DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Columbia South Shore

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Columbia South Shore Archaeological Resources Protection Plan For Columbia South Shore Adopted April 3, 1996 Effective May 3, 1996 Ordinance No. 169953 and 169954 Amended June 5, 1996 Effective September 1, 1996 Ordinance No. 170225 Amended August 4, 2004 Effective September 3, 2004 Ordinance No. 178567 Bureau of Planning Portland, Oregon September 2004 (minor technical edits made March 2018) Portland City Council Vera Katz, Mayor Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner Charlie Hales, Commissioner Gretchen Kafoury, Commissioner Michael Lindberg, Commissioner Portland Planning Commission Richard Michaelson, President Doug van Dyk, Vice President Steve Abel Rick Holt Sarah ffitch Bruce Fong Paul Schuback Ruth Scott Noell Webb FRONT COVER: Wapato (left), example of Chinookan house (center), camas (right). Source: Oregon Council for the Humanities, The First Oregonians, (Portland, Oregon: 1991) Archaeological Resources Protection Plan For Columbia South Shore Adopted April 3, 1996 Effective May 3, 1996 Ordinance No. 169953 and 169954 Amended June 5, 1996 Effective September 1, 1996 Ordinance No. 170225 Amended August 4, 2004 Effective September 3, 2004 Ordinance No. 178567 Bureau of Planning Charlie Hales, Commissioner-In-Charge David C. Knowles, Planning Director Robert E. Clay, Chief Planner, City Planning Project Staff Robert H. Glascock, AICP, Senior Planner Catherine Lawson, Economic Analyst Geoff Sauncy, Graphic Illustrator Michelle Seward, Staff Assistant Kim Stinson, Staff Assistant Kimberly A. White, Staff Assistant Eric Engstrom, Staff Assistant September 2004 Acknowledgements Cultural Resources Advisory Committee Stark Ackerman, for Columbia Corridor Association Rick Holt, Holt & Haugh Allen Lee, East Portland District Coalition Louie Pitt, Jr., Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tim Simmons, Barbara Creel and Janis Searles, for Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Dennis Sivers, T & W Equipment Co. Beverly Youngman and Robert Kentta, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Cultural Resources Technical Committee Dr. Kenneth Ames, Portland State University Judith Basehore-Alef, Basehore/Alef Consulting Kathleen Gardipee, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Dr. Richard Hanes, U. S. Bureau of Land Management Kathryn Beaumont, City Attorney’s Office Connie Lively, Portland Development Commission Doug MacCourt and Paul Shirey, Portland Office of Transportation Sun Noble, Portland Bureau of Water Works Lynda Waski-Walker, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Lawrence Watters, Columbia River Gorge Commission With Substantial Assistance from David V. Ellis, Association of Oregon Archaelogists Scott Stuemke, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Portland Bureau of Planning Charlie Hales, Commissioner of Public Safety David Knowles (Planning Director) Robert H. Glascock (Project Manager) Michelle Seward, Eric Engstrom, Catherine Lawson, Kim Stinson Kimberly A. White (word processing) Geoff Sauncy (graphics) Consultant Team Rick Minor, Robert Musil and Kathryn Toepel, Heritage Research Associates John Lawes and Tom Kuper, David J. Newton Associates Fred Small, SRI/Shapiro Cathy Whitlock, University of Oregon Funding for the Bureau of Planning’s participation in the development of this plan came from the City of Portland’s General Fund and several Interagency agreements (with PDC, BES, PDOT and Water). TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION i Glossary of Terms ii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose 1 Archaeological Resources Defined 1 Relation to Other Resource Planning Projects 3 Plan Area in Transition 7 Areawide Inventory 9 Use of Archaeological Site Records 10 Public Review Process (For Original Plan) 11 Update Process 13 Organization of the Plan 14 CHAPTER 2: POLICY FRAMEWORK 16 Federal 16 State 17 Tribal 21 Local 22 Summary 24 CHAPTER 3: GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY 27 Oligocene to Late Pliocene Period 27 Early to Late Pleistocene Period 28 Latest Pleistocene Period 28 Holocene Period 29 Summary 32 CHAPTER 4: NATIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 34 Regional Influences on Pre-Settlement Vegetation