Regional Community Vulnerability Profile May 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Snowmobiles in the Wilderness
Snowmobiles in the Wilderness: You can help W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e P a r k s A necessary prohibition Join us in safeguarding winter recreation: Each year, more and more people are riding snowmobiles • When riding in a new area, obtain a map. into designated Wilderness areas, which is a concern for • Familiarize yourself with Wilderness land managers, the public and many snowmobile groups. boundaries, and don’t cross them. This may be happening for a variety of reasons: many • Carry the message to clubs, groups and friends. snowmobilers may not know where the Wilderness boundaries are or may not realize the area is closed. For more information about snowmobiling opportunities or Wilderness areas, please contact: Wilderness…a special place Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (360) 902-8500 Established by Congress through the Wilderness Washington State Snowmobile Association (800) 784-9772 Act of 1964, “Wilderness” is a special land designation North Cascades National Park (360) 854-7245 within national forests and certain other federal lands. Colville National Forest (509) 684-7000 These areas were designated so that an untouched Gifford Pinchot National Forest (360) 891-5000 area of our wild lands could be maintained in a natural Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (425) 783-6000 state. Also, they were set aside as places where people Mt. Rainier National Park (877) 270-7155 could get away from the sights and sounds of modern Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (509) 664-9200 civilization and where elements of our cultural history Olympic National Forest (360) 956-2402 could be preserved. -
Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic -
Power System
HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE -
Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe
1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4. -
Washington Grain Train
How does the Washington Grain Train generate revenues? Washington Usage fees for grain cars are generated on the BNSF Railroad based on a combination of mileage traveled and number of days on that railroad (time and mileage). The further the car travels Grain Train and the longer it is on a particular railroad, the more money the car earns. The shuttle service between grain elevators and the barge terminal in Wallula use a different system. A car use fee per trip was June 2011 established for the shuttle service based on estimates of time and mileage. One car use fee was established for shipments on the PV Hooper rail line, and another for the BLMR. These fees are deposited directly into accounts managed by each of the three Grain Train Revolving Fund (Washington State-Owned Cars) port districts. These funds are used for grain car maintenance, car tracking, and Dollars in millions eventual car replacement (based on a 20- $1.4 year depreciation schedule). A portion of $1.2 these fees are also set aside and used as $1.0 a “reserve” fund that is periodically tapped for fleet expansion. $0.8 Once the reserve fund has grown large $0.6 enough to purchase rail cars and there is $0.4 a demonstrated need for additional cars, WSDOT can instruct the port districts to $0.2 send funds to a rail car sales firm selected $0 by WSDOT. This firm then delivers the cars 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 to Washington for rehabilitation and then Twenty nine additional grain hopper rail cars were purchased in 2010. -
CONFEDERATED TRIBES and BANDS Nos
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS Nos. 19-35807 OF THE YAKAMA NATION, a 19-35821 sovereign federally recognized Native Nation, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant/ 1:17-cv-03192- Cross-Appellee, TOR v. OPINION KLICKITAT COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; KLICKITAT COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, an agency of Klickitat County; BOB SONGER, in his official capacity; KLICKITAT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, an agency of Klickitat County; DAVID QUESNEL, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 20, 2020 Seattle, Washington 2 YAKAMA NATION V. KLICKITAT CNTY. Filed June 11, 2021 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Jill A. Otake,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Friedland SUMMARY** Tribal Reservation Affirming the district court’s judgment entered following a bench trial, the panel held that under an 1855 treaty between the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the United States, the Yakama Reservation includes a tract, known as Tract D, that partially overlaps with Klickitat County, Washington. The parties’ dispute arose when the County attempted to prosecute P.T.S., a minor and enrolled member of the Tribe, for acts that occurred within Tract D. Pursuant to a proclamation issued by the Governor of Washington, the Yakamas and the federal government share exclusive jurisdiction over certain criminal and civil offenses that occur on Reservation lands. The Yakamas sued the County and County officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief barring the County from exercising criminal * The Honorable Jill A. -
Top 26 Trails in Grant County 2020
