# Talk:Touchet Formation

This is my first nomination of an article as a Good Article. Please grade vigorously. 
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 

Somebody ought to put a "Star" category rating on this article, ..with Nobody, ..Anywhere, ...and Anyhow having anything to say about it, except other ideas for improvements, additions, or other connected-ness to other articles.   (a comment from the extremeSW SonoranDesert of SWestern Arizona).. -Mmcannis 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Touchet Formation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I am starting the review of this article. I should have some initial comments in a day or two. Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question. The type location was observed by Flint who? At the moment this needs addressing because it just hangs a bit (with no wikilink to help either) Flint is not a full description of the person. Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)  - Clarified in article: Richard Foster Flint, a geology prof from Yale - reference is book Cataclysms on the Columiba by John Eliot Allen, Marjorie Burns, Scott Burns.
The article keeps swapping from 'BCE' to 'years ago' to 'B.C.E.' some consistancy is needed. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Made consistent.
Several repeated wikilinks. Not critical but could be reduced. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Repeated links removed.
Needs coordinates. (A bot has tagged the article for coord missing). Would be good to have the coordinates in but not essential for GA. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Coordinates added
Walla Walla river valley section becomes difficult to follow. Specifically what is a 'Gardena Terrace rhythmite' Polargeo (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - clarified this - please evaluate it to determine whether more work is required.
Unit conversions are needed. Miles and feet etc. must also be given in SI per MOS:CONVERSIONS. Polargeo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC) -unit conversions added
At the moment it will not pass GA criteria (1b) based on some of the points outlined above.
I have added a citation needed tag (therefore criteria 2b). This may be covered by the inline ref at the end of the paragraph but if so this ref could be doubled up. - citation added and tag removed.
One thing you may wish to consider is an infobox but certainly not essential for GA - None of the Geology infoboxes (virtually all footers) appear to meet the need. I'll have to do some research on how to create and infobox.
It appears to be a little undercategorized at present but not so that it would fail GA. - added a category - sedimentology.
These issues should be fairly minor so I will put the article on hold for a week. Nice work with the pictures and I hope you can make the edits. Feel free to ask for any clarifications. Polargeo (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent comments. Sorry about the delay in responding. In the process of moving - and again demonstrating that "three moves equal one fire". I hope to get internet service back and be able to edit again shortly.
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about the infobox. It is simply a suggestion not a criteria for GA. Good work on the article but still a few things to do with the BCE outstanding. There is still one "years ago" left in the article but more importantly how can you change years ago to BCE without altering the actual numbers by around 2000? I haven't got the references so I don't know what the value should be, but it should be made as accurate as possible. Polargeo (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right - I didn't get all the dates fixed - and the BCE to current day conversion will require a look up (or an alternate reference). Alas, since I'm still in mid-move (with all my books in boxes) it make take a day or three to find some of the references. If you can be patient that long, I'll get it fixed. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Incorporated
New materials were identified while trying to identify the best-current-understanding dates. I've added them to the section titled Source of the Touchet Formation. Overall I now beleive the dates reflect current published literature.
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. I will try and get this all checked in the next 2 days. Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have gone through and used the most recent source you gave for the dating of the Missoula floods and transfered dates to BCE. Was a bit of a mess but I think I am there. Please feel free to check. I will wait for you to have a look at the comments of Awickert (a real geologist unlike myself) before completing the GA assessment Polargeo (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: Awickert (talk)
I'm going to start going through it; it might take me quite a while as my free time has been dwindling. Currently:

In the lede, "rhythmites" are described as soils, but the image looks like they are unaltered deposits, and before it mentions them to be sands and gravels; is this characterization in error? ("Soil" is also used in the alt text.) Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You caught an embarassing gaffe - you can tell I'm not a geologist. Changed to sediments. Williamborg (Bill) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries; that's what I'm here for.. those darn technicalities. Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
In the "type locality" section, it is written, "Once the mechanism for formation of these phenomena was correctly identified..."; I think at least another sentence is warranted here, because the whole saga of J Harlan Bretz shows that the identification of a mechanism was far from trivial. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This turned out to be a very substantial observation - I've crafted some material (see Talk:Touchet_Formation#Parked_text_for_possible_inclusion_in_main_article) in an effort to address the inherent question. Polargeo correctly points out this material doesn't fit here, so I'll summarize and figure out a separate place to park it. Williamborg (Bill) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Rewrote Discovery and interpretation to clarify this. Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great; this was actually a significant event in the evolution of geological thought and the understanding of the effects of glaciers in North America, so it will certainly find a place somewhere. I'm impressed at how rapidly you write; I'm barely finding the time to keep up with anything here these days! Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
In the "formation" section, "Lake Lewis, which formed in the lowlands of the Mid-Columbia." — the Mid-Columbia what? Is a word missing? Or am I just ignorant of the naming in this area? Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Converted to Columbia Basin Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's all for the moment; I've signed the above so we don't get lost in case you want to talk about a particular point. I've only read to the top of the bullet-list of constraints on flood periodicity. Also, in my real life, I have worked / do work on sediment transport and depositional mechanics, among other things, and while that part of the story is pretty straightforward here, I could help to flesh that out especially if you want to take this all the way to FAC. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments. I'll find some time and work them tonight, if possible. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 16:06, 16 November 2009
"My son, beware of these things. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh."
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the issues, and for the appropriate quote :-). One more:

4. Do you know where this unit crops out? From reading through the article and the refs, it looks like Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. That might be something useful to mention in a couple of places, including the lede. Also, if I am wrong about those three states, my categorization of the article into the "Geology of [state]" categories will need to be undone.
Thanks again, Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, I’ll need your help in the form of a geologist’s interpretation. Here are the facts & opinions as I understand them:
The Missoula Floods deposited sediment throughout the basin of the Columbia River from the Canadian border south. Examples include:
Flood bars and sediment-filled side valleys in Idaho’s Rathdrum Prairie region
Giant flood bars (e.g., West Bar & Crescent Bar near the outlet of Moses Coulee, Pendant Bar on the Snake River, Priest Rapids bar downstream of the Saddle Mountains water gap, Cold Creek Bar & Gable Mountain Bar on the Hanford Site, all the way down to Alameda Ridge in Portland)
Large-scale current ripples (e.g., the floor of former Lake Missoula, Washtucna Coulee, lower Snake River, Hanford Reach).
Sedimentation in the various glacial lakes (e.g., Lake Missoula, Lake Columbia) & transient lakes (e.g., Lake Lewis, Lake Condon, Lake Allison)
Sedimentation in the glacial lakes like Lake Columbia have a significantly different character than sedimentation in transient lakes like Lake Lewis.  Lake Columbia shows annual varves between floods, while Lake Lewis does not.
The literature is rather thin on some of the sedimentation. For example the literature records ice rafted erratics in Lake Condon and some very impressive ones well up Lake Allison, but does not appear to document studies of the sedimentation in valleys like the John Day River Valley or the Willamette River Valley.  (Cautionary note: This gap may alternately be a result of my limited knowledge of the literature and inability to search it properly.)
Part of the gap in discussion is probably the result of the historical discovery process. The Touchet beds are quite distinctive in their multiple, relatively uniform layers and attracted early study as they were part of the early Bretz controversy. Other sedimentation areas apparently did not capture the eye of the early geologists in the same way.
In the literature the Touchet Formation appears limited to the sediment formations which were deposited in Lake Lewis.
Lake Lewis lay primarily in Washington, although that part of Lake Lewis which submersed the Walla Walla drainage extended into Oregon.  See figure (Last 2009) added to inform discussion.
I interpret "unit crop out" to be locations where the specific feature is visible (hill tops, slopes, road cuts and other excavations, river banks, etc.). Touchet Beds are only visible in the Washington Columbia Basin and a small part of Oregon Columbia Basin.
Hence I’d propose that the "unit crop out", as identified in this article, be Washington & Oregon, but not Idaho.
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I agree with you, and I'll go through the rest of the article right now. I'll be back soon, I'm guessing GA will be no problem, Awickert (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Penultimate copy edit completed
I've just (I hope) completed all of the actions that were listed here. Major changes with this edit include: 