Communities 34 Pre-Settlement Plant Communities 36 Current Vegetation Conditions 38 Probable Native Plant Assemblages 39 Plant Use by American Indians 42 Summary 43 CHAPTER 5: ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY 47 Language 48 Sociopolitical Organization 49 Chinookan Groups in the South Shore Area 50 Chinookan Villages in the South Shore Vicinity 56 Subsistence Resource 57 Variation in Resource Availability 57 Settlement Patterns 60 Population 60 Trade 63 Cultural Position of the Chinookan Peoples 64 Summary 65 CHAPTER 6: ONGOING TRIBAL INTERESTS 67 Participating Oregon Tribes 67 Heritage Values of Indigenous Peoples 73 Tribal Identity and Place 74 Oral Tradition in American Indian Culture 75 Seven Generations 76 Site Preservation Today 76 Summary of Tribal Interests 77 CHAPTER 7: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 79 Previous Archaeological Research 79 Land Use Model 81 Summary of Field Inventories 1996 through 2003 86 Updated Management Recommendations 89 Technical Review 92 CHAPTER 8: GOAL 5 INVENTORY SITES 94 Introduction 94 Resource Functions and Values 95 Site Inventory (Sensitivity Areas) 98 Discussion Format 99 Area 1: Historic Lakes 103 Area 2: River's Edge 105 Area 3: Columbia Slough 107 Inventory Decisions 109 Summary 113 CHAPTER 9: ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSEQUENCES 114 Conflicting Uses 115 The ESEE Process 134 General ESEE Consequences of Permitting, Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses 134 Economic Analysis 137 Social Analysis 163 Environmental Analysis 178 Energy Analysis 185 Site Specific ESEE Analysis (By Sensitivity Areas) 190 Area 1: Historic Lakes 191 Area 2: River's Edge 201 Area 3: Columbia Slough 215 Conflict Resolution and Recommendations 225 CHAPTER 10: PROTECTION PLAN MEASURES 227 Introduction 227 General Summary of Goal 5 Process 227 Program Options 230 Conclusion 233 Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 235 Amendments to Title 33, Planning and Zoning 238 Amendments to Official Zoning Maps 272 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Plan Boundary Map 1 Figure 2: Ground Disturbance Status Map 15 Figure 3: Comprehensive Plan and Base Zoning Map 25 Figure 4: Existing Goal 5 Overlay Zones Map 26 Figure 5: Cross-section of South Bank of Columbia River 31 Figure 6: Neerchakioo and Nechacolee Villages on Lewis and Clark's Map 55 Figure 7: Annual Cycle of Indian Activities 78 Figure 8: Reconstructed Environmental Features Map 83 Figure 9: Archaeological Testing Status Map 88 Figure 10: Sensitivity Areas Map 101 Figure 11: Quarter Sections Map 102 Figure 12: Resource Values of Goal 5 Sensitivity Areas in Columbia South Shore 113 Figure 13: Diagram of the Three-Dimensional Element of Archaeological Resource Sites 117 Figure 14: Depths Comparison Between Archaeological Methods and Typical Ground Disturbance Activities in the Columbia South Shore Plan District 119 Figure 15: Conflicting Uses Permitted by Zoning in the Columbia South Shore Plan District 120 Figure 16: Summary of Most Likely Conflicting Uses in the Columbia South Shore Plan District and Ground Disturbance Activities Associated with Each Use 133 Figure 17: Decision Steps to Identify Archaeological Sites Within a Sensitivity Area 136 Figure 18: Conflict Resolution Summary Table for the Historic Lakes Sensitivity Area 200 Figure 19: River’s Edge Sensitivity Area: Cross Section and Plan View of Potential Ground Disturbance Activities 201-202 Figure 20: Conflict Resolution Summary Table for the River's Edge Sensitivity Area 214 Figure 21: Conflict Resolution Summary Table for the Columbia Slough Sensitivity Area 224 Figure 22: Conflict Resolution Summary Table for the Columbia South Shore Plan District 226 Figure 23: Summary of Conclusions Reached During ESEE Analysis 229 Figure 24: Properties Affected by Archaeological Resources Protection Plan 234 Figure 25: Decision Steps to Determine Level of Protection (Management Measures) for Archaeological Sites 237 Figure 515-6*: Example of aa Archaeological Resource Site and Respective Transition Area 253 * Note: Out of sequence number refers to zoning code designation. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Flood Data in the Portland Basin 32 Table 2: Native Use Plants in the Columbia South Shore 45-46 Table 3: Foods of the Lower Columbia Indians 57-58 Table 4: Lower Columbia Village Populations as Seen by Lewis and Clark 61-62 Table 5: Major Attributes Influencing an Industry's Location Decision 142 Table 6: Summary of General Economic Consequences 161 Table 7: Summary of General Social Consequences 177 Table 8: Summary of General Environmental Consequences 184 Table 9: Summary of General Energy Consequences 189 PLAN APPENDICES (under separate cover) Appendix A: City Council Directives Appendix B: Adopted Statewide Planning Goal 5 Appendix C: Goal 5 Administrative Rule Appendix D: Warm Springs Tribal Ordinance 68 Appendix E: Site Discovery in the Columbia South Shore: A Review of Modeling, Sampling, Survey, and Discovery Techniques Appendix F: Correspondence Appendix G: Implementing Ordinances Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Columbia South Shore September 2004 Summary and Recommendation This report is intended to satisfy a Statewide Planning Goal 5 requirement to protect archaeological resource areas in the City. City Council adopted the Cultural [Archaeological] Resources Protection Plan for Columbia South Shore on April 3, 1996. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) approved this plan as fulfilling a required work task for periodic review. City Council amended this plan in 1996 and 2004,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Information to Users
    Edward P. Dozier: A history of Native- American discourse in anthropology. Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Norcini, Marilyn Jane. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 19:56:29 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187248 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript ,has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete mannscript and there are mjssjng pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiD indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and contim1jng from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.
    [Show full text]
  • CTUIR Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and Lower
    Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Cultural Resources Protection Program Report prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee CAYUSE, UMATILLAANDWALLA WALLA TRIBES November 16, 2020 CONFEDERATED TRIBES of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 46411 Timíne Way PENDLETON, OREGON TREATY JUNE 9, 1855 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prepared by Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources Cultural Resources Protection Program 46411 Timíne Way Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee November 16, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Umatilla (Imatalamłáma), Cayuse (Weyíiletpu), and Walla Walla (Walúulapam) peoples, who comprise the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), have traveled throughout the west, including to the lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers and to Willamette Falls, to exercise their reserved treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather the traditional subsistence resources known as the First Foods. They have been doing so since time immemorial, an important indigenous concept which describes a time continuum that spans from ancient times to present day. In post- contact years, interactions expanded to include explorers, traders and missionaries, who brought with them new opportunities for trade and intermarriage as well as the devastating circumstances brought by disease, warfare, and the reservation era. Through cultural adaptation and uninterrupted treaty rights, the CTUIR never ceased to continue to travel to the lower Columbia and Willamette River and falls for seasonal traditional practice and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • On the External Relations of Purepecha: an Investigation Into Classification, Contact and Patterns of Word Formation Kate Bellamy