and 12 Watchable Wildlife Units For more information, please contact: Grant County Tourism Commission P.O. Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823 509.765.7888 • 800.992.6234 In Grant County, Washington TourGrantCounty.com TOP TRAILS Grant County has some of the most scenic and pristine vistas, hiking trails and outdoor 26 recreational opportunities in Washington State. and 12 Watchable Wildlife Units Grant County is known for its varied landscapes on a high desert plateau with coulees, lakes, in Grant County Washington reservoirs, sand dunes, canals, rivers, creeks, and other waterways. These diverse ecosystems Grant County Tourism Commission For Additional copies please contact: support a remarkable variety of fish and PO Box 37 Jerry T. Gingrich wildlife species that contribute to the economic, Ephrata, Washington 98837 Grant County Tourism Commission recreational and cultural life of the County. www.tourgrantcounty.com Grant County Courthouse PO Box 37 Ephrata, WA 98837 No part of this book may be reproduced in (509) 754-2011, Ext. 2931 any form, or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, without permission in For more information on writing from the Grant County Tourism Grant County accommodations Commission. www.tourgrantcounty.com © 2019, Grant County Tourism Commission Second printing, 10m Trails copy and photographs Book, map and cover design by: provided by: Denise Adam Graphic Design Cameron Smith, Lisa Laughlin, J. Kemble, Veradale, WA 99037 Shawn Cardwell, Mark Amara, (509) 891-0873 Emry Dinman, Harley Price, [email protected] Sebastian Moraga and Madison White Printed by: Rewriting and editing by: Mark Amara Pressworks 2717 N. Perry Street Watchable Wildlife copy and Spokane, Washington 99207 photographs provided by: (509) 462-7627 Washington Department of [email protected] Fish and Wildlife Photograph by Lisa Laughlin CONTENTS CONTENTS Grant County Trails and Hiking Grant County Watchable Wildlife Viewing Upper Grand Coulee Area 1. -
Appendix a Data Compilation
APPENDIX A DATA COMPILATION Table of Contents A-1 Bibliography A-2 Non-GIS Data Directory A-3 GIS Data Directory APPENDIX A-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Spokane Watershed Bibliography Appendix A1 1. Adema, G. W. Bedrock Depth and Morphology of the Rathdrum Prairie, Idaho: University of Idaho; c1999. 67 pages. Notes: Master of Science Thesis 2. Adema, G. W.; K.F.Sprenke., and R.M. Breckenridge. Bed Morphology of the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer from a Detailed Gravity Survey [abstract]. Geological Society of America. 1998; 30(6). 3. Ader, M. J. Hydrogeology of the Green Bluff Plateau Spokane County. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Water Resources Program; 1996; Open File Technical Information Report 96-03. 27 pages. 4. Allen, D. R. Latah Creek, Washington, Watershed: 1995-1996 Water Year Water Quality Assessment [abstract]. Inland Northwest Water Resources Conference, Program and Abstracts; 1997. 5. Amerigian, C.; J. Toth, and S.P. Reidel. Paleomagnetism of the Columbia River Basalt Group [abstract]. Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs. 1987; 19(6):354. 6. Ames, K. C.; N.P. Matson.; D.M. Suzuki., and P.B. Sak. Inventory, Characterization, and Water Quality of Springs, Seeps, and Streams near Midnite Mine, Stevens County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey; 1996; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-115. 53 pages. 7. Anderson, A. M.; K. Bloudek.; P.O. Hyde; O. O'Connor, and N. Ogren. Evaluation of Urban Runoff Treatment in Swales. Spokane, Washington: Gonzaga University, School of Engineering, Center for Engineering Design; 1996; Senior Design Project 95-5. 44 pages. 8. -
Excerpt from the Yakima Nation/Cleanup of Hanford
DOE Indian Policy and Treaty Obligations Excerpt from The Yakama Nation and the Cleanup of Hanford: Contested Meanings of Environmental Remediation written by Daniel A. Bush (2014) http://nativecases.evergreen.edu/collection/cases/the-yakama-nation-and-the-cleanup- of-hanford-contested-meanings-of-environmental-remediation Map: Yakama Reservation and lands ceded by the Yakama in the 1855 treaty (Klickitat Library Images, 2014) According to the DOE’s Tribal Program, “the involvement [of] Native American Tribes at Hanford is guided by DOE's American Indian Policy [which] states that it is the trust responsibility of the United States to protect tribal sovereignty and self-determination, tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty and other federal recognized and reserved rights” (Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Program, 2014). Therefore, where Native Americans are concerned it would seem that the DOE has a legal obligation to restore the Hanford site to its pre-nuclear state. It could also be argued that Native tribes have their own trust responsibility for preservation of natural resources on both tribal lands and those areas of traditional use. Moreover, the web of responsibilities associated with the Hanford cleanup are complicated by potential liabilities, as Native peoples have a right to “damages for injuries which occur to natural resources as a result of hazardous waste release” (Bauer, 1994). Thus, Native Americans who traditionally used the affected area have also been involved in the cleanup of Hanford. CERCLA itself named Native tribes as having a vested interest in Superfund sites such as Hanford. The DOE agrees that the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, and Wanapum native peoples be regularly consulted throughout the cleanup process and that all have rights to resources in the 1 Hanford region. -
Timber Resource Statistics for Eastern Washington
