon, September 21, so you would need to secure your room for an additional night.

Please visit the cruise website www.rssc.com/cruises/ MAR180922/summary for more information on cost, available cabins, and more. If you are interested in this cruise, please contact Phyllis Steckel (psteckel@charter.net). If enough folks from AEG sign up, it may be possible to arrange a small discount or other group benefits.

8

Panama City—a view from the cruise ship.

PHOTO BY F. DELVENTHAL/FLICKR CREATIVE COMMONS

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

NEWS OF THEHEADER ASSOCIATION HERE

t h g i l t o p S Student Steven Newchurch

Vice President, Wake Technical Community College Student Chapter in an undergraduate research session. I am interested primarily in volcanology and planetarium geology and expect to attend graduate school and further conduct research on the west coast where a majority of the volcanism occurs in the United States. My future career interest is to be a scientific researcher in volcanology and igneous environments on Earth and within the solar system.

Fun Facts: Love sports—played lacrosse for seven years. Originally from Maryland. Also very interested in Astronomy.

BELOW: Recording cross-sections on a flood plain in Historic Yates Mill Pond with research partner, Joseph Bolla (left).

ABOVE: Presenting research conducted at the 2017 NC State University Summer Undergraduate Research Symposium.

.I attend Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, North Carolina and am a lab tech intern with the Natural Sciences Department. I anticipate obtaining my Bachelor’s Degree in the spring of 2021.

I conducted research with the MEAS Department (Marine Earth and Atmospheric Sciences) at NC State University last summer. The research project focused on geomorphology and investigated means of natural stream restoration in the North Carolina Piedmont. We took cross-sections on five sites of a highly incised stream that had been affected by PostEuropean agricultural settlement practices. The section we observed was approximately 100 meters long and the furthest down-stream site was located where the stream approaches an established beaver dam impoundment on a flood plain. In addition to taking cross-sections, we assessed the stream’s profile and stability using the Pfankuch Stream Stability Assessment and the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI). The results revealed an increase in stream health and stability moving downstream. We concluded and further proposed that the beaver dam redistributes sediment, which essentially fills the channel and reduces incisement, allowing for an overall increase in channel stability.

My partner and I went to the GSA meeting in Seattle in October on a trip funded by Wake Tech to present our research

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

9

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION

G E A f o n e Wom

Chrissey Villeneuve, GIT

I have been involved in AEG since 2016 when I joined the Oregon Chapter. At one of the Chapter meetings, Matt Brunengo, Communications Director, was looking for volunteers to join the Communications Committee. After participating in a few communication meetings, I learned about an opportunity to volunteer for AEG News as one of the coeditors. Now it is 2018 and I am still having lots of fun being part of the AEG community and volunteering for the News.

Since being involved in AEG, I have developed a strong professional network and friendships that have helped me in my career and education. Belonging to AEG has provided me with an incredible community and fantastic resources for my career and personal development.

I have been fortunate to have had several amazing mentors throughout my life. I was given an internship the summer before my senior year of college at Otis Gold Corp where I met my supervisors, John Carden and Mitch Bernardi. During my internship, I learned a lot about economic geology and was inspired to develop my senior thesis around the Kilgore Gold Project.

Throughout my education and career, I received a lot of great advice and knowledge from John and Mitch. Although I no longer work in the economic geology field it remains as one of my interests.

I haven’t been in the industry for that long, but my advice to women coming out of school is to try and experience all the different areas of geology. There is such a wide range of jobs it is important to know what your interests are and what you are passionate about! I would encourage all women to reach out to other women geoscientists in the industry and ask them about their experiences and advice.

My Husband and I trekking around Kauai for our honeymoon. This photograph was taken at the Queen’s Bath

Professional Stats: ■ BS, Western Washington University – Geology with a concentration in Geophysics (2012)

■ Geologist-in-Training – WA ■ Current Employment – Geology Staff and Technical Marketing Manager, Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

■ Primary Job Types – Exploration Geology, Mapping, and Geotechnical Engineering

■ Goals – Working towards becoming a Certified Engineering Geologist (OR)

AEG Stats: ■ Member since 2016 ■ AEG News Co-Editor since 2016

Hobbies: ■ Yoga ■ Board Games – one of my dad’s hobbies that I adopted at a very young age. He took me to several Board Gaming Conventions growing up that are some of my favorite memories.

■ I love participating in Theatre Productions. It was a huge interest in high school and college.

■ Fun Fact: I have played the Cheshire Cat from Alice in My family has supported me throughout my journey! This photo was taken during my sister’s high school graduation.

10

Wonderland twice !

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION

California AEG Leaders Meet with California State Legislative Committees Morley Beckman and Meredith Beswick

O

n September 28, 2017, we visited the California State Capitol in a trip organized and facilitated

by Judy Wolen, AEG California’s long-time state lobbyist. Judy, was instrumental in arranging meetings with the right people and showing us around the Capitol. We attended two meetings with legislative committee representatives that served as introductions and opportunities to advocate for professional geologists. We spoke with them about the areas of study and practice for professional geologists, and the value and importance of licensure. We each also offered to serve as committee contacts and sources of input, should items arise in the legislature that could potentially impact geology licensure or public safety.

The first meeting was with a representative from the Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development, who had recently transferred from a committee related to healthcare. The representative did not know very much about the profession and importance of geology, but was extremely interested in learning and appreciative of our visit. This instance of staffing turnover, not only with Senators and Representatives but also staff within the committees, highlighted why Judy encourages AEG members to visit with legislature representatives regularly.

The second meeting was with a representative from the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. The representative was more versed in what a geologist does and why they are important. He noted that it is probably best if we never hear from their office, meaning “no news is good news.” However, he said that it was good that we stopped by because if there ever was “talk,” it is always beneficial for the committee to know someone in the affected professional field whom they can contact for input.

Reaching out and ensuring committee members know how to contact our leadership helps AEG to be proactive against any attacks on professional licensure.

The most common questions asked by both representatives were “Why is a geologist important and uniquely helpful to the public?” and “How does a geologist differ from an engineer?” Our response was to highlight a current major ongoing example in the Oroville Dam spillway failure where the geology controls the engineering and if one does not understand the geology, the engineering will not succeed. We also discussed how when characterizing a project site for design, a geologist has the training to provide a broader site-wide interpretation of the surface and subsurface conditions. Geologists are uniquely trained to step back and assess the site-wide or regional conditions that impact groundwater, soil, and rock properties.

After the meetings with the legislative committees, Judy took us on a walking tour around the California State Capitol April 2018

L to R: AEG Northern California Regional Director Morley Beckman, California legislative lobbyist Judy Wolen, and Sacramento Chapter Chair Meredith Beswick during their visit to the California State Capitol.

and explained how the State Legislature works. We had a chance to see where the action happens, and toured the sites of state history throughout the halls and rooms of the capitol building. At every turn, it seemed we ran into another committee member or staffer who knew Judy—and she said we were visiting during the slow season! We realized how fortunate CA AEG members are to have such an experienced and connected lobbyist to help us navigate the system and stay on top of legislation affecting our profession. We hope through these experiences we are able to not only keep our fingers on the pulse within our state, but also to assist other Chapters by passing along the knowledge and insights we have gained from working with Judy. We hope this can be instructive to our AEG counterparts across the country as they work toward greater legislative advocacy for our organization.

About the Authors Morley Beckman is the AEG Northern California Regional Director and San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Past Chair, and Meredith Beswick is Chair of the Sacramento Chapter.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

11

NEWS OF THE ASSOCIATION – MEMORIALS

Remembering Don U. Deere

D

r. Don U. Deere, a world-renowned engineering geologist, passed away on January 14, 2018, in Gainesville, Florida, at the age of 95. An expert on tunneling, dam building and design, and the construction of large underground spaces, he was appointed

by President Reagan as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in 1989. He received numerous distinctions throughout his career including being elected to both the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences. He was an Honorary Member of AEG and served as the 1997 Jahns Distinguished Lecturer.

Don was born on a farm in Mt. Etna, Iowa, on March 17, 1922. He received his BS in Mining Engineering at Iowa State University in 1943, an MS in Geology at the University of Colorado in 1949, and a PhD in Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois in 1955, studying under Dr. Ralph Peck. He met his wife, the late Carmen Pilar Garcia of San Juan, Puerto Rico, at Iowa State; they spent 61 years together.

After working as a mining engineer in Arizona and New Mexico, Don and Carmen moved to Puerto Rico, where both were on the faculty at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.

There Don started the Foundation Engineering Company of

W

Puerto Rico and met Dr. Karl Terzaghi. In 1955, he accepted a joint appointment as an associate professor in the departments of Civil Engineering and Geology at Illinois and helped lead their geotechnical engineering program to international prominence. He resigned his appointment as professor in 1972 to pursue fulltime consulting and moved to Gainesville where he co-founded Deere and Merritt, an international consulting firm in geology and rock mechanics, and joined the University of Florida as an adjunct professor.

In 1964, Dr. Deere developed the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) which became a standard index for core logging and scan line surveys. RQD also remains a key input parameter in rock mass classification systems. In the 1970s, he brought attention to the importance of foliation shear zones. In 1993, together with Dr. Lombardi, he developed the Grouting Intensity Number (GIN) method for rock mass grouting.

Major projects to which he contributed included the construction of the World Trade Center, the Channel Tunnel, Cheyenne Mountain NORAD, Yucca Mountain, New York City water tunnels, the Washington DC Metro subway, Hong Kong Island tunnel, Suez Canal Crossing, and numerous hydroelectric facilities throughout the Americas—most notably Itaipú, the world’s largest hydroelectric project at the time. But perhaps his greatest legacy was that of a teacher at Illinois and UF, where he mentored a whole generation of leaders in the tunneling industry.

Remembering G. Sidney “Sid” Fox

ith deepest sorrow and heavy hearts, we announce G. Sidney “Sid” Fox passed away peacefully at home on Sunday, November 12, 2017, in Campo, California.

Sid was brought up on the farm of his grandfather, Caleb Fellows Fox, in Ogontz, Pennsylvania. He attended The Episcopal Academy in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, and St. Paul’s School in Concord, New Hampshire, and graduated from Princeton in 1950 where he received a BSE in geological engineering. He attended graduate school at Stanford and worked as an engineer with USGS before pursuing a life-long career as a hydrogeologist until his retirement in 1996 as Executive Vice President of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. He was a member of AEG for most of his professional life.