    On the external relations of Purepecha: An investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation Kate Bellamy To cite this version: Kate Bellamy. On the external relations of Purepecha: An investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation. Linguistics. Leiden University, 2018. English. tel-03280941 HAL Id: tel-03280941 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03280941 Submitted on 7 Jul 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/61624 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Bellamy, K.R. Title: On the external relations of Purepecha : an investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation Issue Date: 2018-04-26 On the external relations of Purepecha An investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation Published by LOT Telephone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht Email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: Kate Bellamy. ISBN: 978-94-6093-282-3 NUR 616 Copyright © 2018: Kate Bellamy. All rights reserved. On the external relations of Purepecha An investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation PROEFSCHRIFT te verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis and Clark National Historical Park National Park Service
    LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 61 ark Lewis and Clark National Historical P On December 10, 1805, members of the Corps the explorers. In addition to the fort, the Corps This fort exhibit, of Discovery began constructing a fort on the of Discovery also constructed a salt cairn near built in 1955, burned down in 2005. Park Netul River, now called the Lewis and Clark the present-day city of Seaside, Oregon, to staff and volunteers River, near present-day Astoria, Oregon. Fort extract salt from ocean water to help preserve immediately began Clatsop, named after the local Clatsop Indian and flavor meat for the return journey. work on a new tribe, was completed in a couple of weeks, and Upon leaving the fort on March 23, 1806, exhibit, which will be the party spent three and a half months there Lewis gave the structure and its furnishings to dedicated by the close of 2006. before commencing their return journey back Clatsop Chief Coboway. Over time, the fort east. The members of the expedition traded deteriorated and the land was claimed and sold with the Clatsop people, who were friendly to by various Euro-American settlers who came to Note: When interpreting the scores for natural resource conditions, recognize that critical information upon which the ratings are based is not always available. This limits data interpretation to some extent. For Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, 59 percent of the information requirements associated with the methods were met. RESOURCE CATEGORY CURRENT CULTURAL RESOURCES
    [Show full text]
  • Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon) Etymologies
    Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon) etymologies Henry Zenk, Tony Johnson, Sarah Braun Hamilton Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon The purpose of this contribution is to make available our research to date on sources of Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon, hereafter CW) lexical items. The reference lexicon consists of simplex items drawn from the CW dictionary database of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon. Most of these items are from word lists, sentences, and texts representing speakers of that community; a smaller subset is from sources documenting other CW varieties of the lower Columbia River region. We have identified probable sources for 680 of the 737 total items collated, divided between Chinookan (282), local Salishan (58), Chinookan and/or Salishan (15), Nootka Jargon (22), other indigenous sources (26), English (137), French (125), and multiple sources (15). The only comprehensive collations of CW etymologies published to date are Hale (1846) and Gibbs (1863), both of which document CW primarily in its lower Columbia “cradle.” Gibbs incorporated Hale and other earlier compilations, using his own mid-nineteenth century experience of CW to single out words in use during his own time; rare or unusual words were labeled by him as such. It is striking how much of this mid-nineteenth century lexicon may also be seen in the CW lexicon independently compiled by us from speakers of the Grand Ronde Reservation Community of northwestern Oregon, circa 1877-1950 (Jacobs 1928, 1928-29, 1932, 1936; Mercier 1941; Hajda 1977; Zenk 1980-83; Johnson 1998). Additional matches are presented by a smaller supplementary vocabulary we have compiled to collate CW words unfamiliar to us from Grand Ronde, but which can reliably be ascribed to Native usage elsewhere on the lower Columbia (Demers, Blanchet, St.
