Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of 

Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources─Columbia Basin of 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the Western OregonWashington Basins

By Jacob A. Covault, Madalyn S. Blondes, Steven M. Cahan, Christina A. DeVera, Philip A. Freeman, and 

Celeste D. Lohr

Chapter D of

Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources

Edited by Peter D. Warwick and Margo D. Corum

Open-File Report 2012–1024–D

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2013

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Covault, J.A., Blondes, M.S., Cahan, S.M., DeVera, C.A., Freeman, P.A., and Lohr, C.D., 2013, Geologic framework 

for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources─Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, 

and the Western Oregon-Washington basins, chap. D of Warwick, P.D., and Corum, M.D., eds., Geologic framework 

for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–

1024–D, 19 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20121024d. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Editors’ Preface

By Peter D. Warwick and Margo D. Corum

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directs the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and to consult with other Federal and State agencies to locate the pertinent 

geological data needed for the assessment. The geologic sequestration of CO2 is one possible way to 

mitigate its effects on climate change.

The methodology that is being used by the USGS for the assessment was described by Brennan 

and others (2010), who revised the methodology by Burruss and others (2009) according to comments 

from peer reviewers, members of the public, and experts on an external panel. The assessment 

methodology is non-economic and is intended to be used at regional to subbasinal scales. 

The operational unit of the assessment is a storage assessment unit (SAU), composed of a porous 

storage formation with fluid flow and an overlying fine-grained sealing unit. Assessments are conducted at 

the SAU level and are aggregated to basinal and regional results. SAUs have a minimum depth of 3,000 

feet (ft), which ensures that the CO2 is in a supercritical state (and thus occupies less pore space than a 

gas). Standard SAUs have a maximum depth of 13,000 ft below the surface, a depth accessible with 

average injection pipeline pressures (Burruss and others, 2009; Brennan and others, 2010). Where 

geologic conditions favor CO2 storage below 13,000 ft, an additional deep SAU is assessed. 

The assessments are also constrained by the occurrence of relatively fresh formation water; any 

formation water having a salinity less than 10,000 parts per million (ppm, which is equivalent to 

milligrams per liter, mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS), regardless of depth, has the potential to be used as 

a potable water supply (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2008) has proposed a lower limit of 10,000 ppm (mg/L) TDS for water in rocks to be used for 

injection of CO2. Therefore, the potential storage resources for CO2 in formations where formation waters 

have salinities less than 10,000 ppm (mg/L) TDS are not assessed (Brennan and others, 2010). 

This report series contains geologic descriptions of each SAU identified within the assessed basins 

and focuses on the particular characteristics specified in the methodology that influence the potential CO2

storage resource. Although assessment results are not contained in these reports, the geologic framework 

information will be used to calculate a statistical Monte Carlo-based distribution of potential storage space 

in the various SAUs following Brennan and others (2010). Figures in this report series show SAU 

boundaries and cell maps of well penetrations through the sealing unit into the top of the storage 

formation. Wells sharing the same well borehole are treated as a single penetration. Cell maps show the 

number of penetrating wells within one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely 

attributed well data (IHS Energy Group, 2011; and other data as available), a digital compilation that is 

known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to know the location of all wells and cannot 

guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in any given cell shown on cell maps.

References Cited

Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic 

assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1127, 31 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/. 

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, 

W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, 
iv

C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide 

storage: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1035, 81 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/. 

IHS Energy Group, 2011, ENERDEQ U.S. well data: IHS Energy Group; online database available from 

IHS Energy Group, 15 Inverness Way East, D205, Englewood, CO 80112, U.S.A., accessed January 20, 

2011, at http://energy.ihs.com/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Federal requirements under the underground injection 

control (UIC) program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration (GS) wells: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, proposed rule, accessed March 23, 2011, at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2008/July/Day-25/w16626.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Web site, accessed January 14, 2009, at 

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/sdwa/index.html. 
v

Contents

Editors’ Preface ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

References Cited........................................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho...................................................................................................... 2

Columbia Basin Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment .............................................................................. 3

Eocene-Oligocene Composite Standard SAU C50050101 and Eocene-Oligocene Composite Deep SAU 

C50050102 ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Western Oregon-Washington Basins............................................................................................................................10

Western Oregon-Washington Basins Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment ............................................11

Eocene Composite SAU C50040101........................................................................................................................15

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................16

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................16

Figures

1. Map of the Pacific Northwest and Columbia Basin, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho ............................................. 4

2. Generalized stratigraphic column of geologic units in the Columbia Basin, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho......... 5

3. Map of the U.S. Geological Survey storage assessment boundaries for the Eocene-Oligocene Composite 

Storage Assessment Units in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho............................................................................... 9

4. Locations of selected Tertiary basins in Western Oregon and Washington and approximate locations of oil, 

gas, and coal fields ............................................................................................................................................... 12

5. Generalized columns of stratigraphic units in Western Oregon and Washington.................................................. 13

6. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Eocene Composite SAU in 

Western Oregon and Washington......................................................................................................................... 14
vi

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.58999 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

million barrels of oil (MMBO) 1,000,000 barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 1 barrel=42 gal)

barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 1 barrel=42 gal) 0.1590 cubic meter (m3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

billion cubic feet gas (BCFG) 1,000,000,000 cubic foot (ft3)

Permeability

Darcy (D) 9.869233x10-13 square meter (m2)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F–32)/1.8

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
1

Geologic Framework for the National Assessment of 

Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources─Columbia Basin of 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the Western OregonWashington Basins

By Jacob A. Covault, Madalyn S. Blondes, Steven M. Cahan, Christina A. DeVera, Philip A. Freeman, and 

Celeste D. Lohr

Abstract

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directs the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a national assessment of potential geologic storage resources for 

carbon dioxide (CO2). The methodology used by the USGS for the national CO2 assessment follows that 

of previous USGS work. The methodology is non-economic and intended to be used at regional to 

subbasinal scales. 