After retirement, Sid sold his Connecticut home and moved to Campo. He and Jean were married February 1, 1997. Sid was always an active volunteer in the communities in which he lived, and this only increased after retirement. In his later years, 12

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

he gave his time and generosity to Mountain Empire/Campo Kiwanis, CLEEF, Campo-Morena Village Friends of Library, Mountain Empire Historical Society, and other local and national causes.

He was well-read and an accomplished Civil War historian, amassing an extensive library on the topic. He followed Ivy League sports including lacrosse and football, always rooting for his beloved Tigers.

April 2018

NEWS OF THEHEADER PROFESSION HERE

Op-Ed: The Missouri “Near-Miss” Phyllis Steckel, RG, Washington, MO

M

issouri Governor Eric Greitens recently charged an ad hoc Boards and Commissions Task Force to review and evaluate all state government boards and commissions, several of which operate within areas of geological practice and interests. The purpose of the governor’s review was to eliminate ineffective or inactive boards and commissions and to consolidate those whose work is similar or overlaps.

Several boards and commissions reviewed by the task force include the Board of Geologist Registration, the Seismic Safety Commission, the Clean Water Commission, the Well Installation Board, the Dam and Reservoir Safety Council, and the Safe Drinking Water Commission. All passed this task force review with no recommendations for further actions or changes. This is good news.

However, this is also no guarantee that additional, future reviews and evaluations will have similar, favorable outcomes for the geoscience community. But for now, we’re good!

There is no question that this outcome is because the geoscience community in Missouri responded to recent calls to action. Letters were written. Emails were sent. Phone calls and personal visits to decision-makers in Jefferson City were made. Follow-ups and reminders and drop-ins continued to arrive as the report was being written.

The Missouri Geologists’ Consortium, a grassroots, geologists’ advocacy group, and many other individuals mobilized for this effort. The voices from the Missouri geoscience community were heard by enough members of the task force and were heeded.

But stay tuned and stay vigilant. I don’t think this is over yet.

Proactive Outreach to MO Legislators

AEG 2019 SHLEMON SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

Phyllis J. Steckel, RG In recognition of Missouri Earthquake Awareness Month, on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, a small group of educators, students, private practitioners, and retired government professionals gathered in Jefferson City to meet with state legislators. Participants included Dr. Francisco Gomez, Dr. Doug Gouzie, Dr. Greg Hempen, Kerry Nikolaisen, Peter Price, and others. Due to concern for the forecast weather conditions, several others were not able to participate.

Individuals met with members of both the Missouri Senate and the Missouri House in their offices in the State Capitol building. The geoscientists had productive conversations with many legislators and their staffers and provided informational handouts and reference file materials. One purpose of the effort is to offer technical expertise and insight to the legislators when they address geoscience-related issues, such as geologic hazards, mineral resources, clean water, environmental restorations, and more. Another purpose is to demonstrate that geoscientists are a small, but attentive group of Missouri professionals. All the legislators were receptive and appreciative of the geoscientists’ message.

This annual outreach to Missouri legislators has been hosted by Missouri geoscientists since 1994. February has been designated as Earthquake Awareness Month because it is the anniversary of the largest earthquake in the New Madrid series of 1811–12. It is also a practical reminder to Missourians of the potential impact of significant earthquakes— winter weather will add more challenges to earthquake recovery efforts—so disaster preparedness is an especially wise message.

April 2018

State of the Science: Investigations of Active Faults in the Basin and Range Province Where: Las Vegas, Nevada at UNLV Campus When: March 28–29, 2019 Who: Practitioners, Researchers, State Survey Representatives, Federal Researchers, Students Format: Day One–30-minute presentations with time for comment and discussion.

Day Two–field trip to fault locations in the Las Vegas area.

Capacity: Limited to 75 participants For more information, contact: John H. Peck at 702-556-5229, peckj1@juno.com or Gary Luce, 775-883-1600, lucegc@charter.net.

Shlemon conferences are sponsored by the AEG Foundation and supported by a generous gift from Roy Shlemon. The conferences are meant to engage leading researchers and practitioners in the subject field of scientific endeavor in order to advance the state of knowledge.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

13

HEADER NEWS OFHERE THE PROFESSION

IAEG Has Successful Conference in Kathmandu, Nepal

O

Dr. Scott Burns, PhD, President, IAEG

Dr. Ranjan Dahal of the University in n November 28–30, 2017, the Kathmandu and a large local committee International Association of were responsible for organizing the conEngineering Geologists (IAEG) held the ference. It was a wonderful meeting with 11th Southeast Asia Regional Conference many field trips to view the results of the on engineering geology at the Yak and Yeti 2015 earthquake (7.9 magnitude that Hotel in Kathmandu, which is part of the left 8,800 people dead). We had an allold royal palace. It was a great success day session on the earthquake. The with 450 participants coming from over number of engineering geology students 32 countries to learn about engineering at the university has risen five-fold since geology. For me, it was extra special the quake! because the conference was opened by IAEG welcomed three new national the president of Nepal! groups into the organization at the In addition to myself, AEG was repremeeting: Bangladesh, Iraq and Malaysia. sented by past president and current IAEG Council has a meeting every board member Eldon Gath, President of Eldon Gath presenting his excellent keynote year at a regional conference in between Earth Consultants International. Eldon was on California earthquakes. its congress, which is held every four filling in for Jeff Keaton who is Vice Presiyears. The Council chose to gather at this dent for North America of IAEG. Also, over meeting, and all enjoyed it. The IAEG Executive Committee also 70 engineering geology students were present and active—all met for two days before the gathering of the Council. dressed in coat and tie!

14

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

NEWS OF THEHEADER PROFESSION HERE

Radon: A Major Geological Hazard Invisible But Not To Be Forgotten Scott Burns, PhD

l

ndoor household radon is an invisible, tasteless and odorless gas that the EPA says causes 20% of all lung cancer deaths (21,000 each year in the USA). It is natural—comes from the ground, from bedrock and sediments. All rocks and sediments contain a little uranium or thorium, which over time break down into lead through daughter products. One of those steps is radon gas, which builds up in our homes— especially in the basement and the first floor because it comes in through cracks in the floor. It was not known to be a hazard until 1984. Because we are trying to conserve energy and close homes tightly to keep the heat in, we are keeping the radon in.

Radon is measured in pico-curries per liter. A value from 0–2 pCi/l is considered low; 2–4 pCi/l is moderate, and above 4 pCi/l—considered the action level—is high, and should be mitigated. Ambient air values average about 0.4 pCi/l. Nationally, one in every eight homes has a value above the action level.

People should not be dying from it today, because we understand it. It is easy and inexpensive to test for (short- and long-term test kits cost $15–$30) (see figure). A short-term test is a charcoal test kit and the alpha detector is the longterm test kit (3 months). It is also easy and cheap to mitigate it. The most common method is the soil depressurization system that normally costs about $1000-$2500 per house and drops the permanent measurements below 2 pCi/l. Test kits can be obtained at the local hardware store or online. One can also have a radon test company come in and do a two-day test

for about $150 using a CRM (Continuous Radon Monitoring) machine—the longer the testing period, the more accurate the value.

Radon generation is tied in with the geology of the region.

Certain bedrocks like granite, phosphate rich rocks, and dark shales tend to be good generators. Landslides and faults are also sources of radon. The soil also must have porosity to move the gas. In Oregon, we have been studying this problem for 25 years. The highest values of radon are found in houses sitting on coarse-grained Missoula Flood deposits that have sediment originating from the granite areas of British Columbia and Idaho. The majority of the bedrock in Oregon is basalt, which is a low generator of radon. In Oregon, one in every 15 houses has a value above the action level, but in Portland where one finds the coarse-grained Missoula Flood sediments, one in every four houses is above the action level.

We need to stop this cancer epidemic that is caused by the geology under our feet. We stress that everyone should get their house tested, primarily in the winter when homes are closed. If your value is below 4 pCi/l, celebrate. If it is above 4 pCi/l, think about mitigating. When home inspections happen for real estate transactions, a radon test should be part of it.

About the Author Dr. Scott Burns is Professor Emeritus of Engineering Geology, Portland State University and a Past President of AEG.

Planning a Conference?

AEG’s MEETINGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC) has put together a list of useful tips to help your Chapter/Region host a conference. These tips will guide your path to success. Conferences, symposiums and short courses are essential to help your chapter financially as well as advocate for the geologic sciences and promote membership.

These tips cover everything from the size of your planning committee to scheduling and locating and working with the venue. Go to the MAC page on aegweb.org and download your copy of the “Conference Tips” today.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

15

HEADER HERE CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS PROFESSIONAL

Action Thresholds for Landslide Emergency Response Monitoring Jerome V. De Graff, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, CSU Fresno

Introduction

C

onducting some form of monitoring is often part of studying landslides (De Graff, 2011). We may seek to find the rate of landslide movement—or establish whether it is moving at all. The monitoring may focus on establishing how some deformational aspects of the landslide are influenced by groundwater levels or precipitation amounts.

In some instances, this monitoring is part of landslide investigations in a natural setting (De Graff and Stock, 2015). The results enable basic principles about the landslide process to be defined and better understood (Stock et al., 2012). Other times, the monitoring work establishes the parameters for a damaging landslide event and generates basic information for stabilizing designs (Priest et al., 2011).

When monitoring a landslide, we are always looking for thresholds, points where monitored rates change dramatically or are correlative with other measureable factors. Threshold values may verify or refute hypotheses, or just represent fortuitous findings. The monitoring effort provides the means for measuring specific threshold values that are unknown or only suspected beforehand.

Thresholds used in monitoring for emergency response represent a special case. Monitoring a landslide during an emergency response is done to protect life and property that is at risk. Consequently, the monitoring is designed to detect action thresholds, i.e., specific values that trigger emergency response actions such as evacuation of threatened residences or halting traffic on an affected road. Unlike investigative monitoring, the action threshold values must be identified in advance rather than simply being a direct finding of the monitoring effort. So, a geologist participating in an emergency response action must find some way to identify those specific action threshold values. This is a conundrum for the geologist: How do you identify an appropriate action threshold value when you are initiating the monitoring effort?