    [Show full text]
  • American Anthropological Association
    Supplement to AMERICAN AN'rHROPOLOGIST, Volume 39o. 2 NTTh1BER 47 1937 MEMOIRS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION TRIBAL DISTRIBUTION IN OREGON BY JOEL V. BERREMAN PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION MENASHA, WIS., U.S.A. Entered as second class matter at Menasha, Wis. Accorded the special rate of postage provided for in Paragraph 4, Section 429 P. L. & R., authorized August 22, 1922. Issued quarterly during the months o January, April, July, and October. Printed by George Banta Publishing Company, 450 Ahnaip Street, Menasha, Wisconsin. Subscription only by membershipin American Anthropological Association (annual dues $6.00). OFFICERS of the AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION President: NELS C. NELSON, American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. First Vice-President (1937).' MATTHEW W. STIRLING, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Second Vice-President (1937-38): EDWARD SAPIR, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Third Vice-President (1937-39): DIAMOND JENNESS, Victoria Memorial Museum, Ottawa, Canada. Fourth Vice-President (1937-40): JOHN M. COOPER, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Secretary: FRANK M. SETZLER, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. Treasurer: CORNELIUS OSGooD, Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven,onn. Editor: LESLIE SPIER, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Associate Editors: M. J. HERSKOVITS, Northwestern University, Evanston, III.; CORNELIUS OSGOOD, Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.; F. H. H. ROBERTS, JR., Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.; FRANK G. SPECK, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. Executive Committee: The President, Secretary, Treasurer, Editor (ex officio), and HER- BERT J. SPINDEN, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N.Y.; A. M. TOZZER, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; JOHN M.
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section U
    U-2 (Reconnaissance aircraft) (Not Subd Geog) U.S. 29 U.S. Bank Stadium (Minneapolis, Minn.) [TL686.L (Manufacture)] USE United States Highway 29 BT Stadiums—Minnesota [UG1242.R4 (Military aeronautics)] U.S. 30 U.S. Bicycle Route System (May Subd Geog) UF Lockheed U-2 (Airplane) USE United States Highway 30 UF USBRS (U.S. Bicycle Route System) BT Lockheed aircraft U.S. 31 BT Bicycle trails—United States Reconnaissance aircraft USE United States Highway 31 U.S.-Canada Border Region U-2 (Training plane) U.S. 40 USE Canadian-American Border Region USE Polikarpov U-2 (Training plane) USE United States Highway 40 U.S. Capitol (Washington, D.C.) U-2 Incident, 1960 U.S. 41 USE United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.) BT Military intelligence USE United States Highway 41 U.S. Capitol Complex (Washington, D.C.) Military reconnaissance U.S. 44 USE United States Capitol Complex (Washington, U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 44 D.C.) USE U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 50 U.S. Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, Fla.) U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 50 UF Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, UF Kröpcke, U-Bahnhof (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 51 Fla.) Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 51 BT Post office buildings—Florida U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 52 U.S. Coast Guard Light Station (Jupiter Inlet, Fla.) BT Subway stations—Germany USE United States Highway 52 USE Jupiter Inlet Light (Fla.) U-Bahnhof Lohring (Bochum, Germany) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon 97233-5910 • PH
    Department of Community Services J6,..Multnomah Land Use Planning Division www.multco.us/landuse ..._.county 1600 SE 1901h Avenue, Portland Oregon 97233-5910 • PH. (503) 988-3043 • Fax (503) 988-3389 AGENCY REVIEW Attached is a site review permit application (as submitted). Please evaluate and comment on these materials so that we can incorporate your feedback into our completeness review. This is not a substitute for public notice of a complete application. Once we determine the application is complete an additional notice will be mailed (with any revised information), offering you the opportunity to comment or informing you of a date for public hearing, as appropriate. National Scenic Area Site Review To: Gorge Commission/Cultural Advisory Committee U.S. Forest Service NSA Office Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation Nez Perce Tribe Y akama Indian Nation State Historic Preservation Office Oregon Department of Transportation PSU/Institute for Natural Resources Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife From: George Plummer, Planner Case File: T3-2017-9784 Location: No Site Address Tax Lot 600, Section 14C, Township 1 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Alternative Account #R945140110 Proposal: Request a Conditional Use and NSA Site Review Permit for a Disposal Sites for Spoil Materials from Public Road Maintenance Activities per MCC 38.7350. Your written comments are needed no later than 4:00 p.m., January 3, 2018. Zoning: Gorge Special Forest (Special Management Area) National Scenic Area reso'urces that may be impacted by this project include: ~ Key Viewing Areas D Cultural Resource ~ Wetland/Stream/Lake Buffer ~ Sensitive Wildlife Habitat ~ Rare Plants D Deer/Elk Wintering Range D Historic Uses/Structures D Natural Area D Adjacent to Recreational Uses Enclosures 0:\CASES - T Cases\20 17\T3\T3-20 17-9784 ODOT NSA CU\agency review.doc t2!06/2017 11:57 ' M 000001 18280 Lana llse Planning Division 00 11 KATH'l"' eo:::-qr,iT TC-T'·(0:::- \ ·:1:\?f!d.nn 1 ! 1-l •,i L:.