This report identifies and contains geologic descriptions of three storage assessment units (SAUs) 

in Eocene and Oligocene sedimentary rocks within the Columbia, Puget, Willapa, Astoria, Nehalem, and 

Willamette Basins of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and focuses on the characteristics, specified in the 

methodology, that influence the potential CO2 storage resource in those SAUs. Specific descriptions of 

the SAU boundaries as well as their sealing and reservoir units are included. Properties for each SAU,

such as depth to top, gross thickness, porosity, permeability, groundwater quality, and structural reservoir 

traps, are provided to illustrate geologic factors critical to the assessment. The designated sealing unit in 

the Columbia Basin is tentatively chosen to be the ubiquitous and thick Miocene Columbia River Basalt 

Group. As a result of uncertainties regarding the seal integrity of the Columbia River Basalt Group, the 

SAUs were not quantitatively assessed. Figures in this report show SAU boundaries and cell maps of well 

penetrations through sealing units into the top of the storage formations. The cell maps show the number 

of penetrating wells within one square mile and are derived from interpretations of incompletely attributed 

well data, a digital compilation that is known not to include all drilling. The USGS does not expect to 

know the location of all wells and cannot guarantee the amount of drilling through specific formations in 

any given cell shown on the cell maps.

Introduction

The following sections describe the geology parameters that were used to define the carbon 

dioxide (CO2) storage assessment units (SAUs) in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Oregon, Washington, 

and Idaho, and the Western Oregon and Washington Basins. The geologic descriptions of these basins 

were compiled into this report because of the similar geology and geographic location for these basins.
2

Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho

By Jacob A. Covault, Madalyn S. Blondes, Steven M. Cahan, Christina A. DeVera, Philip A. Freeman, and Celeste D. 

Lohr

The Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho extends across an area of approximately 

63,000 mi2 between the Cascade Range, the Blue Mountains, and the Rocky Mountains (Campbell, 1989; 

Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989; Reidel, Tolan, and others, 1989) (fig. 1). A distinguishing characteristic 

of the Columbia Basin is the ubiquitous and thick (as much as 15,000 ft) Miocene Columbia River Basalt 

Group, which comprises deposits from approximately 300 continental tholeiitic flood-basalt flows (Tolan 

and others, 1989; Reidel and others, 2002; Brownfield, 2008) (figs. 1 and 2). The Columbia Basin

includes four regions differentiated according to style of tectonic deformation: Yakima fold belt, Palouse 

slope, Blue Mountains, and embayments along the eastern basin margin (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989)

(fig. 1). The Yakima fold belt is located in the western and central parts of the basin and comprises 

anticlinal ridges and synclinal valleys with northwest-southeast structural trends (Reidel and others, 2002) 

(fig. 1). The Palouse slope is located to the northeast and includes only minor faults and low-amplitude, 

long-wavelength folds (Swanson and others, 1980). The Blue Mountains are located to the south and 

compose a broad, northeast-trending anticlinorium that extends over 150 mi from the Cascade Range to 

the embayments along the eastern basin margin (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989) (fig. 1).

Subsidence of the Columbia Basin was focused in the region now occupied by the Yakima fold 

belt since early Tertiary and persisted through the Miocene (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989; Reidel, 

Tolan, and others, 1989). Subsidence kept pace with the rate of Columbia River Basalt Group flow 

emplacement during the Miocene (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989; Reidel, Tolan, and others, 1989). The 

region contemporaneously underwent north- to south-directed compression, which deformed the flood 

basalts into the Yakima folds (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989; Reidel, Tolan, and others, 1989). 

Contemporaneous subsidence, basalt production, and fold growth are interpreted to be linked to oblique 

subduction along the convergent plate margin offshore North America to the west and back-arc spreading 

associated with crustal extension to the east (Reidel, Fecht, and others, 1989; Reidel, Tolan, and others, 

1989; Campbell and Reidel, 1994).

Rocks older than the Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group generally include Eocene and 

Oligocene, thick (as much as 25,000 ft), arkosic sandstone, conglomerate, and mudstone interbedded with 

coal and volcanic rocks (Campbell, 1989; Campbell and Reidel, 1994; Reidel and others, 2002; Golder 

Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2008) (fig. 2). These units include the Swauk, Manastash, Chumstick, 

Roslyn, and Wenatchee Formations, among others, and they are generally interpreted to represent 

nonmarine deposition (Campbell, 1989; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2008) (fig. 2). Other 

formations older than Miocene strata were not considered to have reservoir potential.

The only hydrocarbon production in the Columbia Basin was from the Rattlesnake Hills gas field, 

which was discovered in 1913 as a result of drilling a water well into the Columbia River Basalt Group 

(Hammer, 1934; Campbell and Reidel, 1994; Brownfield, 2008) (fig. 1). The field was developed in 1930 

and produced approximately 1.3 billion cubic feet of gas (BCFG), likely derived from sedimentary rocks 

interbedded with or underlying the basalt (McFarland, 1979; Brownfield, 2008). Exploration wells have 

been drilled since the Rattlesnake Hills gas field was abandoned in 1941, and drill-stem tests confirmed 

the presence of gas; however, the wells were deemed noncommercial and abandoned (Campbell and 

Reidel, 1994; Reidel and others, 2002; Brownfield, 2008). There has been no oil and gas production in the 

Columbia Basin since 1941 (Brownfield, 2008).
3

Columbia Basin Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment

An Eocene-Oligocene composite reservoir unit was defined, but not quantitatively assessed for 

CO2 storage in the Columbia Basin. This unit includes two SAUs: a relatively shallow SAU, at drilling 

depths between 3,000 and 13,000 ft, and a deeper SAU, at drilling depths greater than 13,000 ft. Potential 

reservoir units include siliciclastic rocks of the Swauk, Manastash, Chumstick, Roslyn, and Wenatchee 

Formations (Brownfield, 2008) (fig. 2). The extent of the storage formations is defined by the geologic 

characteristics of the reservoirs and overlying Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group and the subsurface 

physical properties of CO2 as described in Burruss and others (2009) and Brennan and others (2010). The 

following section describes the SAUs defined in the Columbia Basin. The ubiquitous and thick (as much 

as 15,000 ft) Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group was evaluated as a potential seal for the underlying

Eocene-Oligocene composite reservoir unit. Preliminary investigations, described in the following 

section, suggest that, though isolated, relatively impermeable components of the Columbia River Basalt 

Group might exist that effectively seal small regions. However, their areal extents have not been 

sufficiently mapped to the scale of the entire Columbia Basin. Therefore, according to the standards of the 

CO2 assessment methodology, the Columbia River Basalt Group is not considered an adequate regional 

seal (Brennan and others, 2010). However, the potential for some areas of the basalt to serve as local 

sealing units led to the nonquantitative assessment by the USGS CO2 assessment project.
4

Figure 1. Map of the Pacific Northwest and Columbia Basin, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Study area for the 

Columbia Basin of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, outlined in red, is modified from Brownfield (2008). Columbia 

Basin boundary, outlined in blue, is modified from Wilson and others (2008, their fig. 1; see also Campbell, 1989). 