An action threshold value must not be so conservative that response actions are needlessly enacted. This can create what is sometimes termed “warning fatigue” where the affected population becomes less willing to respond to a response action over time because it is repeatedly shown to be unnecessary. This situation is classically represented by the fable of the little boy who called “wolf.” At the same time, the threshold value must ensure sufficient time exists to successfully carry out an associated response action. This time needs to include notification of appropriate first responders and travel time from their location to the threatened area. The 2006 Ferguson rockslide which blocked California State Route 140 (SR140) near the El Portal, California, entrance to Yosemite National Park illustrates three strategies suitable for 16

establishing action thresholds for use in emergency response monitoring (Harp et al., 2008; De Graff et al, 2015).

Emergency Response Monitoring at the Ferguson Rockslide The Ferguson rockslide is a reactivated prehistoric landslide within the Merced River Canyon (Fig. 1). In 2006, rocks falling from the rockslide toe exposed 60-m upslope, accumulated and buried a 180-m length of SR140, which effectively blocked this all-weather route from Mariposa, CA to Yosemite National Park (YNP) (De Graff et al., 2015).

After 92 days, a detour using temporary bridges to reach a repaved former railroad grade on the opposite side of the Merced River re-established access along SR 140 (Harp et al, 2008). This detour permitted alternating one-way passage controlled by traffic lights directly across the river from the blocked road section. While a few residences are nearby, the nearest communities are El Portal, 13 km to the east, and Mariposa, 33 km to the west. Consequently, there are few observers traveling past the Ferguson rockslide-affected section of SR140 during certain times of the day and during the year reflecting the seasonal use of YNP (De Graff et al., 2015). Notification to first responders about actual or perceived threats from the rockslide is dependent on reporting to the Mariposa County Sheriff dispatch center or, secondarily, the YNP emergency dispatch center in El Portal, California (Fig. 1).

Choosing the appropriate means for monitoring a landslide during an emergency response should focus on the threat or threats to life and property. Selecting an appropriate monitoring method should consider how to establish an action threshold suitable for triggering the associated emergency response action. At the Ferguson rockslide, possible renewed or increased movement was the primary threat (Harp et al.

2008). Such movement posed a direct threat of flying rock endangering the motorists using the SR140 detour. An ongoing concern was partial or complete blockage of the Merced River due to progressive accumulation of rockfall debris or rapid partial displacement of the rockslide mass (De Graff et al, 2015). Such movement posed an indirect threat of water inundating the roadway and bridges forming the detour.

Depending on the size of any partial or full damming of the Merced River, the impounded water upstream posed a threat to the nearest residences (Harp et al. 2008). This threat included blocking access between the residences and SR140.

Any sudden release of impounded water downstream threatened Bureau of Land Management campground users and intake structures for McClure Reservoir (De Graff et al, 2015).

Consequently, monitoring needed to focus on changes in

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HEADER HAZARDS HERE

Figure 2. The slope stability radar (SSR) unit scanned the talus accumulation area from the platform above the detour road section.

PHOTO BY JEROME V. DE GRAFF.

Figure 1. The general location of Ferguson rockslide outside Yosemite National Park. The two nearest communities, Mariposa and El Portal, are also where the nearest 24-hr emergency dispatch centers are found. Modified from Harp et al., 2008.

movement of the Ferguson rockslide or in the flow of the Merced River near the rockslide. Because reactivation of the Ferguson rockslide was associated with several wetter-thannormal winter seasons, any increased threat was expected during the rainy season with a heightened concern during storm events (Harp et al., 2008). The likely timing of future threats and the travel time required to initiate response actions indicated the monitoring needed to be in real or near-real time (De Graff et al, 2015).

Three different monitoring systems were installed at the Ferguson rockslide. Two directly measured landslide movement; the other one monitored flow in the Merced River.

The threat of flying rock from movement within the talus April 2018

accumulation area was determined by using a slope stability radar (SSR) unit (Badger, 2012; Fig 2). This monitoring was carried out by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) who has a statutory responsibility for motorist safety. The SSR was to be connected to the signals controlling traffic on the detour at this remote site in order to provide automated and continuous operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (Badger, 2012). Controlling the traffic signals to prevent traffic when rockfall hazard existed required establishing action thresholds based on movement rates. In July, the SSR was positioned directly across the Merced River from the Ferguson rockslide where it scanned the talus accumulation area every 15 minutes (Beck and Duffy, 2008).

After re-positioning the SSR to a nearby platform above the detour road in October, the scan time was every 8 minutes (Badger, 2012). The distances measured between successive scans identified where rock displacement was occurring.

Initially, a technician collected the SSR data twice a day for analysis (Beck and Duffy, 2008).

To calibrate the movement rate to reflect the rockfall hazard, Caltrans compared the earlier physical monitoring of rockfall volume to the SSR movement measurements. Individual rockfall masses observed during the earlier physical monitoring were 15 cubic meters or less (Beck and Duffy, 2008). Figure 3 compares the daily rockfall volume to the SSR displacement measurements during the calibration period when the two monitoring systems overlapped. Analysis of this data established the action threshold for controlling traffic on the detour. The SSR monitoring was discontinued after a year when Caltrans determined that rockfall no longer posed a traffic hazard necessitating continuous monitoring.

A joint U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) effort conducted the other direct movement monitoring of the main Ferguson rockslide mass. Three USGS Global Positioning System (GPS) single frequency (L1) receivers

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

17

HEADER HERE CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS PROFESSIONAL Figure 3. Upper graph displays cumulative daily rockfall volumes determined by physical observation. The bottom graph shows the cumulative daily average displacement measured by the SSR. The pale blue ovals show the approximate data overlap providing calibration for relating SSR measurements to the rockfall hazard. Modified from Badger (2012) and Beck and Duffy (2008).

were deployed by helicopter onto the rock-block mass in early October 2006 (De Graff et al., 2012). Each unit contained a GPS receiver, radio telemetry unit, and batteries incorporated into a tripod-shaped aluminum-framed structure to keep it stable even when surface displacement happened nearby (Fig. 4 inset). To facilitate differential GPS processing, a fourth GPS unit was installed at a fixed location near the junction of the Merced River with its South Fork tributary (De Graff et al., 2012). Due to the canyon topography, data from the GPS units was transmitted by spread-spectrum radio telemetry to a repeater at a former fire lookout to enable retransmission on a dedicated phone line connecting the National Park Service facility at El Portal to the USGS facility in Vancouver, Washington (Reid et al., 2012; see their figure 2). Surface morphology and internal scarp development suggested the rock-block slide mass now consisted of three distinct large blocks. The one of the three “spider” units was placed on each of the three internal blocks generally along the midline of the slide mass (Figure 4). The four GPS units repeatedly collected position data for 30-minute periods, which was transmitted hourly for automated processing by the USGS. Forest Service geologists received the processed output, via the internet, showing movement of the Ferguson slide mass (De Graff et al., 2012). The monitoring continued until 2010 and showed large parts of the slide mass moved a total of 10 meters. Also, the rockslide accelerated following significant rainfall events during winter and spring (Reid et al., 2012).

Lacking absolute values for action thresholds, the USFS used a watch and warning approach similar to the designations used by the NOAA/Weather Service for flashfloods and other weather-related threats (Fig. 5). During the first year, these qualitative descriptors represented action thresholds with emergency management services using a watch or warning to prepare for initiating their response action (De Graff et al., 2012). The current status of the Ferguson rockslide was posted on the publically available Sierra National Forest website with watches and warnings to be transmitted to the Mariposa County Sheriff’s Dispatch Center for distribution to various emergence services. During the second year, these action Figure 4. An oblique aerial view of the Ferguson rockslide on an east-facing slope of Ferguson Ridge. Merced River flow is toward the right. A small part of the unburied California State Route 140 and the Merced River are visible below the talus accumulation. A, B, and C represent the approximate locations for the three USGS “spider” units on the rockslide block (outlined by the gold dashed line). The inset photo shows Spider unit C. Modified from USGS photo; inset photo taken by Jerome V. De Graff.

18

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS

Figure 5. The four incremental levels of increasing movement risk on the Ferguson rockslide. The Watch and Warning levels represent a preliminary action threshold and action threshold, respectively. Qualitative and observable criteria are used to define each level. The Normal level represented the conditions during the late summer and early fall of 2006 when conditions had been dry.

Modified from De Graff et al., 2015.

calibrate the devices to measure river discharge at their installation points next to each of the detour bridges, the setup was intended only to measure water level height. The water level devices were battery-powered with recharge by a solar panel (Fig. 6 inset). Placed upstream (150 m) and downstream (500 m) of the Ferguson rockslide and the buried section of SR140, they monitored river water height in real time (Fig. 6). Each station collected data every 15 minutes for an hourly transmission to the NOAA’s GOES satellite to reach the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) for uploading by CDWR in Sacramento (Harp et al., 2008).

Forest Service geologists and others provided with a password could sign in via the internet to view the water height data. If the water heights displayed synchronized change over time, it could be concluded that rockslide material was not impeding flow within the Merced River. Partial or complete blockage by a movement of the rockslide material into the river would cause the upstream water height to rise at the same time the downstream water height dropped.

Observing such a change (non-synchronous movement) in water height conditions was the action threshold for notifying emergency response entities via the Mariposa County Sheriff’s Dispatch Center.

Getting to the Action Threshold

Figure 6. Part of the El Portal topographic map showing Ferguson Ridge, the Merced River, and the South Fork tributary. The outline of the Ferguson rockslide is shown by red hachured shading. The two red stars are the location of the water level monitoring stations, FRD and FRU, as they were designated in the CDEC database. The inset shows station FRD with the panel door open revealing the device components (Inset photo from DeGraff, 2011) Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, CSU Fresno

thresholds were also represented by specific movement values in centimeters based upon measurements gathered during the first year of monitoring.

The third Ferguson rockslide monitoring was an indirect measurement of movement anticipating the effect of significant rock being transported into the Merced River.

With assistance from the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), the USFS installed two water-level devices in the Merced River (De Graff, 2011). Rather than to April 2018

Our monitoring at the Ferguson rockslide addressed the conundrum of identifying action thresholds for initiating emergency response actions in three ways. One way to identify action thresholds is to calibrate the monitoring results to similar data, which includes episodes where the threshold for requiring an emergency response action is known or more clearly discerned. This was the case with the SSR monitoring where the calibration could draw upon a record of rockfall activity and size including events that posed a concern for traffic safety. A second way is to use qualitative data related to movement that is measurable or observable to identity incremental thresholds leading to the action (warning) threshold. This was the case for the first year using the USGS GPS units for direct measurement of movement. This direct measure of rockslide movement could subsequently be improved by the collected data. The third strategy would be to use an action threshold based on the indirect effect that would create the need for an emergency response action. This was the case with the water level monitoring in the Merced River. Movement of the Ferguson rockslide was certainly a concern, but the emergency response action would be triggered by that movement’s effect on the Merced River. In this case, real-time monitoring of change in water flow would indirectly indicate movement of the rockslide. But the change in water flow would directly require actions protective of people’s safety and protection of threatened property.