EDITORS FILE COPY Agriculture Timber Resource Forest Setvice Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Statistics for Eastern Experiment Station Resource Bulletin PNW-104 washington September 1983 Patricia M. Bassett and Daniel D. Oswald Authors PATRICIA M. BASSEll is a computer programer analyst and DANIEL D. OSWALD is a resource analyst at the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, Oregon 97208. Abstract Summary Preface Bassett, Patricia M.; Oswald, Daniel D. The eastern Washington resource area Forest Inventory and Analysis (formerly Timber resource statistics for eastern totals 26,966,000 acres (10 913 000 ha), Forest Survey) is a nationwide project of Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-104. of which an estimated 9,216,000 acres the USDA Forest Service authorized by Portland, OR: U.S. Department of (3 730 000 ha) are forested. An estimated the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 7,145,000 acres (2 891 000 ha) are Resources Research Act of 1978. Work Northwest Forest and Range Experi- classified as timberland. The area has an units of the project, located at Forest ment Station; 1983.32 p. estimated 17.3 billion cubic feet Service Experiment Stations, conduct (491 million m3) of standing timber with forest resource inventories throughout This report summarizes a 1980 timber 72 percent of this volume in public the 50 States. The Pacific Northwest resource inventory of the 16 forested ownership. Forest and Range Experiment Station at counties in Washington east of the crest Portland, Oregon, is responsible for of the Cascade Range. Detailed tables of inventories in Alaska, California, Hawaii, forest area, timber volume, growth, Oregon, and Washington. -
Prelimprogram.4.25
“The Living Breath of Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ” Indigenous Ways of Knowing Cultural Food Practices and Ecological Knowledge Symposium May 1-2, 2013 University of Washington, Seattle Where: Walker-Ames Room,Seattle, Kane Hall Time: 8:45 AM – 5:00 PM May 1–2, 2013 This event brings together Native leaders, elders, and scholars who will share their knowledge on Northwest Coast tribal food sovereignty and security initiatives, treaties, fishing rights and habitat protection. This symposium is the inaugural event to honor UW’s future longhouse-style community building, Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ (a Lushootseed word meaning Intellectual House), that will open in 2014. This event symbolizes the spirit of Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ and embodies the essence of the work we envision Sponsored by: American Indian Studies doing in this cultural and intellectual space. For further information contact: [email protected] http://depts.washington.edu/native/ “The Living Breath of Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ” Indigenous Ways of Knowing Cultural Food Practices and Ecological Knowledge Symposium Walker Ames Room, Kane Hall 225 (Floor 2) University of Washington, Seattle May 1–2, 2013 Day 1: Wednesday, May 1 8:15am – 8:55am Registration and continental breakfast 8:45am – 9:00am Cultural performance: Tseshaht singers/dancers 9:00am – 9:10am Welcome: Symposium coordinating committee, Charlotte Coté, Dian Million, Elissa Washuta, and Clarita Lefthand-Begay 9:10am – 9:15am Welcome: Judy Howard, Divisional Dean of Social Sciences, UW College of Arts & Sciences 9:15am – 9:20am Opening prayer 9:25am – 9:55am Panel 1: University of Washington’s “Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ” Intellectual House • Marilyn Wandry (Suquamish), Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ Elder’s Committee • Sheila Edwards Lange, Vice President/Vice Provost Minority Affairs and Diversity • Charlotte Coté (Tseshaht/Nuu-chah-nulth) Ph.D., Associate Professor, UW Department of American Indian Studies, Chair, Wǝɫǝbʔaltxʷ Planning/Advising Committee • Clarita Lefthand Begay (Diné) MS, Ph.D. -
Setting the Vision for Gorge Future Public, Governors, Senators, Voice Support for Funding Gorge Protection at Gorge Forum
FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA GORGE Setting the Vision for Gorge Future Public, Governors, Senators, Voice Support for Funding Gorge Protection at Gorge Forum On April21, Congressman Earl Blumenauer sponsored the Columbia River Gorge Forum, hosted by McMenamins Edgefield. A standing room-only crowd heard panels discuss issues and opportunities for economic development and recreation in the Gorge. Representatives from the offices of Governor Kitzhaber, Governor Locke, Senator Ron Wyden, and Senator Patty Murray spoke in support of funding Gorge protection through the Columbia Gorge Commission. Repre sentative Marc Boldt from Washington, who has led the attack on the Gorge protection budget, spoke briefly. Representatives Val Ogden from Washington and Chris Beck from Oregon spoke in support of full funding for Gorge protection. More than 20 people testified during public comment. The overwhelming majority of people supported Gorge protection, and several people raised "Those who seek to slash funding for concerns that the Act is not strong the Gorge Commission and reduce its enough. Two representatives of effectiveness have severely misjudged Skamania continued on page 5 the mood of the public. The passion This 1994 photo (left) shows urban growth in and commitment to prated and Troutdale, Oregon, outside the western enhance the Gorge was clearly evident boundary of the National Scenic Area, and rural-scale development and farmlands within at the April 21 forum. I intend to build the Scenic Area east of the Sandy River. on that support and enthusiasm in the Cutting Gorge protection in this time of explosive population growth and develop months ahead." Congressman Earl Blumenauer ment will put the Gorge at great risk.