Extent of Columbia River Basalt Group from Reidel and others (2002).
5 

Figure 2. Generalized stratigraphic column of geologic units in the Columbia Basin, Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho. Storage assessment units consist of a reservoir (red) and regional seal (blue). Wavy lines indicate 

unconformable contacts, and gray sections represent stratigraphic gaps. The Johns Creek flow described in the 

text exists just below the N1-R2 (normal-reverse) magnetostratigraphic boundary of the Grande Ronde Basalt 

(Reidel, 1983). Modified from figure 5 of Brownfield (2008) and figure 2.3 of Reidel and others (2002). 
6

Eocene-Oligocene Composite Standard SAU C50050101 and Eocene-Oligocene Composite Deep 

SAU C50050102

Prospective rocks for CO2 storage older than the Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group generally 

include Eocene and Oligocene, thick (approximately 7,000 ft on average, locally as much as 25,000 ft), 

arkosic sandstone, mudstone, and conglomerate interbedded with coal and volcanic rocks (Campbell, 

1989; Campbell and Reidel, 1994; Tennyson, 1995; Reidel and others, 2002; Golder Associates, Inc., 

2007; Brownfield, 2008) (figs. 2 and 3). Siliclastic rocks include the Swauk, Manastash, Roslyn, 

Chumstick, and Wenatchee Formations (Campbell, 1989; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 

2008) (fig. 2). The lower and middle Eocene Swauk Formation comprises as much as 15,000 ft of 

predominantly medium- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone interbedded with mudstone and 

conglomerate in the Yakima fold belt region (Campbell, 1989; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007). The Swauk 

Formation also includes andesitic to rhyolitic volcaniclastic rocks (Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008). 

The upper part of the Swauk Formation is interpreted to be age equivalent to the Manastash Formation 

(Newman, 1977; Johnson, 1985; Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008), which locally comprises as much as 

3,200 ft of fine- to medium-grained arkosic sandstone, mudstone, and coal (Lewellen and others, 1985; 

Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2008). The Manastash Formation is unconformably overlain 

by the Miocene Columbia River Basalt Group (Brownfield, 2008). The contact between the Manastash 

Formation and the Columbia River Basalt Group is located south of the Yakima River near Roslyn 

(Brownfield, 2008). The Swauk Formation is unconformably overlain by the Eocene Teanaway 

Formation, which predominantly includes basalt and volcaniclastic strata as much as approximately 8,000 

ft thick (Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008). The middle and upper Eocene Roslyn Formation overlies 

the Teanaway Formation (Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008). The Roslyn Formation achieves a 

thickness of as much as 8,500 ft and predominantly includes fine- to medium-grained arkosic sandstone, 

mudstone, and coal (Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008). The middle and upper Eocene Chumstick 

Formation comprises medium- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone with mudstone, conglomerate, and 

siliceous tuff of uncertain thickness in the Columbia Basin (Campbell, 1989; Brownfield, 2008). Much of 

the Oligocene fill of the Columbia Basin includes volcanic and volcaniclastic strata. However, the 

Oligocene Wenatchee Formation, which unconformably overlies the middle and upper Eocene Roslyn 

and Chumstick Formations, includes as much as 1,000 ft of quartz-rich sandstone and mudstone 

(Campbell, 1989; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2008). These Eocene-Oligocene siliciclastic 

strata are generally interpreted to represent nonmarine deposition in alluvial-fan, fluvial, and lacustrine 

environments (Brownfield, 2008). The Eocene-Oligocene predominantly siliciclastic strata are overlain by 

ubiquitous and thick (as much as 15,000 ft) continental tholeiitic flood basalts of the Miocene Columbia 

River Basalt Group (Tolan and others, 1989; Reidel and others, 2002; Brownfield, 2008) (fig. 2). The 

Columbia River Basalt Group is tentatively considered a potential sealing unit for the underlying EoceneOligocene composite reservoir. The CO2 assessment methodology requires a regional fine-grained seal, 

usually mudstone, for any potential SAU (Brennan and others, 2010). A number of studies exist on 

natural gas storage (Reidel and others, 2002) and mineral carbonation sequestration in basalts (McGrail 

and others, 2006); however, few studies address whether or under what conditions basalts act as an 

effective seal for supercritical CO2 storage in sedimentary basins (Blondes and Covault, 2011). 

Basalt has a wide range of porosity and permeability, depending on the intraflow structure (for 

example, vesicular flow boundaries, colonnade, and entablature), depth, and degree of mineralization 

within the pore space. Flow boundaries can have porosities up to 80 percent, and the vertical colonnade 

joints can have permeabilities greater than 1 darcy (D) (U.S. Department of Energy, 1988; Reidel and 

others, 2002; Petford, 2003). However, the smaller and more randomly oriented cooling joints of the 

entablature intraflow zones can have permeabilities less than 1 microdarcy (μD) (U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1988; Reidel and others, 2002; Petford, 2003). Moreover, burial metamorphism to prehnitepumpellyite facies can decrease porosity to approximately 2 percent (Neuhoff and others, 1999). 

Hydrologic studies show chemical isolation of water between flow entablatures (Reidel and others, 2002), 
7

suggesting this particular intraflow zone might serve as an effective seal. Therefore, for the Columbia 

Basin, we interpret that a sufficient regional seal would require at least one entablature within a single 

flow spanning the entire SAU.