Certainly, strategies for identifying an action threshold during an emergency response action, as described here, are not limited to the three strategies applied to the Ferguson rockslide. We can see from this example that action thresholds

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

19

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS may involve direct or indirect measurement of landslide activity.

The experience with the Ferguson rockslide also demonstrates that monitoring for emergency response actions will usually be in near- or real-time. Emergency response monitoring starts with choosing a method or methods that will enable firstresponders to carry out actions protective of people and property. Equally important to that monitoring is having determined an action threshold for triggering when those protective actions should be started.

About the Author Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, CSU Fresno

References Badger, T.C. (2012). Maintenance, monitoring, and response. In Turner, A. K., & Schuster, R. L. (Eds.). (2012). Rockfall: characterization and control. Transportation Research Board, 579-594.

Beck, T. J., and Duffy, J. D. (2008). The Ferguson rockslide, Mariposa County, California. In Conference proceedings, 59th Highway Geology Symposium, Santa Fe, NM, Paper (Vol. 3).

De Graff, J. V. (2011) Perspectives for systematic landslide monitoring: Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 67-76.

De Graff, J. V. and Stock, G. M. (2015) The importance of protected areas as natural landslide laboratories: AUC Geographica, 50(2), 165-172.

De Graff, J. V., Gallegos, A. J., Reid, M. E., LaHusen, R. G., & Denlinger, R. P. (2015). Using monitoring and modeling to define the hazard posed by the reactivated Ferguson rockslide, Merced Canyon, California. Natural Hazards, 76(2), 769-789.

Harp, E. L., Reid, M. E., Godt, J. W., DeGraff, J. V., & Gallegos, A. J. (2008).

Ferguson rockslide buries California state highway near Yosemite National Park. Landslides, 5(3), 331–337.

Priest, G. R., Schulz, W. H., Ellis, W. L., Allan, J. A., Niem, A. R., & Niem, W. A. (2011). Landslide stability: role of rainfall-induced, laterally propagating, pore-pressure waves. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, 17(4), 315–335.

Reid, M. E., Lahusen, R. G., Baum, R. L., Kean, J. W., Schulz, W. H., & Highland, L. M. (2012). Real-time monitoring of landslides. USGS Fact Sheet 2012–3008 Stock, G. M., Martel, S. J., Collins, B. D., & Harp, E. L. (2012) Progressive failure of sheeted rock slopes: the 2009–2010 Rhombus Wall rock falls in Yosemite Valley, California, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37(5), 546–561.

Assessing Potential Hazard from Surface Faulting at New Nuclear Power Plant Sites at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerry L. Stirewalt, PhD, PG

Introduction Prior to constructing and operating a new nuclear power facility in the United States, an applicant must demonstrate to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that geologic characteristics of the proposed site are suitable for the intended facility design. Assessment of the potential for hazard resulting from surface faulting at a proposed site must be undertaken by an applicant to assist with determining site suitability. To assess the presence of and potential hazard resulting from surface faulting at a site, an applicant must implement the NRC’s Geologic Mapping License Condition (GMLC). The GMLC, developed

by NRC geologists, requires an applicant to perform detailed geologic mapping of excavations for safety-related engineered structures at a new plant site, evaluate geologic features discovered, and notify the NRC once the excavations are open for examination by NRC staff. NRC geologists confirm the applicant’s conclusions regarding presence or absence of surface faulting at the site, as well as age and characteristics of and potential hazard due to any faults that are found. Quaternary faults, which range in age from 2.6 million years (Ma) to the present, are a primary focus of NRC geologists because faults of that age are considered to have a greater potential for creating a geologic hazard than tectonic features that are pre-Quaternary in age. Quaternary faults would require a more detailed assessment of the potential for surface deformation that could 20

possibly result in a need to consider local faulting as a seismic source in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA).

Regulatory Requirements and Guidelines for Geologic Site Characterization Certain parts of the NRC’s mandatory regulatory requirements in Title 10 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) state the importance of geologic characterization of a site for a proposed new nuclear power facility to document site suitability in relation to potential geologic hazards. 10 CFR Part 52 (“Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”) addresses Early Site Permits (ESPs) in Subpart A under 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) and Combined Licenses (COLs) in Subpart C under 10 CFR Part 52.79(a)(1)(iii). These sections require geologic characteristics of a proposed site to be described in an applicant’s Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) for an ESP application and in a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for a COL application. The SSAR is part of the application materials for an ESP, which allows the ESP holder to set aside a site and submit a COL application for the site later. The FSAR is part of the application materials an applicant must submit to the NRC to obtain a COL to construct and operate a new nuclear power facility. The requirement to include a description of the Quality Assurance (QA) program in the FSAR for every COL application, found in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS 50 “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” must be followed by an applicant. An applicant develops and describes procedures for collection of information on geologic site characteristics required by 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi) for ESPs and 10 CFR Part 52.79(a)(1)(iii) for COLs. 10 CFR Part 52.17(a)(xi) and 10 CFR Part 52.79(a)(25) refer to the QA requirement stated in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. In addition, 10 CFR Part 100 “Reactor Site Criteria” indicates the need for collecting geologic data on tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation in 10 CFR Part 100.23(c). 10 CFR Part 100.23(d) states that geologic siting factors considered for design must include determination of the potential for both tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation.

Guidelines in the NRC’s Regulatory Guides (RGs), while not mandatory, can assist with meeting regulatory requirements if an applicant follows them. Section B of RG 1.132 “Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants” indicates that any potential geologic hazards existing at a site should be identified. Section C.6 of RG 1.132 states that excavations for safety-related engineered structures and other excavations important for verifying subsurface conditions at the site should be mapped in detail by geologists. Section B of RG 1.208 “A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion” indicates that, under procedures for a COL, faults exposed in site excavations should be mapped and assessed in relation to rupture potential while walls and floors of the excavations are exposed. To ensure that regulatory requirements are met, and considering guidance in Section B of RG 1.208, the NRC imposes the GMLC for all proposed new COL sites. The NRC’s regulatory process allows the detailed geologic mapping required by the GMLC to be conducted by a COL applicant if the site is excavated prior to a combined license being granted. Whether the mapping is conducted before or after a COL applicant is granted a combined license, the need for geologic mapping is captured in the NRC’s Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) as a binding condition for licensing, with a commitment to perform the mapping provided in the applicant’s COL FSAR. For an ESP application, the geologic mapping activity is captured in the NRC’s FSER as a binding condition for permitting, with a commitment provided in the applicant’s ESP SSAR to perform the mapping when foundation rock units are exposed in the excavations.

The applicant draws conclusions and NRC geologists make findings based on their respective independent assessments of the site characterization data collected by the applicant following the requirements and guidelines stated above. The applicant must present its conclusions and NRC geologists must present their findings based on these data in a mandatory public hearing prior to the NRC granting a COL to construct and operate a new nuclear power facility. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Public Law 114-92), established the requirement for this hearing.

Hazard Assessment Case History – The Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station This case history discusses investigations and analyses performed by the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) COL applicant for assessing potential hazard related to surface faulting at the proposed locations of two new nuclear power reactors, Units 2 and 3. These two new units were located adjacent to existing Unit 1 that began operation in January 1984. The case history also explains how NRC geologists independently evaluated and confirmed the applicant’s conclusions related to potential hazard due to surface faulting at the site.

Both the applicant and NRC staff provided testimony regarding results of their independent assessments of potential hazard due to surface faulting at a public hearing held in March 2011, as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

The public hearing resulted in the NRC granting a license to construct and operate new Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site in March 2012.

VCSNS Site Setting The VCSNS site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province in Fairfield County, South Carolina, about 32 km (20 mi) northwest of the Fall Line, which separates the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces (Figure 1). The site lies in crystalline basement rocks of the infrastructural Charlotte Terrane, the westernmost lithotectonic terrane of the Carolina Zone described by Hibbard et al. (2002), which is shown in Figure 1 as “Ch.” The Carolina Zone developed as a volcanic island arc, and the lithologies comprise original volcanic, sedimentary, and intrusive igneous rock units with a history of for-

Figure 1. Location of the VCSNS Site in the Piedmont physiographic province of South Carolina and the infrastructural Charlotte Terrane (Ch) of the Carolina Zone. Distance from the site southeastward to the Fall Line is about 32 km (20 mi). Map after Hibbard et al., 2002.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

21

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS passing from site region to site location. To assess the potential for any geologic hazard due to surface faulting at the plant site, the applicant implemented the GMLC and performed detailed geologic mapping of foundation rock units exposed in walls and floors of the excavations for safety-related engineered structures at Units 2 and 3. The detailed geologic mapping and associated field investigations enabled the applicant to characterize lithologies, mineralogy, and tectonic structures (including minor faults, shear zones, and fractures) in the excavations, and locate samples for radiometric dating collected to determine age of faulting. Non-tectonic deformation was not an issue at the VCSNS site because the foundation units were crystalline basement. The applicant’s analyses to determine age of faulting included 40Ar/39Ar dating of 3 potassium feldspar samples collected from pegmatite veins that crossed 2 different minor shear zones in the Unit 2 excavation, with strong strike-parallel fracturing indicative of deformation in the shear zones. Figure 3 illustrates the most prominent of the two shear zones that

Figure 2. Author examining foundation bedrock in the Unit 3 excavation.

Darker rock is diorite, Phase 1 of the 309 Ma Winnsboro plutonic complex.

Lighter rock is quartz monzonite, Phase 2 of the Winnsboro complex, which contains numerous xenoliths of Phase 1 diorite.

mation, metamorphism, and deformation from Neoproterozoic (>541 Ma) through Paleozoic (541-252 Ma) into Mesozoic (252-66 Ma) as noted by Hibbard et al. (2002). Hibbard et al.

(2002) provided data indicating that a heterogeneous tectonothermal history spanning Neoproterozoic to late Paleozoic was responsible for accreting the patchwork of exotic suprastructural and infrastructural terranes comprising the Carolina Zone to the eastern margin of ancestral North America (i.e., Laurentia). The Winnsboro plutonic complex, which intruded the Charlotte Terrane in two essentially synchronous phases (Figure 2), is the foundation unit at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and operating VCSNS Unit 1. Samson (2001) dated the Winnsboro complex at 309 Ma based on zircon U-Pb ages.

