DOCSLIB.ORG

Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026 McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 6 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 About the McKenzie Watershed Council .......................................................................................... 11 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action Plan .................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Action Plan Overview ........................................................................................................................ 12 1.4 Plan Development Process ............................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Process for Updating the Plan ........................................................................................................... 15 2 OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Processes for Developing Goals, Objectives and Actions ................................................................. 16 3 VISION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND SCOPE ........................................................................................... 22 3.1 Vision ................................................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.3 Area Covered by the Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 22 4 GOVERNANCE/PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................. 25 5 CONTEXT: PROFILE OF THE AREA ........................................................................................................ 28 5.1 Physical Geography ........................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Biotic Systems ................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Human Population, Local Communities and Land Use ..................................................................... 34 6 CONSERVATION NEED .......................................................................................................................... 36 6.1 Dam Construction and Operation .................................................................................................... 37 6.2 Rural and Urban Development ........................................................................................................ 39 6.3 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 41 6.4 Fire Suppression ............................................................................................................................... 43 6.5 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................ 43 6.6 Recreational Impacts........................................................................................................................ 44 6.7 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................ 44 7 Key Species ........................................................................................................................................... 45 7.1 Spring Chinook Salmon ..................................................................................................................... 47 7.2 Bull Trout ........................................................................................................................................... 48 7.3 Oregon Chub ..................................................................................................................................... 48 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 7.4 Pacific Lamprey ................................................................................................................................. 49 7.5 Pacific brook lamprey........................................................................................................................ 49 7.6 Rainbow Trout ................................................................................................................................... 50 7.7 Coastal Cutthroat Trout .................................................................................................................... 50 7.8 Western Pond Turtle ......................................................................................................................... 50 7.9 Northern Red-legged Frog ................................................................................................................ 50 8 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS ..................................................................................................... 52 8.1 Outcome 1......................................................................................................................................... 52 8.1.1 McKenzie River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 54 8.1.2 Mohawk River Watershed ........................................................................................................ 59 8.1.3 Quartz Creek-McKenzie River Watershed ................................................................................ 62 8.1.4 Blue River Watershed ............................................................................................................... 65 8.1.5 South Fork McKenzie River Watershed .................................................................................... 65 8.1.6 Horse Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................... 69 8.1.7 Headwaters McKenzie River Watershed .................................................................................. 72 8.2 Outcome 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 76 8.3 Outcome 3......................................................................................................................................... 80 9 EVALUATING SUCCESS .......................................................................................................................... 85 9.1 Watershed Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 85 9.2 Site Level Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 87 10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 89 11 SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mckenzie SOUTH FORK
    Bull Trout Population Study in the Middle Fork Willamette and McKenzie River Drainage Basins June - November 1994 Stephen D. Hammond Giles C. Thelen Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3150 East Main Street Springfield, OR 97478 November 1994 CONTENTS Page MAINSTEM McKENZIE POPULATION SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 JUVENILE SURVEYS: Lower Separation Creek ................................................................................. 2 Upper Separation Creek and Separation Lake............................................... 4 Harvey Creek.................................................................................................. 5 George Creek ................................................................................................. 6 Anderson Creek.............................................................................................. 7 Olallie Creek ................................................................................................... 8 Creek 58 ......................................................................................................... 9 Buck Side Channel ......................................................................................... 10 Sweetwater Creek........................................................................................... 11 ADULT SURVEYS: McKenzie Standard Pool Check ..................................................................... 12 SPAWNING SURVEYS: Separation