Some units within the Columbia River Basalt Group cover nearly the entire basin. For example, 

the informal Sentinel Bluffs member of the Grande Ronde Basalt extends greater than 70,000 km2 (Reidel 

and others, 2002). However, no single, relatively impermeable entablature has been measured to cover 

nearly the same area. The areal extent of the McCoy Canyon flow entablature of the Sentinel Bluffs 

member (fig. 2) is documented over less than 1,000 km2 (Reidel and others, 2002), which is only 

approximately 1 percent of the area of the entire Columbia Basin. The informal Center Creek member of 

Reidel and others (2002) and Johns Creek flow of the Grande Ronde Basalt (fig. 2) in Eastern Oregon and

Washington and Western Idaho are composed almost entirely of entablature, but no single unit is mapped 

that is greater than approximately 20 km wide (Reidel, 1983). Therefore, according to the standards of the 

CO2 assessment methodology, the Columbia River Basalt Group is not considered an adequate regional 

seal (Brennan and others, 2010). Isolated, relatively impermeable entablature units might exist that 

effectively seal small regions, but their areal extents have not been sufficiently mapped to the scale of the 

entire Columbia Basin.

In light of the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the Columbia River Basalt Group as a regional 

seal, the Eocene-Oligocene composite section is nonquantitatively assessed for CO2 storage potential in

the Columbia Basin. Two SAUs are evaluated: (1) Eocene-Oligocene Composite Standard SAU 

C50050101, between 3,000- and 13,000-ft subsurface depth, and (2) Eocene-Oligocene Composite Deep 

SAU C50050102, below 13,000-ft subsurface depth (fig. 3). The SAU boundaries are defined by the 

3,000- and 13,000-ft drilling depths from a thickness map of the Columbia River Basalt Group overlying 

the Eocene-Oligocene sedimentary rocks (Reidel and others, 2002) and eight wells provided by Golder 

Associates, Inc. (Paul Lapointe, oral commun., January 2011). The ranges of total storage formation 

thickness for the SAUs were determined from an isopach map of Tertiary sedimentary rocks underlying 

the Columbia River Basalt Group (Campbell, 1989). Brownfield (2008) summarized that the porosities of

the Eocene Swauk, Roslyn, and Chumstick Formations range from approximately 4 to 22 percent;

porosity of the Oligocene Wenatchee Formation ranges from 6 to 20 percent (Lingley and Walsh, 1986; 

Walsh and Lingley, 1991; Myer, 2005; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007). Johnson and others (1997) 

reported very low porosity and permeability measurements from two samples of the Chumstick Formation 

(1.2-percent porosity and 0.02-millidarcy (mD) permeability and 6.8-percent porosity and 0.8-mD 

permeability). One measurement from the Chumstick Formation from Western Oregon indicated 200-mD 

permeability (Nehring Associates Inc., 2010). A relatively small proportion of greater than 1-D 

permeability is interpreted for the shallow Eocene-Oligocene Composite SAU C50050101 based on 

gravel-size sediment representing alluvial-fan and fluvial deposition (Brownfield, 2008). Porosity and 

permeability values are interpreted to diminish with depth (Ehrenberg and others, 2009). Accordingly, we 

reduced the porosity range of the Eocene-Oligocene Composite Deep SAU C50050102 by approximately 

50 percent of the range of the shallower Eocene-Oligocene Composite SAU C50050101. Brownfield 

(2008) warns that potential Eocene-Oligocene reservoirs contain volcaniclastic grains that have been 

altered to clays and zeolites, thereby potentially reducing porosity and permeability.

The Columbia Basin lacks water-quality information for the Eocene-Oligocene Composite SAUs. 

However, data of Reidel and others (2002) show that groundwater in the overlying Columbia River Basalt 

Group is not suitable for irrigation or domestic use because its fluoride concentrations exceed the 

drinking-water standard by greater than 10 fold. Moreover, Reidel and others (2002) noted that other 

constituents in groundwater of the Columbia River Basalt Group can exceed State of Washington waterquality standards, including those for iron and manganese.

In addition to aforementioned uncertainties regarding the seal integrity of the Columbia River 

Basalt Group, proximity to the Cascadia subduction zone might pose a seismic hazard capable of 

compromising seals as a result of great earthquakes (Petersen and others, 2008). Great Cascadia 

earthquakes are interpreted to recur on average every 500 years based on paleoseismic studies of coastal 
8

subsidence and tsunami deposits (for example, Atwater and Hemphill-Haley, 1997; Petersen and others, 

2008). USGS calculations of peak ground accelerations in the Columbia Basin have a 2-percent 

probability of exceeding approximately 0.1 to 0.3 times the force of gravity in a 50-year interval (Petersen 

and others, 2008).

The SAUs within the Columbia Basin were not quantitatively assessed; therefore, residual- and 

buoyant-trapping pore volumes were not calculated. However, Reidel and others (2002) identify a 

relatively large area (approximately 9,000 mi2) dominated by anticlinal structural traps in the Yakima fold 

belt region. Moreover, Johnson and others (1997) suggested that the Eocene-Oligocene sedimentary rocks 

in the Columbia Basin represent unknown, potentially large natural gas reservoirs, which might also store 

large volumes of CO2.
9

Figure 3. Map of the U.S. Geological Survey storage assessment boundaries for the Eocene-Oligocene Composite 

Storage Assessment Units in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Study area for the Columbia Basin of Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho outlined in red is modified from Brownfield (2008). Grid cells (one square mile) represent 

counts of wells derived from ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have penetrated the 

composite reservoir top.
10

Western Oregon-Washington Basins

By Jacob A. Covault, Steven M. Cahan, Christina A. DeVera, Philip A. Freeman, and Celeste D. Lohr

Prospective basins for CO2 storage in the onshore part of Western Oregon and Washington fall 

within the central to western parts of the U.S. Geological Survey National Oil and Gas Assessment 

(NOGA) Western Oregon and Washington Province, which extends southward from the Canadian border 

to the Klamath Mountains of Oregon (Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 4). These basins include, from north to 

south, Puget, Willapa, Astoria, Nehalem, and Willamette Basins (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007), which 

generally reside within the approximately 17,000-mi2 Western Oregon and Washington Conventional Gas 