Site Characterization Activities Conducted by the Applicant The applicant evaluated geologic data collected from the site region, defined in RG 1.208 as the area within a 320-km (200mi) radius of the site location; site vicinity, a 40-km (25-mi) radius; site area, an 8-km (5-mi) radius; and site location, a 1km (0.6-mi) radius of the plant site. The site characterization investigations were conducted in progressively more detail 22

Figure 3. Hydrothermally altered minor shear zone in quartz monzonite in the Unit 2 excavation. The applicant acquired three 40Ar/39Ar dates on minor shear zones in the excavation showing that alteration and strong strike-parallel fracturing indicative of deformation occurred between 193.5 and 214.5 Ma (i.e., Mesozoic). Scale is 15 cm (6 in) in length.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS showed an apparent maximum right-lateral separation of 25 cm (9.8 in) measured along strike of the zone. Both the shear zones and the fractured feldspar samples were hydrothermally altered, and the 40Ar/39Ar dates gave ages of the alteration and fracturing ranging between 193.5 and 214.5 Ma (i.e., Mesozoic). No deformation along the shear zones based on age dates for samples of fractured and altered feldspars indicated an age younger than Mesozoic for shearing and alteration. Tectonic features and lithologies in the excavations for Units 2 and 3 were similar, so the applicant appropriately applied the dates acquired for Unit 2 to characterize age of minor faults and shear zones at Unit 3. The applicant concluded that all data documented that faulting did not represent a hazard at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 because all observed fault displacements were older than Quaternary. The applicant discussed the data and conclusions related to timing of faulting derived from the site characterization activities in Section 2.5 (“Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering”) of the FSAR, which is publicly available in ADAMS, NRC’s documents access system, under Package ML11187A074. The applicant provided testimony at the March 2011 mandatory public hearing for the VCSNS site to present the data supporting the conclusion that negligible potential existed for hazard related to surface faulting at Units 2 and 3.

Independent Confirmatory Activities Performed by NRC Staff With the goal of independently assessing the potential for geologic hazard related to surface faulting at the VCSNS site, NRC geologists evaluated the data and conclusions derived from results of the site characterization investigations conducted by the applicant by performing the following activities: (1) Reviewing information in the FSAR, including descriptions therein of pre-Quaternary shear zones discovered at VCSNS Unit 1; (2) Examining geologic features and characteristics in the field in the site region, site vicinity, and site area and at the site location related to lithologies, mineralogy, and tectonic features during multiple site audits; (3) Reviewing geologic mapping procedures during QA inspections; (4) Reviewing reports prepared by the applicant to document results of the detailed geologic mapping of the excavations, with an example of the information derived from the author’s detailed review of the applicant’s Unit 2 geologic mapping report presented in ADAMS under ML13143A457; (5) Examining interim and final geologic maps of walls and floors of excavations for safety-related engineered structures prepared by the applicant for implementing the GMLC and comparing the maps with field observations made during site audits and QA inspections (Figure 4) and (6) Focusing on data related to relative age relationships and radiometric age dates for observed faults and shear zones in the excavations. Regarding assessment of data pertinent for confirming age of faulting at the VCSNS site, the examples of fractured potassium feldspar samples collected by the applicant from pegmatite veins that crossed hydrothermally-altered shear zones in the Unit 2 excavation (Figure 3) were important for NRC geologists to independently evaluate. The evaluation was April 2018

Figure 4. Author (first on left) atop quartz monzonite in the Unit 3 excavation examining the final geologic map and comparing map data with geologic features observed in the excavation. The applicant implemented the NRC’s GMLC to develop the map.

important because relative age relationships between the pegmatites and shearing and hydrothermal alteration, combined with the 40Ar/39Ar dates acquired on the feldspar samples, quantitatively constrained timing of displacement along the shear zones. The pegmatites pre-dated minor shearing and hydrothermal alteration because the feldspar samples were strongly fractured and altered. The 40Ar/39Ar dates revealed that hydrothermal alteration and fracturing occurred during the Mesozoic. Based on this independent evaluation, NRC geologists confirmed that no displacements along the shear zones indicated an age younger than Mesozoic (i.e., <66 Ma) for shearing and alteration in the Unit 2 excavation. Figure 5 depicts a location in the Unit 2 excavation where relative age relationships, combined with the author’s knowledge of the preQuaternary shear zones at VCSNS Unit 1 that he analyzed previously (Stirewalt et al., 1975), were used to evaluate age of faults at VCSNS Unit 2. The figure shows a pegmatite vein offset by minor faults, which established that intrusion of the vein pre-dated faulting. The faults were filled by undeformed quartz. Because silica was generally not mobilized and deposited in fault zones in the Piedmont region after the Mesozoic (e.g., Horton and McConnell, 1991), the observed field relationships indicated that the quartz-filled faults were pre-Quaternary in age. Independent assessment by NRC geologists of these and other tectonic features observed in the excavations for Units 2 and 3, as well as in exposures in the site vicinity and

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

23

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS documented that no faults or shear zones of Quaternary age occurred in the excavations for safety-related engineered structures at VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

References Cited Hibbard, J., E. Stoddard, D. Secor, and A. Dennis (2002) The Carolina Zone: Overview of Neoproterozoic to Early Paleozoic Peri-Gondwanan Terranes along the Eastern Flank of the Southern Appalachians. Earth Science Reviews, Vol. 57, Pg. 299–339 Horton, J.W., Jr., and K.I. McConnell (1991) The Western Piedmont. In J.W. Horton, Jr., and V.A. Zullo, Editors, The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina Geological Society, 50th Anniversary Volume, Pg. 36-58 Samson, S.D. (2001) Timing of Alleghanian Magmatism Revisited. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 33, No. 2, Pg. 7 Stirewalt, G.L., H.D. Wagener, H. Bledsoe, W.G. Smith, and D. Stephenson (1975) Geological Techniques in Selection of Nuclear Reactor Sites: Example from Fairfield County, South Carolina. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 7, No. 4, Pg. 541

Author Information:

Figure 5. Minor faulting in quartz monzonite that offsets a pegmatite vein in the Unit 2 excavation. Faults are filled by undeformed quartz, which documented that the faults were pre-Quaternary in age.

site area, also confirmed that no faults or shear zones were younger than Mesozoic.

NRC geologists discussed findings derived from their independent assessment of the applicant’s data and conclusions regarding the potential for hazard related to surface faulting at the VCSNS site in Section 2.5 of the FSER, which is publicly available in ADAMS (Package ML110450305). The findings confirmed the applicant’s conclusion regarding a lack of potential hazard from surface faulting at the VCSNS site. Consequently, NRC did not consider it necessary for the applicant to conduct a more detailed assessment of potential surface deformation or include local faulting as a seismic source in a PSHA. NRC geologists provided testimony at the March 2011 mandatory public hearing for the VCSNS site to present the findings confirming the applicant’s conclusion that negligible potential existed for hazard related to surface faulting at Units 2 and 3.

Summary of Key Findings by NRC Staff The following key findings were made by NRC geologists related to documenting suitability of the VCSNS site: (1) The applicant completed all geologic site characterization activities necessary to satisfy the NRC’s regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100; follow NRC’s Regulatory Guides 1.132 and 1.208; and implement the NRC’s Geologic Mapping License Condition. (2) Relative age relationships and radiometric age dates constrained timing of displacement along minor faults and shear zones to be pre-Quaternary in age because no field or laboratory data indicated these tectonic features experienced deformation that was younger than Mesozoic. (3) The applicant’s conclusion that negligible potential existed for hazard related to surface faulting at the VCSNS site was strongly supported by all field and laboratory data, which

24

The author, Senior Geologist in the NRC’s Office of New Reactors, can be reached by email at Gerry.Stirewalt@nrc.gov.

Call for Papers: AEG Members are encouraged to submit papers on interesting case histories, original research or other projects to its journal on the following topics: • Environmental geology • Engineering geology • Feasibility studies • Geotechnical engineering • Geomorphology • Low-temperature geochemistry • Applied hydrogeology • Near-surface processes • Review papers in applied geosciences and technical notes (< 6 pages)

Benefits Include: • 4 Issues Per Year • Papers Are Peer Reviewed • Best Student Paper Award • Best Paper Award Instructions for Authors: http://eeg.allentrack.net/

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS – NATURAL HAZARDS

A Major Lesson Learned after 35 Years of Landslide Research –

Don’t Build on Ancient Landslides Dr. Scott F. Burns, Professor Emeritus, Engineering Geology, Portland State University

A

major part of my research and professional activity in Louisiana, Switzerland, Colorado, New Zealand, and Oregon for the past 35 years has centered around landslides. I have visited and studied thousands of landslides and I have advised many people about them. I have seen over and over that many of those landslides were reactivations of ancient landslides. If houses are destroyed on the landslides or are hit by the landslides, homeowners lose royally because landslides are not covered by homeowner’s insurance. I have learned that if it has moved once, it has a greater chance of moving again, though it does not mean it will if one controls the factors causing the landslide, but it has a higher chance of movement.

Landslides are triggered by either large inputs of water into the system (like through storms) or earthquakes. I live in Oregon where we have two major triggers that happen periodically. First, we live on the Cascadia Subduction Zone and have the chance in the western part of the state for 9.0 magnitude quakes. They happen on average every 500 years. The classic subduction zone earthquake of 1964 in Anchorage caused the movement of the landslide that destroyed 75 homes in the Turnagain Heights subdivision of the city. Second, we have large climatic storms like the “Pineapple Express” from the central Pacific Ocean that dumps abundant moisture on the Pacific

Northwest. In 1996, this climatic event happened and over 700 landslides that resulted from the storm were mapped in the Portland area.

In the past twenty-five years, we have had large landslides reactivate and destroy houses. The most famous was the Aldercrest-Banyon Landslide in Kelso, Washington, in 1998. Sixty homes were destroyed as an ancient landslide reactivated below the old scarp. In the end, the owners got only $0.30-onthe-dollar value of their homes—not from insurance companies, but FEMA and state agencies. The figures with this article show homes and a street destroyed in 1998 in Kelso.

Other reactivated landslides caused four homes to be destroyed on Holly Lane in Oregon City in 1996. Also in Oregon City, in 2006 the Newell Creek Apartments were destroyed when an ancient slump reactivated. In 2008, the $3-million “Romeo and Juliet House” on the Street of Dreams was destroyed by the reactivation of an ancient landslide.