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section U
    U-2 (Reconnaissance aircraft) (Not Subd Geog) U.S. 31 U.S. Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, Fla.) [TL686.L (Manufacture)] USE United States Highway 31 UF Cleveland Post Office Building (Punta Gorda, [UG1242.R4 (Military aeronautics)] U.S. 40 Fla.) UF Lockheed U-2 (Airplane) USE United States Highway 40 BT Post office buildings—Florida BT Lockheed aircraft U.S. 41 U.S. Coast Guard Light Station (Jupiter Inlet, Fla.) Reconnaissance aircraft USE United States Highway 41 USE Jupiter Inlet Light (Fla.) U-2 (Training plane) U.S. 44 U.S. Consulate Terrorist Attack, Banghāzī, Libya, 2012 USE Polikarpov U-2 (Training plane) USE United States Highway 44 USE Benghazi Consulate Attack, Banghāzī, Libya, U-2 Incident, 1960 U.S. 50 2012 BT Military intelligence USE United States Highway 50 U.S. Department of Education Building (Washington, Military reconnaissance U.S. 51 D.C.) U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 51 USE Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of USE U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 52 Education Building (Washington, D.C.) U-Bahnhof Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 52 U.S. Embassy Bombing, Nairobi, Kenya, 1998 UF Kröpcke, U-Bahnhof (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 54 USE United States Embassy Bombing, Nairobi, Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) USE United States Highway 54 Kenya, 1998 U-Bahn-Station Kröpcke (Hannover, Germany) U.S. 58 (Va. and Tenn.) U.S. General Post Office (New York, N.Y.) BT Subway stations—Germany USE United States Highway 58 (Va. and Tenn.) USE James A. Farley Building (New York, N.Y.) U-Bahnhof Lohring (Bochum, Germany) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Raoul Zamponi
    DOI: 10.26346/1120-2726-112 First-person n and second-person m in Native America: a fresh look Raoul Zamponi Macerata, Italy <[email protected]> Appendix A: Tables 1-8 Table 1. Reconstructed proto-languages of American language families FAMILY REFERENCE(S) NOTES Algic Proulx (1984, 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994, 2004) Arawakan Matteson (1972), Payne (1991) Arawan Dixon (2004) Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit Leer (2010), Nikolaev (2014) Aymaran Emlen (2017) Cf. Hardman (1978) for the reconstruction of various personal designators of Proto-Aymaran. Barbacoan Curnow & Liddicoat (1998) Boran Seifart & Echeverri (2015) Bororoan Camargos (2013) Caddoan Taylor 1963 Cariban Girard (1971a) Meira (2002) is specifically dedicated to the reconstruction of the Proto- Cariban personal pronouns. Gildea (1998) presents the reconstruction of the Proto- Cariban personal markers used with nouns and verbs. Chapakuran Angenot-de Lima (1997) Chibchan Wheeler (1972), Constenla Umaña (1981), Holt (1986) Chimakuan Powell (1974) Chocoan Constenla Umaña & Margery Peña (1991) Chumashan Klar (1977) Guahiboan Christian & Matteson (1972) Guaicuruan Viegas Barros (2013a) Huavean Suárez (1975) Huitotoan Aschmann (1993) Italian Journal of Linguistics, 29.2 (2017) Online appendix (received March 2017) Raoul Zamponi Iroquoian Julian (2010) Jicaquean Campbell & Otrogge (1980) Kakua-Nukak Epps & Bolaños (2017) Kalapuyan Shipley (1970) Kamakanan Martins (2007) Keresan Miller & Davis (1963) Kiowa-Tanoan Hale (1967), Sutton (2014) Lencan Arguedas Cortés (1988) Maiduan Ultan (1964) Cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Language Range Mapping for the Study of Language Diversity