Assessment Unit (50040101) and the Tertiary Marine Gas Assessment Unit (50040201) of Brownfield 

(2011) (fig. 4). The eastern boundary of the prospective region for CO2 sequestration is the Cascade 

Range (fig. 4). The western boundary is generally delineated, from north to south, by the highlands of the 

Olympic Mountains and the 3-mile limit of Washington and Oregon State waters (fig. 4). The Puget, 

Willapa, Astoria, Nehalem, and Willamette Basins are elliptical depocenters (Snavely and Wagner, 1980; 

Armentrout and Suek, 1985; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 4) that initiated during 

the Eocene in the forearc region of a collisional continental margin across which the Juan de Fuca oceanic 

plate has been subducting beneath North America (Atwater, 1970). During the Eocene, oblique plate 

convergence promoted the development of strike-slip faults and rapidly subsiding basins in Western 

Oregon and Washington (Johnson, 1985). The Cascade Range and volcanic arc initiated in the late 

Eocene and early Oligocene and was followed by Miocene emplacement of flood basalt of the prolific 

Columbia River Basalt Group (Tolan and others, 1989; Reidel and others, 2002; Brownfield, 2011). The 

Olympic Mountains and Coast Ranges were uplifted during the Oligocene to Pliocene (Brownfield, 

2011).

Greater than 15,000 ft of Tertiary arkosic sandstone and mudstone with coal were deposited in 

discrete depocenters of Western Oregon and Washington, including the Puget, Willapa, Astoria, Nehalem, 

and Willamette Basins (Armentrout and Suek, 1985; Johnson and others, 1997; Golder Associates, Inc., 

2007; Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 4). Forearc deposition is interpreted to have occurred in a variety of 

depositional settings, from nonmarine fluvial to deep-marine submarine-fan environments (Brownfield, 

2011). Brownfield (2011) noted that Eocene sandstone formations are promising reservoirs because they 

contain smaller proportions of volcanic detritus, and as a result, they are less susceptible to deterioration 

of reservoir quality by alteration of unstable volcanic lithic grains (Armentrout and Suek, 1985; Snavely, 

1987). The provenance of the arkosic sand grains was the Idaho batholith of eastern Oregon and 

Washington (Brownfield, 2011). Eocene reservoir rocks include the Raging River Formation, the Puget 

Group, and the Skookumchuk, Cowlitz, Tyee, and Spencer Formations (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; 

Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 5). Figure 5 shows additional, time-equivalent Eocene formations, which were not 

assessed for CO2 storage. Reservoir-prone formations are interpreted to be regionally overlain by several 

thousand feet of tuffaceous mudstone of the upper Eocene Cowlitz and upper Eocene and Oligocene 

Keasey, Lincoln Creek, and Blakeley Formations, which constitute a regional seal (Armentrout and Suek, 

1985).

Some gas was produced from the Eocene rocks near Bellingham, Wash., and approximately 

12,000 barrels of oil and associated gas were produced near Aberdeen, Wash. (fig. 4). The only current 

hydrocarbon production in Western Oregon and Washington is from the Mist gas field in northwest 

Oregon (fig. 4) where from 1979 to 2008, 65 billion cubic ft of gas (BCFG) had been produced from the 

Eocene Cowlitz Formation. The U.S. Geological Survey assessed both undiscovered conventional oil and 

gas and undiscovered continuous (unconventional) gas in the Western Oregon and Washington Province, 

resulting in estimated mean volumes of 2,214 BCFG of undiscovered natural gas and 15 million barrels of 

oil (MMBO) (Brownfield, 2011). The mean estimated volume of gas for the Western Oregon and 
11

Washington Conventional Gas Assessment Unit (50040101) is 454 BCFG, with an estimated mean size of 

the largest reported gas field of 85 BCFG (Brownfield, 2011). The assessed mean undiscovered volume of 

oil in the Tertiary Marine Gas Assessment Unit (50040201) is 15 MMBO, with estimated means of 22 

BCFG for associated gas and 1 million barrels of natural gas liquids. The mean size of the largest 

expected oil field is 9 MMBO.

Western Oregon-Washington Basins Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource Assessment 

An Eocene composite reservoir unit is assessed for CO2 storage in the Puget, Willapa, Astoria, 

Nehalem, and Willamette Basins (fig. 6). Prospective reservoirs include the Raging River Formation, 

Puget Group, and Skookumchuck, Cowlitz, Tyee, and Spencer Formations (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; 

Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 5). The extent of the reservoir storage units is defined by the geologic 

characteristics of the reservoirs and overlying seals and the subsurface physical properties of CO2 as 

described in Burruss and others (2009) and Brennan and others (2010). The following section describes 

the composite SAU defined in the Puget, Willapa, Astoria, Nehalem, and Willamette Basins of Western 

Oregon and Washington (figs. 4 and 6). The SAU is similar in areal extent and includes similar reservoirs 

as the USGS NOGA Western Oregon and Washington Conventional Gas Assessment Unit (50040101) 

and the southern part of the Tertiary Marine Gas Assessment Unit (50040201) of Brownfield (2011).
12

Figure 4. Locations of selected Tertiary basins in Western Oregon and Washington and approximate locations of 

oil, gas, and coal fields. Isopach contours of Tertiary rocks are in thousands of feet. Study area for the Western 

Oregon and Washington Basins outlined in red, modified from Brownfield (2011). Western Oregon and 

Washington Conventional Gas Assessment Unit (50040101) is highlighted in dark blue (Brownfield, 2011). 