Near Newell Canyon in 2016, the Forest Rim Apartments were also partially destroyed by a reactivation of an old slide.

All of these were not covered by homeowner’s insurance.

Because most of these homes have no insurance coverage for landslides, the owners start lawsuits. Many of the above examples ended up in court and I was an expert witness for many of them. No one wins except the lawyers.

PHOTOS BY J. DAVID ROGERS

Back-rotated block along Banyon Dr., Kelso, Washington

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

25

Debris field below Aldercrest Drive, Kelso, Washington

Headscarp looking north of Aldercrest Dr.

26

What drove me to write this article was a recent case when a 21-home Macadam Ridge subdivision proposal was sent to the City Council of Portland, Oregon. It had been back and forth at lower levels in city government with approval/deny conclusions both happening. The development is right in the middle of an ancient landslide site with a scarp at the top of over 50 feet high. Nine houses already are present just below the scarp having been built in the late 1940s. I stressed that it is not a good idea to build the 21 new houses because of the chance of reactivation by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake (that has not happened for 318 years) or a large climatic event. This old landslide had already reactivated five times further down slope, so the possibility is there. A total of 39 neighbors came out to testify against the development. I stressed the potential of reactivation based on the fact that it had already reactivated five times. No insurance is available for the homeowners. In the end, the city council voted 5-0 in favor of the neighbors and denied the building permit.

We will be having a new landslide inventory, susceptibility and risk map coming online in Portland very soon. People will see the landslide dangers. I hope that the city will back off issuing building permits on sites located on ancient landslides for fear of reactivation and destruction of houses on the slides. It is just better to build someplace else where there is not a chance of reactivation. Until the day that landslide insurance is available, I will be recommending that the cities and counties not issue building permits on ancient landslides; they will reduce the number of lawsuits against the local governments! We now understand landslides much better than in the past and we need to work with them, not against them.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

PHOTOS BY J. DAVID ROGERS

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NATURAL HAZARDS

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NATURAL HAZARDS

Landslide Threatens Historic Cemetery An Essay in Maps and Photos

T

A. Bruce Rogers, PG Engineering and Construction Division â&#x20AC;&#x201C; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

hese maps and photos illustrate work being done to remediate the slide that threatened the graves at the Wix Howard Cemetery in Loyall, Kentucky. The slide began on February 3, 2016, and was caused by the increased

April 2018

hydrostatic pressure produced by the intersection of a regional fracture with the stress-relief fracture system. The intersection of these fracture sets allowed a drastic increase of groundwater infiltration, which also saturated the thin clay-shale at the base, reducing its angle of internal friction.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

27

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NATURAL HAZARDS

Base of vertical fracture, east side of slide

Base of slide, slickensides

Rock failure bewteen anchors

Upper vertical fracture, east side of slide

ABOVE: Slide base RIGHT: Slickensides-Basal failure plane

28

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

ISSUES IN PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE In this series, we present the opinions of the author as he explores the issues that are important in the implementation and operation of statutory licensure for geologists. The author’s opinions are not necessarily those of the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists or any other organization or entity.

Issue LXXX

The Role and Utility of Exemptions in Geology Licensure Acts (and Challenges to Them) Robert E. Tepel, PG, CEG, and Past President AEG

Introduction

E

xemptions to the requirement that one possess a license to practice geology are common in geology licensure laws for several reasons. The number and type of exemptions varies by state, but two specific exemptions are ubiquitous. Misunderstandings of the rationale supporting exemptions are common, and ignorance of the existence of exemptions can be part of the basis for attempts to repeal licensure acts.

Let’s explore the world of geology licensure exemptions.

The best place to begin is “State Requirement Matrix” posted on the ASBOG® (National Association of State Boards of Geology) web site: www.asbog.org. The “ASBOG Matrix” lists eleven types of exemptions, either by field of practice or by employment setting setting, but does not list the universal exemption of subordinate practice.

Overview It is well to keep in mind that the only justification for state regulation of a profession by licensure is that the practice of the profession (by some, if not all, practitioners) affects the public health, safety, and wellbeing. If some groups of practitioners view their practice as not affecting the public, they will seek exemption under a licensure law. If legislators view some types of employment or practice as not affecting the public health, safety, or wellbeing, they will write an exemption into the law

for those groups as a matter of legislative policy. And if some other professional groups view the licensure of geologists as impacting, or potentially impacting, their ability to practice their profession, they will seek exemption or oppose the bill to license geologists. From these concerns arise all but two of the common exemptions to the practice of geology; those two are federal sovereignty and practical necessity.

Table 1. summarizes state licensure law exemptions to the practice of geology, slightly modified from the ASBOG Matrix, and it lists (my opinion only) the principal basis or driving force behind each type of exemption. More than one reason can apply in any particular case, of course.

There are three questions one might ask about the reason for any exemption: 1. Was this exemption necessary to accommodate potential opposition to the bill?

2. Was this exemption necessary as a practical matter to make the law functional?

3. Was the exemption based on legislative policy about which practitioner groups did not, in their work, significantly impact the public health, safety, and wellbeing?

Discussion – The Bases for Exemptions Whether or not specifically stated as an exemption in a state’s geology licensure law, federal employees are exempt from

Table 1. Number of Geology Licensure Laws with Selected Types of Exemptions Number of Jurisdictions All 31 (Note 1) 8

Type of Exemption (Area of Practice or Employment Setting) Federal Employees

Federal Sovereignty

State Employees

Legislative Policy

Likely Basis of Exemption

11

Local and MunicipalEmployees

17

Engineers Political Accommodation

28

Teaching

13

Academic Research

14

Other Professions (unspecified)

Political Accommodation

Petroleum Resource Geology

Political Accommodation

15

Other (Industrial) Minerals

Political Accommodation

22

Exploration (Public and Non-Public)

All 31 (Note 2)

Subordinate Practice Practical Necessity

5

Legislative Policy

Legislative Policy Legislative Policy

Political Accommodation

Notes: 1) All jurisdictions are counted as having the federal exemption even if not so indicates in the ASBOG Matrix. 2. All jurisdictions are counted as having an exemption for subordinate practice, although that exemption is not listed in the ASBOG Matrix.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

29

ISSUES IN PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE state licensure laws in the course of conducting their federal duties because a state cannot control the federal government.

This concept is called “federal sovereignty.”

Exemptions based on legislative policy are those that a legislature (perhaps with input from the affected group, perhaps not), believes do not affect the public health, safety, and wellbeing to such a degree as to warrant requiring them to be licensed.

Exemptions noted as based on political accommodation are in the law, most likely, as a result of input from the affected group during legislative hearing or the development of the bill.

The Subordinate Exemption is a matter of practical necessity in a geology licensure law. Geologist licensure recognizes the importance of on-the-job experience and training in the development of one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to practice independently before the public: to become accountable under the licensure law for one’s decisions and actions, The licensed geologist who supervises the work of an unlicensed subordinate geologist is said to be “in responsible charge of the work” and assumes responsibility for their work. Can an unlicensed geologist spend part or all of a career as a geologist in a subordinate position? Yes. Can an unlicensed geologist spend part or all of their career, either as a subordinate or as a supervising geologist, performing and/or supervising geological work of a high order that is exempt from licensure?

Yes. For those in exempt areas of practice, licensure is not a barrier to career advancement.

The Role of Exemptions in Licensure Challenges Challenges to the continuation of licensure for geologists (and all of the design professions) are often based on a lack of knowledge about the extent to which professional practice is exempt from licensure. Unlike medicine or law, where one cannot practice before the public at any level (or call oneself a doctor or lawyer) unless licensed, the design professions allow a wide range of unlicensed practice through exemptions. Therefore, in the design professions, licensure is not a “barrier to entry” and is not a barrier to employment in the profession because of the existence of exemptions and the open ability to work in a subordinate position. Licensure is a gateway that allows access to critical practice that affects the public health, safety, and wellbeing in a limited area of practice. In exempt areas of practice, licensure does not restrict career advancement.

Developing the specifics that show how open the profession really is in each state is something that AEG Chapters can do to be prepared for the next legislative challenge to licensure.

GeologyoftheCitiesof theWorld Over the course of the last 38 years the AEG Cities of The World Committee, has sponsored peer-reviewed technical papers following a uniform format of discussion focusing on the environmental and geologic circumstances that brought people to settle in the 25 cities making up the series to date. Geology of the Cities of the World papers 26 – Sacramento, California, and 27 – San Francisco, California are coming. Pre-published editions of the papers will be issued to registrants of the 61st AEG Annual Meeting/13th IAEG Congress in San Francisco, September 17 through 21, 2018. Register today!

Past “Cities” Papers Include: Albuquerque, Boston, Boulder, Cairo, Christchurch, Dallas, Denver, Granada, Hong Kong, Indianapolis, Johannesburg, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Lima, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Memphis, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Plymouth (England), Port Elizabeth, Reno, Rome, Salt Lake City, and Seattle.

The Cities of the World Committee is currently seeking energetic members to participate on the committee. If you are interested, please contact Joe Krupansky PG; Gannett Fleming, Inc.; PO Box 80794; Valley Forge, PA 19484-0794; 610-650-8101; jkrupansky@gfnet.com.

See www.aegweb.org/?page=GeologyCities for full details.

30

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

Carolinas Chapter

t n o r f e m o The H

Maddie German, Chair AEG Carolinas wrapped our 40th anniversary year with the same vigor and enthusiasm as we started. We had our anniversary dinner meeting in Greensboro—the town where the Carolinas Chapter (then Section) was founded. In October, Cyrus Parker of NCDOT presented Greenville’s Tenth Street Connector and the Environmental Challenges of an Urban Transportation Project. There were approximately 60 regulators, professionals, and students in attendance. SAEDACCO and Eastern Solutions set up exhibitor tables and provided one drink ticket per paid registration. Also at this meeting a 50/50 raffle was held to raise money for the Carolinas Scholarship Fund. Raffle winner Sue Buchanan generously donated her cut resulting in a total gain of $150 to the fund.

The Carolinas took a short break over the holidays, but kicked off 2018 with a dinner meeting on January 25th in Charlotte, NC at Draught. Dr. Kevin Finneran, associate professor of environmental engineering at Clemson University and owner of Finneran Environmental, LLC, presented Combined Microbial-Chemical Redox Reactions for Cr(VI) Transformation.