Figured out how to add an info box & added it (per discussion above)
Modified the unit crop out to Washington and Oregon (per discussion above)
Shifted the pictures around so they're better positioned (yes, i know that's on my screeen only and depends on setting/browser etc.)
Reviewed and cleaned up the references (major change was fixing the sloppiness of reference to Waitt's work (e.g.,  <ref name=Waitt80/> versus <ref name=Wiatt80/> )
retitled one of the headers to better fit the actual text flow
fxed some spelling
I'd like to think this is ready for the final GA blessing. Judges? 
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Having some issues connecting the dots (and what the ref says) for the Clague paper in the list of timing constraints. Other than that so far looks good, but unfortunately won't be able to finish looking at it tonight for that reason... getting too sleepy, Awickert (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am extremely busy now in real life, moving home, so I will check in every 2 days. I will wait for Awickert to confirm he is happy or not (and get some sleep) before taking a final look. Polargeo (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry for how long it's taken me to get through this. I read through the papers and made some changes, and dealt with minor issues through the rest of the article (parts that I hadn't touched yet). I think that it passes all of the GA-review criteria. Thank you for your patience. Awickert (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been happy with the state of the article for a while, my initial suggestions were all met. I wanted to see what was added with the second review and it looks good. Awickert was able to give it the expert eye that I could not. I am happy that the article is now GA standard. Well done with this. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - my first good article - at least the first one in which I contributed more than 50% of the material. Great experience.
Very much appreciate the hard work, contributions and the patience of Polargeo and Awickert. Very instructive process - learned how to do several things I'd never done before in Wiki-technique - and I learned a fair bit about geology as well.
A Thousand Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lacking the more popular texts, I'll resort to a serious literature search to see if we can derive a range of dates. Here are a range of prospective sources: 

Brian F. Atwater; Periodic floods from glacial Lake Missoula into the Sanpoil arm of glacial Lake Columbia, northeastern Washington; Geology August 1984, v. 12, p. 464-467, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1984)12<464:PFFGLM>2.0.CO;2
John J. Clague, Rene Barendregt, Randolph J. Enkin, and Franklin F. Foit, Jr.; Paleomagnetic and tephra evidence for tens of Missoula floods in southern Washington; Geology March 2003, v. 31, p. 247-250, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0247:PATEFT>2.0.CO;2
John Shaw, Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Brian Sawyer, Claire Beaney, Jerome-Etienne Lesemann, Alberto Musacchio, Bruce Rains, and Robert R. Young ;
The Channeled Scabland: Back to Bretz?; Geology July 1999, v. 27, p. 605-608, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0605:TCSBTB>2.3.CO;2
Charlotte A. Brunner, William R. Normark, Gian G. Zuffa, and Francesca Serra; Deep-sea sedimentary record of the late Wisconsin cataclysmic floods from the Columbia River; Geology May 1999, v. 27, p. 463-466, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0463:DSSROT>2.3.CO;2
C. Lopes and A. C. Mix; Pleistocene megafloods in the northeast Pacific ;Geology January 2009, v. 37, p. 79-82, doi:10.1130/G25025A.1
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated materials and fixed some of the date problems.
Cheers - Williamborg (Bill)


### A history of controversy
#### Bretz’s cataclysmic flood
In the summer of 1922, and for the next seven years, Bretz conducted field research of the Columbia River Plateau. He had been interested in unusual erosion features in the area since 1910 after seeing a newly published topographic map of the Potholes Cataract. Bretz coined the term Channeled Scablands in 1923 to describe the area near the Grand Coulee, where massive erosion had cut through basalt deposits.  Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This view, which was seen as arguing for a Catastrophic explanation of the geology, was against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited.  The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories.   Another geologist at the meeting, J.T. Pardee, had worked with Bretz and had evidence of an ancient glacial lake that lent credence to Bretz's theories.   Bretz defended his theories and this kicked off an acrimonious forty year debate over the origin of the Scablands. Both Pardee and Bretz continued their research over the next 30 years, collecting and analyzing evidence that led him toidentify Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Flood and creator of the Channeled Scablands.


#### Wiatt’s multiple flood hypothesis
Wiatt extended Bretz argument, arduing for a sequence of multiple floods — 40 or more.  Wiatt's proposal was based mainly on analysis from glacial lake bottom deposits in Ninemile Creek and the flood deposits in Burlingame Canyon. HIs most compelling argument was that the Touchet bed deposits from two successive floods were found to be separated by two layers of volcanic ash (tephra) with the ash separated by a fine layer of windblow dust deposits, located in a thin layer located between sediment layers ten rhythmites below the top of the Touchet beds (see picture). The two layers of volcanic ash are separated by 1-10 cm of airborne nonvolcanic silt. The tephra is comprised of Mount St. Helens ash that fell in eastern Washington. By analogy, since there were 40 layers with comparable characteristics at Burlingame Canyon, Wiatt argued they all could be considered to have similar seperation in deopsition time.