Tertiary Marine Gas Assessment Unit (50040201) is highlighted in green (Brownfield, 2011). Modified from 

Braislin and others (1971), Snavely and Wagner (1980), Armentrout and Suek (1985), and Brownfield (2011).
13

Figure 5. Generalized columns of stratigraphic units in Western Oregon and Washington. Storage assessment units consist of a reservoir (red) and regional 

seal (blue). Wavy lines indicate unconformable contacts, and gray sections represent stratigraphic gaps. Modified from figures 5 and 8 of Brownfield 

(2011).
14

Figure 6. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) storage assessment unit (SAU) boundary for the Eocene Composite 

SAU in Western Oregon and Washington. Study area for the Western Oregon and Washington Basins outlined in 

red is modified from Brownfield (2011). Grid cells (one square mile) represent counts of wells derived from 

ENERDEQ well database (IHS Energy Group, 2011) that have penetrated the reservoir formations tops.
15

Eocene Composite SAU C50040101

Prospective rocks for CO2 storage generally include Eocene, thick (approximately 5,000 ft on 

average) arkosic sandstone and mudstone interbedded with coal (Armentrout and others, 1983; 

Armentrout and Suek, 1985; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2011) (figs. 4 and 5). Eocene 

reservoir rocks include the Raging River Formation, Puget Group, and Skookumchuk, Cowlitz, Tyee, and 

Spencer Formations (Armentrout and others, 1983; Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2011) (fig. 

5). The northern part of the Puget Basin includes the lower and middle Eocene Raging River Formation, 

which achieves a thickness of as much as 3,000 ft of fine-grained sandstone, mudstone, and conglomerate 

(Armentrout and others, 1983; Johnson and O’Connor, 1994; Brownfield, 2011). The middle and upper 

Eocene Puget Group is present throughout the Puget Basin where it overlies the Raging River Formation

in the north (Brownfield, 2011). South of the Puget Basin and in the Willapa Basin, the middle and upper 

Eocene Skookumchuck and Cowlitz Formations regionally achieve a thickness of as much as 9,500 ft

(Armentrout and others, 1980; Brownfield, 2011). The Cowlitz Formation in the Willapa Basin is 

predominantly siltstone with arkosic sandstone and coal (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 

2011). The Cowlitz Formation is also present in the Astoria and Nehalem Basins where it comprises 

approximately 4,200 ft of fine- to medium-grained arkosic and lithic sandstone with conglomerate and 

mudstone (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007; Brownfield, 2011). In the Willamette Basin, the middle and 

upper parts of the Tyee and Spencer Formations are prospective reservoirs (Brownfield, 2011). The Tyee 

Formation can reach a thickness of as much as 6,000 ft of sandstone (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007). 

Locally, the Spencer Formation unconformably overlies the Tyee Formation and includes a thickness of 

as much as 2,000 ft of arkosic sandstone and mudstone with coal (Brownfield, 2011). The Spencer 

Formation is interpreted to be widespread in the subsurface of the Willamette Basin and to be temporally 

equivalent to the upper part of the Cowlitz Formation (Brownfield, 2011). Overlying these Eocene 

prospective reservoir formations are regionally extensive sealing units, which include several thousand 

feet of tuffaceous mudstone of the upper Eocene Cowlitz and upper Eocene and Oligocene Keasey, 

Lincoln Creek, and Blakeley Formations (Armentrout and Suek, 1985) (fig. 5). The reservoir formations 

are interpreted to generally represent deposition in nonmarine fluvial and shallow-marine deltaic 

environments (Brownfield, 2011). The overlying sealing formations are interpreted to represent regionally 

extensive deposition of fine-grained, arc-derived, tuffaceous sediment as a result of forearc-basin 

subsidence and consequent shoreline transgression (Armentrout and Suek, 1985; Snavely, 1987; 

Brownfield, 2011). Brownfield (2011) highlights additional prospective Eocene reservoirs and petroleum 

systems in the Coos Bay region of southern Oregon and the Olympic Peninsula of Washington (fig. 4). 

However, prospective strata are too shallow (less than 3,000-ft drilling depth) and (or) lack a regional 

sealing formation, which precludes their assessment for CO2 sequestration following the methodology of 

Burruss and others (2009) and Brennan and others (2010).

The Eocene Composite SAU (C50040101), including the Raging River Formation, Puget Group, 

and Skookumchuck, Cowlitz, Tyee, and Spencer Formations, is a potential reservoir unit for CO2 storage 

in Western Oregon and Washington between 3,000- and 11,000-ft subsurface depth (fig. 6). The SAU 

boundary is defined by the 3,000-ft drilling depth to the top of Eocene sandstone-dominated stratigraphic 

units from nearly 250 well penetrations (IHS Energy Group, 2010; Paul Lapointe, Golder Associates, Inc., 

oral commun., January 2011). The majority of the well data (greater than 200 wells) were provided by 

Golder Associates, Inc. (Paul Lapointe, oral commun., January 2011). Stratigraphic picks by Golder 

Associates, Inc. (2007) from wells in the Willamette Basin indicate more Tyee Formation relative to 

Spencer Formation. However, Brownfield (2011) reported that the Spencer Formation is widespread in 

the subsurface of the Willamette Basin and the Tyee Formation is more common to the south, in the Tyee 

and Coos Bay Basins (Armentrout and others, 1983). The middle Eocene Tyee and upper Eocene Spencer 

Formations are interpreted to be broadly equivalent for the purposes of this assessment. 

The range of total storage formation thickness for the SAU was determined from an isopach map 

of Tertiary sedimentary rocks of Western Oregon and Washington (Snavely and Wagner, 1980) and 
16

regional subsurface stratigraphic correlations of Armentrout and others (1983). The thickness of the net 

porous interval was constrained from net sandstone thickness measurements in the Puget, Willapa, 

Astoria, and Nehalem Basins provided by Golder Associates, Inc. (Paul Lapointe, oral commun., January 

2011). Golder Associates, Inc. (2007) indicates porosity of the Eocene sedimentary rocks generally is less 

than 40 percent with a median range from approximately 10 to 30 percent. Permeability generally is less 

than 4 D, with a median range from approximately 1 to 195 mD (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007). 

Reservoir-quality measurements from a single well in the Astoria and Nehalem Basins indicate 25-percent 

porosity and 200-mD permeability in Eocene rocks (Nehring Associates Inc., 2010). 

Limited water-quality data from the southern Puget Basin indicate relatively saline groundwater 

(greater than 10,000 ppm of total dissolved solids) (Breit, 2002), and Whitehead (1994) indicates 

relatively saline groundwater in pre-Miocene rocks west of the Cascade Range. However, the sparse, 

limited distribution of water-quality data does not preclude the possibility of local fresh groundwater.