In his talk, he discussed how Cr(VI) bioremediation has generally been predicated when stimulating strictly microbial reactions, in which the cells must directly interact with the contaminant(s) to transform it. While this can be effective and efficient, there are times when direct cellular interactions are slow, incomplete, or completely impossible. Kevin discussed new approaches in this technology including electron transfer via activated carbon, with both laboratory and field examples.

There were approximately 60 regulators, professionals and students in attendance. Enviro Equipment was an exhibitor and provided one drink ticket per paid registration. At the meeting a hat was passed to raise money to send well supplies to the people of Haiti. $160 was raised at this meeting from the generosity of the attendees.

Check out the Carolinas Chapter website at aegcarolinas.org for more news and events in the Carolinas

The Mile High Chapter Denise Garcia, Secretary The Mile-High Chapter took the month of December off, but came back in January with an exciting talk from Mark Zellman with BGC Engineering, on New Findings for the Cheraw Fault, Southeastern Colorado. Zellman discussed new studies of the Cheraw Fault, one of the few Quaternary-active faults expressed at the surface in the Central and Eastern US. Based on the studies, this fault is closely associated with an underlying bedrock fault and fold structure and the internal stratigraphy is deformed in the same manner as its basal contact with bedrock suggesting that all deformation postdates the youngest Nussbaum strata at the site.

April 2018

HEADER HERE

The February meeting brought us an interesting hydrogeology talk entitled Groundwater Well Field Optimization and Risk Management through Effective Field Investigations – A Case Study from Joel Barber with Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. It gave a good overview of the importance of how hydrogeologic field investigations—including surface geophysics and exploratory testhole drilling—are cost effective methods for managing ground water development project risks. The talk included a case study for a groundwater development project in the Pecos Valley Alluvium Aquifer in West Texas during which a comprehensive field investigation was used to manage project risk, increase water production, and reduce future capital costs.

In Other News…

On September 17, 2017, Chapter members Paul Santi, Kami Gardella, and Ed Friend traveled to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT) to help reinvigorate the existing Student Chapter. The main focus of the effort was to promote AEG and present technical topics to students and faculty in the Geological Engineering and Geology department.

Two different presentations sessions occurred with great student and faculty turnout.

The first session was attended by over 30 students and faculty and included a presentation by Kami Gardella that highlighted the benefits of AEG membership to the students. The second presentation, by Ed Friend, was a technical review of the rehabilitation of a 108-year-old dam and how geology impacted the design. The second session, attended by over 50 students and faculty, was a presentation by Paul Santi on Practical and Scientific Questions Kami Gardella Addressed by Landslide Analysis: Examples from Colorado and Wyoming. All three presentations generated great interaction between the AEG members, students, and faculty who posed several thoughtful and challenging questions.

The Mile-High Chapter is committed to building the SDSMT Student Chapter and is working to develop reoccurring interactions between the chapters.

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

31

HEADER THE HOMEFRONT HERE

THE HOMEFRONT

Ed Friend

large concrete dam that includes some karst investigation and remediation techniques.

We continue to reach out to prospective members and cordially invite anyone interested to attend the monthly presentations that are given in conjunction with our Chapter meetings.

We have already had great success at bringing together geologists, professors, and students to share technology and ideas, and to enjoy professional fellowship. We have formed a Membership Committee that will continue to engage with students and geologists working throughout our region.

Our first fundraiser is in progress as well. We will design and offer chapter T-shirts for sale to help us get our name out there. We are very proud to be the newest AEG Chapter and are working hard to provide a forum for the exchange of technology and fellowship for the profession of engineering and environmental geologists in our region.

Meeting News Our January meeting was held on the 18th, at the Bavarian Bierhaus in Nashville. Our speaker was Thomas E. Ballard, PG, CHG, of Southeast Hydrogeology, PLLC. His presentation was entitled Hydrogeology of Tennessee. The presentation included a great summarization of the wide variety of geologic environments from the large Tertiary and Cretaceous sand aquifers of West Tennessee, to the karst aquifers of Middle Tennessee, to the more complex aquifer systems of the Appalachian and Valley and Ridge provinces of East Tennessee. The aquifers in each of these geologic environments/provinces have different characteristics that affect well design, production capacity, and potential water quality issues. Meeting attendees included a very diverse group of students and geologists from the regulatory and consulting industries and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Paul Santi

Nashville Chapter A. Bruce Rogers PG, Secretary The AEG Nashville Chapter was formed in October of 2017 and has since been conducting regular monthly meetings. We have been able to recruit members from area universities, government regulatory agencies, and the consulting industry! Our goal is to have a very diverse membership and leadership that represents all sectors of the environmental and engineering geology profession in this region. We are pleased to announce that the geology departments of our regional universities are well represented at our meetings and we are in the process of confirming our first AEG Student Chapter. We invite students to present at our monthly meetings as well.

There are two field trips planned for this year. The first will be in June to observe the foundation excavation and preparation at the USACE Center Hill Dam RCC project near Carthage, Tennessee. This trip will provide attendees the rare opportunity to observe the foundation construction practices used for a 32

Michael A. Arlesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; February presentation Utilizing Controlled Blasting at Kentucky Lock AdditionAsheville

In February, we met at the Bavarian Bierhaus in Nashville on the 8th. Our speakers were Michael A. Arles, PG, and Mark S. Elson, PG, of the Nashville District USACE. Their presentation was entitled Utilizing Controlled Blasting at Kentucky Lock Addition. The meeting was well attended and the presentation included some spectacular blasting footage from the USACE

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

THE HOMEFRONT HEADER HERE projects at Kentucky and Chickamauga locks. Precision blasting is being used at the Kentucky and Chickamauga lock projects to prevent damage to the adjacent bedrock and existing lock structures. The “checkerboard” pattern of leaving some blocks of rock intact during excavation is an excellent method to achieve the required results for the final rock surface.

In the spirit of the holidays, during the December dinner meeting NYP member, and new AEG Foundation Board Member, Lauren Lansky (pictured at left) passed around the proverbial hard hat for the AEG Foundation. Half of the $520 collected was donated to the Foundation’s Greatest Needs Fund and half to the West-Gray Scholarship Fund in support of undergraduate and graduate geology students in the eastern half of the United States.

New York-Philadelphia Chapter Loren Lasky, Newsletter Editor Peter Sugarman, New Jersey Geological and Water Survey (NJGWS) research scientist, author of numerous bedrock geologic maps, and co-chief scientist on ten deep corehole projects, was our distinguished speaker for A Geologic Perspective on the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System at our November 2017 dinner meeting.

Sugarman “drilled down” on the depositional environments that have been interpreted and cross-correlated within the Cretaceous Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) System, the most heavily pumped aquifer in the New Jersey Coastal Plains.

Results of NJGWS deep continuous coreholes and detailed subsurface stratigraphic investigations also have implications for the siting of potential future carbon sequestration locations, deep below the land surface.

ABOVE: Smith dinner table conversation BELOW: Rose DeLorenzo, Chair, and Ted Toskos, share notes after the talk.

Speaker Peter Sugarman, NJGWS, center, is greeted by Zoltan Szabo, USGS (L) and Jim Peterson, Princeton Geosciences (R).

In December 2017, we held a joint meeting with the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) New Jersey Post. John Haselow, founder of Redox Tech of Runnemede, NJ, and Cary, NC, presented on InSitu Soil Blending for Cost Effective Soil and Groundwater Treatment. Haselow discussed the two main types of soil mixing equipment currently in use, large diameter augers and rotary drum blenders, and highlighted case studies where Redox Tech had used different combinations of soil blending, plus chemical and biological reagents, to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater.

April 2018

Continued…

Don’t See Your Chapter?

Ask your officers to submit an article and/or photos about your recent meetings and field trips!

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

33

THE HOMEFRONT HEADER HERE

Sacramento Chapter Nicholas Novoa, Secretary The Sacramento Chapter has been very busy this year.

On January 23rd, we held our Chapter meeting at Cattlemanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in Rancho Cordova. The presentation was given by Dr. Tatia Taylor and David Paul with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on Foundation Geology and Remedial Grouting at Mosul Dam, Iraq. The USACE have performed an extensive evaluation that has categorized the dam at extremely high risk.

The Mosul Dam Task Force is a multinational effort led by the USACE to perform emergency foundation grouting beneath Mosul Dam. Objectives are to reduce immediate risk of failure by intensive grouting of the foundation from the 2.2 km-long grouting gallery constructed on centerline of the dam. The focus of the emergency grouting program is to identify critically affected foundation areas and remediate by grouting.

Groundwater Resources

NYP Chapter officers, L to R: Treasurer Niall Henshaw, Legislative Chair Ted Toskos, and Program Coordinator Jim Peterson

The New York-Philadelphia Chapterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fourth annual Student Night was on February 22, 2018, with entrants from ten different schools! It made for an exciting event!

NYP is also making plans to start a scholarship for local students and scheduling a field trip to the New York Area Harbor for the fall.

On February 13, we held a joint meeting with the Groundwater Resources Association (GRA) at the California State University Sacramento Alumni Center. Our speaker for the evening was Dr. Jeffrey Mount, 2018 David Keith Todd Distinguished Lecturer and senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California Water Policy Center. Mount gave an enthusiastic talk entitled The Consequences of Groundwater Sustainability in California that discussed the social, economic, and environmental consequences of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) enacted in 2014. Jeff discussed possible path forwards for basins subject to the requirements of SGMA, specifically using the San Joaquin Valley as an example, and reasons for hope in the future. The meeting was very well attended with many students from Sacramento State. Prior to the talk, several Sacramento State students gave talks on their current research that had been partially funded by GRA. Geologists throughout the state of California have been busy assisting with emergency cleanups in Santa Rosa and Montecito, as well as emergency repairs at Oroville Dam. Sacramento Chapter member Scott Sochar recently completed

Montecito debris flow damage

Professor Alec Gates confers with Rutgers Newark Students.

34

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

THE HEADER HOMEFRONT HERE Ray Taber Foundation Seminar Santa Rosa Fire damage

Continuing a twenty-plus-year tradition, the Ray Taber Foundation held its annual, free drill seminar on Friday, February 23, 2018, at the Taber Ranch Vineyard and Event Center in Capay Valley. The seminar gave undergraduate and graduate students from the Sacramento Valley and Bay Area a day of hands on instruction in drilling and sampling techniques commonly used for geotechnical and environmental investigations. Ray Taber was one of the founding members of AEG and the Ray Taber Foundation mission is to advance the science of integrating geology and civil engineering in their application to the built world and to contribute to the historical preservation and advancement of economically sustainable small ranch farming.