    [Show full text]
  • RISK ASSESSMENT of COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S
    RISK ASSESSMENT OF COUGAR DAM, MCKENZIE RIVER, OREGON Kevin S. Richards, PhD Senior Advisor USACE Institute for Water Resources/Risk Management Center/East Division Date: 19 September 2019 “The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.” 2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE 3 PRESENTATION OUTLINE – Project Background – Risk Assessment – Path Forward and Risk Reduction Measures 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND 5 PROJECT BACKGROUND Located in the Willamette River Basin, NW Oregon South Fork of the McKenzie River, 42 Miles East of Eugene/Springfield Conservation Pool 189,000 acre-feet (summer) and 51,000 acre-feet (winter) Purposes: Flood Risk Management, Hydropower, Water Quality, Water Supply Constructed in 1963 6 PROJECT BACKGROUND 7 PROJECT BACKGROUND - STRUCTURES Rockfill Embankment Dam Elevation Top of Dam, feet (NGVD29) 1,705 + Overbuild Length, feet 1,600 Maximum Height, feet 519 Outlet Works (Tunnel) Type 13.5-ft tunnel Size of Gates (Vertical Slide x2), feet 6.5 x 12.5 Design Discharge at Max Pool, cfs 12,050 Spillway (Gated Chute) Size of Gates (Tainter x2), feet 40 x 43.3 Design Discharge, ft3/s 76,140 Gross Crest Length, feet 89 Crest Elevation, feet (NGVD29) 1,656.75 Power Plant Penstock (x1) Diameter, feet 10.5 Number of Generating Units 2 Rated Capacity, MW 25 Reservoir Minimum Power Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,516 Minimum Flood Control Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,532 Maximum Conservation Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,690 Maximum Pool, feet (NGVD29) 1,699 Operations Operated remotely from Lookout Point Dam approx.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Upper Blue River Drainage of the Mckenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest
    FY2009 ISSSP Surveys for Salamander Slug [aka Axetail Slug] (Gliabates oregonius) in the Upper Blue River drainage of the McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest. Authored by Joe Doerr and Tiffany Young, Wildlife Biologists, Willamette National Forest, 10/20/2009. In 2008, the salamander slug (Gliabates oregonius), also known as the axetail slug, was added to the sensitive species list for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest. This species was first described as Gliabates oregonia from specimens collected in north-central Lane County (Webb 1959). The scientific name was subsequently changed to Gliabates oregonius by other researchers (Tom Burke personal communication). Gliabates oregonius is classified a S1 species endemic to Oregon and confirmed from a handful of locations in the Cascade and Coast Ranges within the Willamette River drainage. The mollusk is reported associated with conifer and leaf litter in Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest habitat. Due to its apparent low abundance and association with forest habitat, there is considerable potential for negative impacts from silvicultural activities, such as logging, fuel treatments and prescribed burning. There is a management need to better understand the abundance and distribution of this species. Following its inclusion on the sensitive species list, biologists on the McKenzie River Ranger District reviewed previous mollusk surveys conducted under the “Survey and Manage Program”. In their review they found a high number of reported detections of axetail slugs in the upper portion of the Blue River drainage. The reports showed detections of 139 individuals at 86 locations during surveys in the fall of 1998 and the spring of 1999 connected with a timber sale planned in that area.
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mckenzie River Watershed
    McKenzie River Watershed Baseline Monitoring Report 2000 to 2009 Karl A. Morgenstern David Donahue Nancy Toth Eugene Water & Electric Board January 2011 ii Acknowledgements The Eugene Water & Electric Board would like to acknowledge the various agencies and organizations that assisted with water quality sampling, providing guidance and input and assisting with the development of this document. McKenzie Watershed Council Water Quality Committee Members McKenzie Watershed Council Larry Six Mohawk Watershed Partnership Jared Weybright Weyerhaueser Company Maryanne Reiter Weyerhaueser Company Bob Danehy International Paper Company Loren Leighton U.S. Forest Service Dave Kreitzing U.S. Forest Service Bonnie Hammond U.S. Bureau of Land Management Steve Liebhardt U.S. Bureau of Land Management Janet Robbins City of Springfield Chuck Gottfried City of Springfield Todd Miller Springfield Utility Board Amy Chinitz Springfield Utility Board Dave Embleton Retired from Springfield Utility Board Chuck Davis Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality Chris Bayham Springfield School District Stuart Perlmeter Army Corps of Engineers Greg Taylor Eugene Water & Electric Board Karl Morgenstern Eugene Water & Electric Board David Donahue Eugene Water & Electric Board Nancy Toth Partners Providing Sampling Support, Database Support and Document Review U.S. Forest Service Mike Cobb U.S. Forest Service David Bickford City of Springfield Shawn Krueger Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Rubin Eugene Water & Electric Board Bob DenOuden Eugene Water & Electric Board
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents
    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk/Mcgowan Watershed Analysis
    MOHAWK/McGOWAN WATERSHED ANALYSIS BLM MAY 1995 Chapter 1 Introduction What Is Watershed Analysis Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure for characterizing watershed and ecological processes to meet specific management and social objectives. Throughout the analytical process the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is trying to gain an understanding about how the physical, biological, and social processes are intertwined. The objective is to identify where linkages and processes (functions) are in jeopardy and where processes are complex. The physical processes at work in a watershed establish limitations upon the biological relationships. The biological adaptations of living organisms balance in natural systems; however, social processes have tilted the balance toward resource extraction. The BLM attempt in the Mohawk/McGowan analysis is to collect baseline resource information and understand where physical, biological and social processes are or will be in conflict. What Watershed Analysis Is NOT Watershed analysis is not an inventory process, and it is not a detailed study of everything in the watershed. Watershed analysis is built around the most important issues. Data gaps will be identified and subsequent iterations of watershed analysis will attempt to fill in the important pieces. Watershed analysis is not intended to be detailed, site-specific project planning. Watershed analysis provides the framework in the context of the larger landscape and looks at the "big picture." It identifies and prioritizes potential project opportunities. Watershed analysis is not done under the direction and limitations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When specific projects are proposed, more detailed project level planning will be done. An Environmental Assessment will be completed at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon
    Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon Prepared for: US Forest Service, Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District Report Date: August 2012 PBS Project No. 76127.000, Phase 0004 Removal Action Report US Forest Service, Blue River Administration Site Blue River, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Physiographic Setting......................................................................................... 1 3.0 PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Assessment and Evaluation of Remedial Options ........................................... 2 3.2 Waste Determination ........................................................................................... 2 4.0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH ................................................... 2 5.0 SAFETY ............................................................................................................................ 3 6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 4 6.1 Monitoring Well Abandonment
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook Existing Populations The Willamette Spring Chinook SMU consists of six populations (Table 63). The status of four of these populations including the Molalla, South Santiam, Calapooia, and Upper Willamette is somewhat uncertain. Little is known about these populations, but what is known indicates that the native populations are extremely depressed. While some natural spawning occurs, it is likely that these spawners are the offspring of naturally-spawning hatchery fish since hatchery fish comprise almost the entire naturally-spawning population each year in these basins. Future inventory work is needed for these populations so that they may be more appropriately assessed. Table 63. Population list and existence status for the Willamette Spring Chinook SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Molalla Molalla River basin. Yes North Santiam North Santiam River basin. Yes South Santiam South Santiam River basin. Yes Calapooia Calapooia River basin. Yes McKenzie McKenzie River basin. Yes Upper Willamette Willamette River basin upstream from mouth of McKenzie River. Habitat Use Distribution The distribution criterion was based on proportions of accessible and inaccessible habitat. It must be recognized that these estimates are derived at the 1:100,000 scale and thus will not capture habitat lost in many smaller (1:24,000) streams resulting from barriers such as culverts. Habitat lost in smaller streams will vary by population, but is not likely to account for 50% of any population, and thus does not alter assessment outcomes derived using data at the 1:100,000 scale. Data presented in this report on accessibility of habitat should be viewed as general approximations and not as a definitive analysis on habitat availability/accessibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2018 Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon State Engineer Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon By F. J. FRANK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2018 Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon State Engineer UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600346 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Price: Paper cover $2.75, domestic postpaid; $2.50, GPO Bookstore Stock Number 2401-00277 CONTENTS Page Abstract ______________________ ____________ 1 Introduction _________ ____ __ ____ 2 Geohydrologic system ___________ __ _ 4 Topography _____________ ___ ____ 5 Streams and reservoirs ______ ___ _ __ _ _ 5 Ground-water system ______ _ _____ 6 Consolidated rocks __ _ _ - - _ _ 10 Unconsolidated deposits ___ _ _ 10 Older alluvium ____ _ 10 Younger alluvium __ 11 Hydrology __________________ __ __ __ 11 Climate _______________ _ 12 Precipitation ___________ __ 12 Temperature -__________ 12 Evaporation _______ 13 Surface water __________ ___ 14 Streamflow _ ____ _ _ 14 Major streams __ 14 Other streams ________ _ _ 17 Utilization of surface water _ 18 Ground water __________ _ __ ___ 18 Upland and valley-fringe areas 19 West side _________ __ 19 East side __________ ________________________ 21 South end ______________________________ 22 Central lowland ________ __ 24 Occurrence and movement of ground water 24 Relationship of streams to alluvial aquifers __ _ 25 Transmissivity and storage coefficient ___ _ 29 Ground-water storage _ __ 30 Storage capacity _ .
    [Show full text]
  • Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Francine M. Havercroft for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, History and Anthropology presented on June 16, 1986. Title: Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: V Richard E. Ross During the summer of 1981, Oregon State University archaeologically tested three prehistoric sites on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. Among the sites tested were typical Willamette Valley floodplain and adjacent upland sites. Most settlement-subsistence pattern models proposed for the Willamette Valley have been generated with data from the eastern valley floor, western Cascade Range foothills. The work at Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge provides one of the first opportunities to view similar settings along the western margins of the Willamette Valley. Valley Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette by Francine M. Havercroft A THESIS submitted to Oregon StateUniversity in partial fulfillmentof the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts in InterdisciplinaryStudies Completed June 15, 1986 Commencement June 1987 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology inAT6cg-tof major A Redacted for Privacy Professor of History in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Chairman of department of Anthropology Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented June 16, 1986 Typed by Ellinor Curtis for Francine M. Havercroft ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout this project, several individuals have provided valuable contributions, and I extend a debt of gratitude to all those who have helped. The Oregon State university Archaeology field school, conducted atthe Wm. L. Finley Refuge, wasdirected by Dr.
    [Show full text]