Proximity to the Cascadia subduction zone might pose a seismic hazard capable of compromising 

seals as a result of great earthquakes (Petersen and others, 2008). Great Cascadia earthquakes are 

interpreted to recur on average every 500 years based on paleoseismic studies of coastal subsidence and 

tsunami deposits (for example, Atwater and Hemphill-Haley, 1997; Petersen and others, 2008). USGS 

calculations of peak ground accelerations in Western Oregon and Washington have a 2-percent 

probability of exceeding approximately 0.3 to 1.0 times the force of gravity in a 50-year interval (Petersen 

and others, 2008). 

The minimum and most likely buoyant-trapping pore volumes were determined using methods 

described in Brennan and others (2010) and Blondes and others (2013). Maximum buoyant-trapping pore 

volume was calculated from the product of (1) the combined areas of oil and gas fields shown in figure 5 

of Brownfield (2011), the Mist gas field and the Grays Harbor-Ocean City oil field, which overlap the 

Eocene Composite SAU (C50040101), and reservoirs of producing fields (Nehring Associates, Inc., 

2010); (2) the maximum net-porous-interval thickness from productive Astoria, Nehalem, and Willapa 

Basins; and (3) the maximum porosity (Brennan and others, 2010).

Acknowledgments

We thank the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership and especially Lorraine 

Hwang (California Institute for Energy and Environment) and Paul Lapointe (Golder Associates, Inc.) for 

their help in supplying geologic information used in this review. We thank Michael Brownfield (U.S. 

Geological Survey) for consultation prior to the publication of NOGA assessments for Western Oregon 

and Washington. The content and presentation of this report benefited greatly from the technical reviews 

of Rosalind Helz and Michael Brownfield.

References Cited

Armentrout, J.M., Hull, D.A., Beaulieu, J.D., and Rau, W.W., 1983, Correlation of Cenozoic stratigraphic 

units of western Oregon and Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oil 

and Gas Investigation 7, 90 p.

Armentrout, J.M., and Suek, D.H., 1985, Hydrocarbon exploration in western Oregon and Washington: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, p. 627–643.

Atwater, Tanya, 1970, Implications of plate tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution of western 

North America: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 3513–3536.

Atwater, B.F., and Hemphill-Haley, Eileen, 1997, Recurrence intervals for great earthquakes of the past 

3,500 years at northeastern Willapa Bay, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1576, 

108 p.

Blondes, M.S., Brennan, S.T., Merrill, M.D., Buursink, M.L., Warwick, P.D., Cahan, S.M., Cook, T.A., 

Corum, M.D., Craddock, W.H., DeVera, C.A, Drake, R.M., II, Drew, L.J., Freeman, P.A., Lohr, C.D., 
17

Olea, R.A., Roberts-Ashby, T.L., Slucher, E.R., and Varela, B.A., 2013, National assessment of 

geologic carbon dioxide storage resources—Methodology implementation: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013–1055, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1055/.

Blondes, M.S., and Covault, J.A., 2011, The effectiveness of basalt as a seal for CO2 storage in 

sedimentary basins [abs.]: NETL Carbon Capture and Sequestration Conference, Pittsburgh, Penn., 

May 2–5.

Braislin, D.B., Hastings, D.D., and Snavely, P.D., Jr., 1971, Petroleum potential of western Oregon and 

Washington and adjacent continental margin: Region 2, in Cram, I.H., ed., Future petroleum provinces 

of the United States—Their geology and potential, Volume 1: Tulsa, Okla., American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists, p. 229–238. 

Breit, G.N., 2002, Produced waters database: U.S. Geological Survey online database, accessed March 23, 

2011, at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat/.

Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic 

assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2010–1127, 31 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/.

Brownfield, M.E., 2008, Cretaceous-Tertiary Composite Total Petroleum System and geologic 

assessment of undiscovered gas resources of the Eastern Oregon and Washington Province, chap. 2 of

U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Oregon and Washington Assessment Team, Geologic assessment of 

undiscovered gas resources of the Eastern Oregon and Washington Province: U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS–69–O, 43 p., CD-ROM.

Brownfield, M.E., 2011, Total petroleum systems and geologic assessment of undiscovered hydrocarbon 

resources of the Western Oregon and Washington Province, chap 2 of: U.S. Geological Survey Oil 

Shale Assessment Team, Geologic assessment of undiscovered hydrocarbon resources of the Western 

Oregon and Washington Province: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–X, 100 p.

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F., Herkelrath, 

W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and Schenk, 

C.J., 2009, Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for evaluation of carbon dioxide 

storage: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1035, 81 p., accessed March 22, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/.

Campbell, N.P., 1989, Structural and stratigraphic interpretation of rocks under the Yakima fold belt, 

Columbia Basin, based on recent surface mapping and well data, in Reidel, S.P., and Hooper, P.R., eds., 

Volcanism and tectonism in the Columbia River flood-basalt province: Geological Society of America 

Special Paper 239, p. 209–222.

Campbell, N.P., and Reidel, S.P., 1994, Further exploration for gas warranted in Columbia Basin: Oil & 

Gas Journal, v. 92(18), p. 127–130.

Ehrenberg, S.N., Nadeau, P.H., and Steen, Ø., 2009, Petroleum reservoir porosity versus depth: Influence 

of geological age: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 93, no. 10, p. 1281–1296.

Golder Associates, Inc., 2007, Sedimentary basin database for Washington and Oregon States for the 

geologic carbon dioxide assessment: California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related 

Environmental Research Program, CEC-500-2007-003, 50 p., accessed September 14, 2012, at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-003/CEC-500-2007-003.PDF.

Hammer, A.A., 1934, Rattlesnake Hills gas field, Benton County, Washington: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 18, p. 847–859.

IHS Energy Group, 2011, ENERDEQ U.S. well data: IHS Energy Group, online database available from 

IHS Energy Group, 15 Inverness Way East, D205, Englewood, CO 80112, U.S.A., accessed January 

20, 2011.