#### Continuing controversy
The controversy whether the Channeled Scabland landforms were formed mainly by multiple periodic floods or by a single grand-scale cataclysmic flood from late Pleistocene Glacial Lake Missoula or from an unidentified Canadian source continued through 1999.  Shaw’s team reviewed the sedimentary sequences of the Touchet beds and concluded that the sequences do not automatically imply multiple floods separated by decades or centuries. Rather, they proposed that sedimentation in the Glacial Lake Missoula basin was the result of jökulhlaups draining into Lake Missoula from British Columbia to the north.  Further, Shaw’s team proposed the scabland flooding might have partially originated from an enormous subglacial reservoir that extended over much of central British Columbia, particularly including the Rocky Mountain Trench, which may have discharged by several paths including one through Lake Missoula. This discharge, if occurring concurrently with the breach of the Lake Missoula ice dam, would have provided significantly larger volumes of water.  Further, Shaw and team proposed that the rhythmic Touchet beds are the result of multiple pulses, or surges, within a single larger flood.
In 2000, Komatsu’s team simulated the floods numerically with a 3-dimensional hydraulic model. They based the discharge rate from the Spokane Valley–Rathdrum Prairie immediately downstream of Glacial Lake Missoula on a number of previous estimates which placed the maximum discharge of 17 × 106m3/s and total amount of water discharged (2184 km3) equal to the maximum estimated volume of Lake Missoula. Neglecting erosion effects, their simulated water flow was based on modern-day topography. Their major findings were that the calculated depth of water in each flooded location except for the Spokane Valley–Rathdrum Prairie was shallower than the field evidence showed. For example, their calculated water depth at the Pasco Basin–Wallula Gap transition zone is about 190 m, significantly less than the 280–300 m flood depth indicated by high-water marks. They concluded that a flood of ~106m3 could not have made the observed high-water marks.
In comment on the Komatsu analysis, Atwater’s team observed that there is substantial evidence for multiple large floods, including evidence of mud cracks and animal burrows in lower layers which were filled by sediment from later floods. Further, evidence for multiple flood flows up side arms of Glacial Lake Columbia spread over many centuries have been found. They also pointed out that the discharge point from Lake Columbia varied with time, originally flowing across the Waterville Plateau into Moses Coulee but later, when the Okanagon lobe blocked that route, eroding the Grand Coulee to discharge there as a substantially lower outlet. The Komatsu analysis does not evaluate the impact of the considerable erosion observed in this basin during the flood (or floods) – hence the assumption that the flood hydraulics can be modeled using modern-day topography is an area which warrants further consideration – earlier narrower constrictions at places such as Wallula Gap and through the Columbia Gorge could be expected to produce higher flow resistance and correspondingly higher floods.


#### The current understanding
The dating for Wiatt’s proposed separation of layers into sequential floods has been supported by subsequent paleomagnetism studies, which supports a 30-40 year interval between depositions of Mount St. Helens’ ash, and hence flood events, but do not preclude an up to 60 year interval.   Offshore deposits on the bed of the Pacific at the mouth of the Columbia River include 120 meters of material deposited over a several thousand year period that corresponds to the period of multiple scabland floods seen in the Touchet Beds. Based on Wiatt's identifiecation of 40 floods, this would give an average separation between floods of 50 years.
Although these sources provide support for temporal separation of floods, they do not definitively identify the source of water for the floods, which remains an open question. 

This is great stuff but is clearly a new article. I would welcome a single paragraph summarizing this, as it seems to be very important, with a link to the new main article. I also think there must be other articles on catastrophic floods on wikipedia that this text could go into so best to check around before creating one. Polargeo (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Turned out to be a very fascinating topic, but you are right - the bulk of this belongs somewhere else. I'll do some research and figure out where it goes - perhaps the Missoula Floods article - perhaps a new article. Also need to do more research to understand the current literature, since it appears the two schools may still be debating whether the floods all originated from Glacial Lake Missoula or some originated from Candadian sources. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact I think this does need to be included for GA so we are not there yet but as I mentioned definitely only a summary paragraph with a link to the major article and not in its full detail here. Also answering Awickert's points (not necessarily incorporating them all) before rating as GA. This is near to being GA so I will keep it on hold but I don't want to do this indef. Polargeo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Polargeo; the material that Williamborg put together here is fantastic (and was fantastically-quickly assembled) but the majority should go somewhere else. This is a very interesting topic in North American geology, so maybe we could even create some kind of template box to link the related articles together. I have not finished combing through the article for GA-status, but it seems to be very close if not already there. Awickert (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Added to the Missoula Flood discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 03:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)