The primary purpose of the foundation is to serve as a vehicle for providing education scholarships to students in these specific areas of study, but also as support for research endeavors and other activities, which will aid the general advancement of these areas of specialization.

Santa Rosa Fire damage

Coming Up… The AEG Sacramento Chapter is hosting its annual Student Night meeting on Tuesday, April 24th. The meeting is a great opportunity for geology students to meet/interact with professional geologists in the environmental and engineering geology fields. As part of the Student Night meeting, the Sacramento Chapter will announce the winners of two H. Ray Taber Founders Scholarship awards, one undergraduate and one graduate, to promote the study of geology, environmental and engineering geology, and related earth science disciplines.

We will provide a full report on the event in the next issue of AEG News!

St. Louis Chapter Jessie Goodwin, Chapter Editor

a trip down to the Santa Barbara/Montecito area to help with cleanup efforts and member Teresa Butler spent time assisting with the cleanup in Santa Rosa. Sacramento Chapter Vice Chair Holly Nichols is geology lead for the Oroville Emergency Repairs and Sacramento Chapter Secretary. Nicholas Novoa spent a few months logging borings and observing repair efforts at Oroville.

April 2018

At the St. Louis Chapter’s November 2017 meeting, the 2017–18 Richard Jahns Lecturer Dr. John Wakabayashi shared his presentation Attempting to Bridge the Growing Gap between Academic and Applied Geology: A Personal Odyssey. Dr. Wakabayashi discussed his experience with the “Gap.” Few geology faculty members have experience in applied geology and basic applied geology skills are not taught. Dr. Wakabayashi recounted several instances when he used academic geology to assist with applied geology projects, including fighting vertical exaggeration, naturally-occurring asbestos in non-traditional sources, and ambient levels of metals in rocks and soils, to name a few. Dr. Wakabayashi recommended that academic education needs to maintain a core of geoscience education, emphasizing all basic geology disciplines, and continuing to provide field intensive training.

During our December meeting, Dr. Francisco Gomez of the University of Missouri shared his presentation Not Just a Pretty Picture: UAV Photogrammetry and 3D Modelling. Dr. Gomez shared a brief history of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry—from kites and balloons to more recent drones.

The camera hardware has also improved drastically over the

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

35

HEADER THE HOMEFRONT HERE

San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Courtney Johnson, Secretary

Jahn’s Lecturer Dr. John Wakabayashi presenting at the St. Louis Chapter November 2017 meeting

years, allowing more rapid and more versatile data collection.

UAV photogrammetry is used for topographic mapping, orthoimagery, and to detect and measure changes in volume and displacement. Typical applications of the photogrammetry include remote sensing of fault scarps to build fault scarp profiles much more quickly than traditional ground surveying, and performing landslide analysis to measure volumetric changes over time.

The St. Louis Chapter’s January 2018 meeting was a step back into the history of the region. Bob Berri of Berri Exploration presented on The Rocks That Built St. Louis: A History of Mining in St. Louis and the Surrounding Area. Berri started his talk with the history of Native Americans in Cahokia who mined materials for tools (flint, granite, and sandstone), cookware (clay), and paint dyes (limonite, azurite, malachite, hematite, and galena). Native American flint quarries have been found in southwest St. Louis and Jefferson Counties. Early French settlers in the 1760s through the 1870s mined lead, silver, and other metals south and southwest of St. Louis. Limestone quarries have been operating in and around St. Louis since the 1800s, with a limekiln built in 1856 still standing in a park in the area. Coal and clay mines in the city of St. Louis were used to manufacture brick starting around the 1940s. Lead mining southwest of St. Louis from the 1870s to the present has benefitted from and contributed to the development of new tools and methods.

36

Everyone is aware of the earthquake hazard posed in the San Francisco Bay Area, but there was a good reminder at about 2:40 am local time on January 4, 2018, when a magnitude 4.4 earthquake rattled the region awake. The earthquake occurred on a segment of the Hayward fault in Berkeley. Luckily this time, the earthquake did not result in a large amount of damage but encouraged many to check their earthquake kits and bolster up on preparedness. Coming up later this year is the 150th anniversary of the 1868 magnitude 6.8 Hayward fault earthquake. The Chapter is planning to participate in local events surrounding the anniversary to engage the public and increase awareness.

The northern California region is also recovering from a heavy wildfire season after numerous major wildfires broke out in the Napa/Sonoma/Santa Rosa area during a severe wind event in early October. Most notably, the Tubbs fire burned over 35,000 acres of land and well over 5,000 structures with the aid of winds blowing up to 40 miles an hour. The rainy season since the October fires has so far been mild, but the effects of the 2017 wildfires in northern California on hillside erosion and potential debris flows or landslides remains to be seen in the coming years.

In November, we welcomed Mike George, PhD, PE, of BCG Engineering, for an interesting talk on rock scour process and using drones to collect detailed data for rock scour assessments at critical infrastructure facilities.

The annual PEMA-AEG-GRA holiday mixer was another success in December. Each year, professionals from the local chapters of AEG, PEMA (Professional Environmental Marketing Association) and GRA (Groundwater Resources Association) gather to network, share the holiday spirit, and win raffle prizes donated from vendors and association members.

To kick off 2018, we enjoyed a presentation in January

by Holly Nichols, CEG, entitled The Oroville Spillways – Geology and Why It Matters. Holly is the lead geologist for the California Department of Water Resources on the Oroville Spillway Recovery Project and has been at the forefront of the studies involving the spillway failure and construction.

She gave an enlightening discussion of the geologic characterization at the Oroville Dam, a synopsis of the spillway failure, and summary of the investigation, design, and construction procedures for repair.

We want to give a big thank you to our 2018 San Francisco Chapter/Sacramento Chapter sponsor, Gregg Drilling, and continued thanks to our other chapter sponsors: California Push Technologies, Soil Tectonics, and Cal Engineering & Geology.

As always, check our Chapter website for a copy of our latest newsletter, up to the minute news, meeting information, local job postings, and events. www.aegsf.org

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

THE HOMEFRONT

Texas Chapter

Woody Frossard and Jenna Brummett presenting to the group

Rusty Branch, Eric Stiffler, Pat Frost, Melissa Cordell, and Stephanie Coffman – AEG Texas Board Winter 2018 Meeting: Trinity River Vision Project Update, Fort Worth, Texas The Texas Chapter gathered for its quarterly meeting on January 20, 2018. The Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA) hosted us in their downtown Fort Worth office. More than 40 students, recent graduates, and professionals attended the meeting where we received a progress update on the Trinity River Vision Project and a City of Fort Worth environmental cleanup site. This is a joint flood control and beautification project that is sponsored by the US Corps of Engineers, Tarrant Regional Water District, Tarrant County, and the City of Fort Worth. We heard several presentations during the morning session then boarded a charter bus for a field trip.

Speakers included Woody Frossard and Jenna Brummett (TRVA Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager, respectively). They gave us an overview of the project and spoke about some of the environmental clean-up efforts associated with the project. Harlan Karbs, PE, TRVA Geotechnical Engineer, provided us with an overview of the local geology and project design progress. Gerardo Ruiz de la Peña, PG, Enercon Services Project Manager, gave us an update on the City of Fort Worth Brennan Environmental site. Becky Johnson, PG, Board Member, Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists and TCU Professor of Professional Practice delivered a lunchtime presentation on ethics in the geosciences.

Jenna Brummett led the afternoon field trip. We visited two Trinity River Vision Project sites and the City of Fort Worth Brennan environmental site. Jenna Brummett provided commentary during the bus ride and the various speakers led us through the project sites. A great time was had by all. Thank you to the Trinity River Vision Authority for hosting us at their office. We would like to thank Chapter Past Chair and current AEG Treasurer Cynthia Palomares for an update on AEG activities.

AEG Regional Director and Texas Chapter member Jeff Neathery also attended the meeting. Finally, we would like to thank everyone who attended—with a special welcome to our new members!

Cynthia Palomares, PG, PE, presented an update on AEG activities.

AEG Texas Board with Woody Frossard and Jenna Brummett.

More photos on page 38…

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

37

HEADER THE HOMEFRONT HERE

Gerardo Ruiz de la Peña, P.G. (center) speaks about the Brennan St. environmental site during the Texas Chapter Winter Meeting field trip.

AEG Texas Chapter Group Photo at a TRVA construction site

38

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

April 2018

s r o s n o p S Corporate

HEADER HERE

AEG is grateful to the corporations and individuals who contribute to our operating fund through their sponsorship.

Mount Rainier Enviroprobe Service, Inc. Matt McMillen 81 Marter Ave Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 484-833-3003 mattm@enviroprobe.com www.enviroprobe.com

Kleinfelder, Inc. Chad Lukkarila 14710 NE 87th St. Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 425-636-7900 clukkarila@kleinfelder.com www.kleinfelder.com

812 W. Wabash Ave. Eureka, CA 95501 707-441-8855 gsimpson@shn-engr.com www.shn-engr.com

Michael F. Hoover

Steele and Associates, LLC 2390 Forest St. Denver, CO 80207-3261 303-333-6071 steeleweir@aol.com

Gary Simpson

Hoover Consulting

Kilauea Susan Steele Weir

SHN Engineers & Geologists

PO Box 30860 Santa Barbara, CA 93130 mfhoover@hoovergeo.com www.hoovergeo.com

SAGE Engineers, Inc. Ara Sanjideh 2251 Douglas Blvd., Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 916-677-4800 asanjideh@SAGEengineers.com www.SAGEengineers.com

Add Your Company to This List of Supporters!

For information on sponsorship opportunities: www.aegweb.org/?page=BecomeASponsor

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Forget to Visit theAEG E-Store When on Our Websiteâ&#x20AC;Ś There are a wide variety of items available to purchase now at AEG's E-Store, including a classic black ceramic coffee mug with the AEG logo, past issues of AEG News, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience journal, AEG special publications and more!

AEG has worked with the AEG Foundation to put together some quality AEG logo items for sale to members who want to show their AEG pride. Half of the proceeds collected from the sale of the items offered under the AEGF/AEG E-Store category will go to the AEG Foundation.

You can find AEG's E-Store online at www.aegweb.org under E-Store located in the main menu on the left.

April 2018

AEG NEWS 61 (2)

39