Johnson, S.Y., 1985, Eocene strike-slip faulting and nonmarine basin formation in Washington, in Biddle, 

K.T., and Christie-Blick, Nicholas, eds., Strike-slip deformation, basin formation, and sedimentation: 

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 37, p. 283–302.
18

Johnson, S.Y., and O’Connor, J.T., 1994, Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and provenance of the Raging 

River Formation (early? and middle Eocene), King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 2085–A, p. A1–A33.

Johnson, S.Y., Tennyson, M.L., Lingley, W.S., Jr., and Law, B.E., 1997, Petroleum geology of the State 

of Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1582, 40 p.

Lewellen, D.G., Walker, C.W., and Cushman, C.E., 1985, Geology and coal potential of the TaneumManastash area, Kittitas County, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources 

Open-File Report 83–9, 79 p., 2 pls.

Lingley, W.S., Jr., and Walsh, T.J., 1986, Issues relating to petroleum drilling near the proposed highlevel nuclear waste repository at Hanford: Washington Geologic Newsletter, v. 14, no. 3, p. 10–19.

McFarland, Carl, 1979, History of oil and gas exploration in the State of Washington: Washington 

Geologic Newsletter, v. 7, no. 3, p. 1–6.

McGrail, B.P., Schaef, H.T., Ho, A.M., Chien, Yi-Ju., Dooley, J.J., and Davidson, C.L., 2006, Potential 

for carbon dioxide sequestration in flood basalts: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, no. B12201, 

p. 1–13.

Myer, Larry, 2005, Sedimentary basin database for Washington and Oregon States for the geologic 

carbon dioxide assessment: Redmond, Wash., Golder Associates, Inc., West Coast Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB) topical report, 52 p.

Nehring Associates, Inc., 2010 [data current as of December 2008], The significant oil and gas fields of 

the United States: Colorado Springs, Colo., Nehring Associates, Inc., database available from Nehring 

Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 1655, Colorado Springs, CO 80901, U.S.A.

Neuhoff, P.S., Fridriksson, Thráinn., Arnórsson, Stefán., and Bird, D.K., 1999, Porosity evolution and 

mineral paragenesis during low-grade metamorphism of basaltic lavas at Teigarhorn, eastern Iceland: 

American Journal of Science, v. 299, p. 467–501.

Newman, K.R., 1977, Palynologic biostratigraphy of some early Tertiary nonmarine formations in central 

and western Washington [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 9, no. 7, 

p. 1113.

Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., 

Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 

2008, Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1128, 61 p.

Petford, Nick, 2003, Controls on primary porosity and permeability development in igneous rocks: 

Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 214, p. 93–107. 

Reidel, S.P., 1983, Stratigraphy and petrogenesis of the Grande Ronde Basalt from the deep canyon 

country of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 94, p. 519–542.

Reidel, S.P., Fecht, K.R., Hagood, M.C., and Tolan, T.L., 1989, The geologic evolution of the Central 

Columbia Plateau, in Reidel, S.P., and Hooper, P.R., eds., Volcanism and tectonism in the Columbia 

River flood-basalt province: Geological Society of America Special Paper 239, p. 247–264.

Reidel, S.P., Tolan, T.L., Hooper, P.R., Beeson, M.H., Fecht, K.R., Bentley, R.D., and Anderson, J.L.,

1989, The Grande Ronde Basalt, Columbia River Basalt Group—Stratigraphic descriptions and 

correlations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, in Reidel, S.P., and Hooper, P.R., eds., Volcanism and 

tectonism in the Columbia River flood-basalt province: Geological Society of America Special Paper 

239, p. 21–53.

Reidel, S.P., Johnson, V.G., and Spane, F.A., 2002, Natural gas storage in basalt aquifers of the Columbia 

Basin, Pacific Northwest U.S.A.—A guide to site characterization: Richland, Wash., Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, PNNL–13962, 277 p.

Snavely, P.D., Jr., 1987, Tertiary geologic framework, neotectonics, and petroleum potential of the 

Oregon-Washington continental margin, in Scholl, E.W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, J.G., eds., Geology 

and resource potential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins, 
19

Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources, Earth 

Science Series, v. 6, p. 305–335.

Snavely, P.D., Jr., and Wagner, H.C., 1980, Generalized isopach map of Tertiary sedimentary rocks, 

western Oregon and Washington and adjacent continental margin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 80–889, scale 1:1,000,000.

Swanson, D.A., Wright, T.L., Camp, V.E., Gardner, J.N., Helz, R.T., Price, S.M., Reidel, S.P., and Ross, 

M.E., 1980, Reconnaissance geologic map of the Columbia River Basalt Group, Pullman and Walla 

Walla quadrangles, southeast Washington and adjacent Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series Map I–1139, 1:250,000.

Tennyson, M.E., 1995, Eastern Oregon–Washington Province (005), in Gautier, D.L., Dolton, G.L., 

Takahashi, K.I., and Varnes, K.L., eds., 1995 national assessment of United States oil and gas 

resources—Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS–30 (Release 2), 1 CD–ROM.

Tolan, T.L., Reidel, S.P., Beeson, M.H., Anderson, J.L., Fecht, K.R., and Swanson, D.A., 1989, Revisions 

to the estimates of the areal extent and volume of the Columbia River Basalt Group, in Reidel, S.P., and 

Hooper, P.R., eds., Volcanism and tectonism in the Columbia River flood-basalt province: Geological 

Society of America Special Paper 239, p. 1–20.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988, Site characterization plan reference repository location, Hanford Site, 

Washington: U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/RW–0164, v. 2, 702 p.

Walsh, T.J., and Lingley, W.S., 1991, Coal maturation and the natural gas potential of western and central 

Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open-File Report 91–2, 26 p.

Whitehead, R.L., 1994, Ground water atlas of the United States—Idaho, Oregon, Washington: U.S. 

Geological Survey HA 730–H, accessed August 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_h/.

Wilson, S.W., Dyman, T.S., and Condon, S.M., 2008, Evaluation of well-test results and the potential for 

basin-center gas in the Columbia Basin, central Washington, chap. 4 of U.S. Geological Survey Eastern 

Oregon and Washington Assessment Team, Geologic assessment of undiscovered gas resources of the 

Eastern Oregon and Washington Province: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–O, 12

p., CD-ROM.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20121024d