    Modern Language Range Mapping for the Study of Language Diversity Hannah J. Haynie1,2 Michael C. Gavin2 1University of Colorado 2Colorado State University Corresponding Author: Hannah J. Haynie email: [email protected] tel: +1-303-735-8219 August 29, 2019 Abstract Research regarding the ecology and evolution of languages has advanced rapidly in recent years, increasing demand for digital spatial location data for individual languages. However, language mapping and geographic information system (GIS) data creation has not kept pace with this demand. To date, language range information is typically contained in small, private regional datasets, paper maps and published illustrations, or in a very small number of global digital datasets. Each of these sources has advantages and disadvantages, and though these considerations may not be apparent to all data users, they can have significant impacts on research results. Mapping of language ranges is a particularly complex problem in regions where colonial histories have had dramatic effects on language diversity, language locations, and the relative representation of colonial and indigenous perspectives. Here we consider how the creation of digital language range data can better meet the needs of researchers interested in language diversity, discuss how better standards for data quality and transparency can be implemented for digital language range maps, and present a map of North American language ranges that has resulted from the use of these procedures and standards. Introduction Language maps have been published for centuries in paper books and atlases (e.g. Franquelin 1684; Wenker et al. 1926; Goddard 1996; Asher & Moseley 2007). Recently, demand has grown for digital map products representing the locations and ranges of languages.
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section W
    W., D. (Fictitious character) Scott Reservoir (N.C.) Wa maathi language USE D. W. (Fictitious character) W. Kerr Scott Lake (N.C.) USE Mbugu language W.12 (Military aircraft) Wilkesboro Reservoir (N.C.) Wa no Na no Kuni USE Hansa Brandenburg W.12 (Military aircraft) William Kerr Scott Lake (N.C.) USE Na no Kuni W.13 (Seaplane) William Kerr Scott Reservoir (N.C.) Wa-re-ru-za River (Kan.) USE Hansa Brandenburg W.13 (Seaplane) BT Reservoirs—North Carolina USE Wakarusa River (Kan.) W.29 (Military aircraft) W Motors automobiles (Not Subd Geog) Wa wa erh USE Hansa Brandenburg W.29 (Military aircraft) BT Automobiles USE Suo na W.A. Blount Building (Pensacola, Fla.) NT Lykan HyperSport automobile Wa Zé Ma (Character set) UF Blount Building (Pensacola, Fla.) W particles USE Amharic character sets (Data processing) BT Office buildings—Florida USE W bosons Waada Island (Wash.) W Award W-platform cars USE Waadah Island (Wash.) USE Prix W USE General Motors W-cars Waadah Island (Wash.) W.B. Umstead State Park (N.C.) W. R. Holway Reservoir (Okla.) UF Wa-ad'-dah Island (Wash.) USE William B. Umstead State Park (N.C.) UF Chimney Rock Reservoir (Okla.) Waada Island (Wash.) W bosons Holway Reservoir (Okla.) Waaddah Island (Wash.) [QC793.5.B62-QC793.5.B629] BT Lakes—Oklahoma BT Islands—Washington (State) UF W particles Reservoirs—Oklahoma Waaddah Island (Wash.) BT Bosons W. R. Motherwell Farmstead National Historic Park USE Waadah Island (Wash.) W. Burling Cocks Memorial Race Course at Radnor (Sask.) Waag family Hunt (Malvern, Pa.) USE Motherwell Homestead National Historic Site USE Waaga family UF Cocks Memorial Race Course at Radnor Hunt (Sask.) Waag River (Slovakia) (Malvern, Pa.) W.
    [Show full text]