DOCSLIB.ORG

CATHERINE CREEK REACH ASSESSMENT GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CATHERINE CREEK REACH ASSESSMENT GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon THE CATHERINE CREEK REACH ASSESSMENT GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho December 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Protecting America's Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photograph: View of Catherine Creek. Bureau of Reclamation photograph – Catherine Creek Reach Assessment-Grande Ronde River Basin-Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon – July 2012. THE CATHERINE CREEK REACH ASSESSMENT GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho December 2012 Acronyms and Abbreviations BPA Bonneville Power Administration CCACF Catherine Creek Adult Collection Facility cfs cubic feet per second DEM digital elevation model ELJ Engineered logjams ESA Endangered Species Act FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System GRMW Grande Ronde Model Watershed HCMZ Historic channel migration zone HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System LiDAR light distance and ranging LWM large woody material NOAA Fisheries NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RM river mile RPA Reasonable and prudent alternative Tributary Assessment Catherine Creek Tributary Assessment USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VSP Viable salmonids populations WACCIA Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this Reach Assessment ................................................................... 2 Reach Assessment Philosophy .......................................................................... 2 Reach Assessment Goals .................................................................................. 3 Using this Document ......................................................................................... 4 Background Information .................................................................................. 4 Limiting Factors .................................................................................................................. 7 Summary of Existing Reports ........................................................................... 7 Regional Scale ..................................................................................................................... 8 Watershed Scale .................................................................................................................. 8 Valley Segment Scale ......................................................................................................... 9 Historical Timeline............................................................................................................ 11 Historical Conditions ....................................................................................... 12 Historical Form ................................................................................................................. 12 Historical Valley and Channel Forms ............................................................................... 13 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 13 Planform ................................................................................................................ 14 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 14 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 14 Historical Instream Structure Form ................................................................................... 15 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 15 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 16 Historical Process .............................................................................................................. 16 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 17 Sediment Transport ................................................................................. 17 Channel Migration .................................................................................. 18 Large Wood Recruitment and Retention............................................................... 19 Riparian Disturbance and Succession ................................................................... 20 Catherine Creek Reach Assessment – Final i CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 20 Existing Form ........................................................................................................ 22 Channel Dimensions ............................................................................................. 22 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 22 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 24 Planform ................................................................................................................ 24 Channel Migration Zone ................................................................................................... 25 Bed Condition ....................................................................................................... 27 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 27 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 29 Bank Condition ..................................................................................................... 29 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 29 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 31 Forcing Agents ...................................................................................................... 32 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 32 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 32 Off-channel Features ............................................................................................. 33 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 33 Reach 3 ................................................................................................... 34 Floodplain and Riparian Conditions ..................................................................... 34 Existing Physical Processes ............................................................................ 36 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 36 Sediment Transport ........................................................................................................... 37 Channel Migration ............................................................................................................ 38 Large Wood Recruitment and Retention........................................................................... 39 Riparian Disturbance and Succession ............................................................................... 40 Differences from Historical Conditions ............................................................................ 40 Planform ................................................................................................................ 41 Reach 4 ................................................................................................... 41 Dams ................................................................................................................ 42 Flood Control ........................................................................................................ 42 Logging ................................................................................................................ 44 Removal of Large Woody Material ...................................................................... 44 Large Pools ........................................................................................................... 45 ii Catherine Creek Reach Assessment – Final CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Agriculture and Irrigation ..................................................................................... 46 Roads and Development ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Annual Spring Meeting Macey Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM
    New Mexico Geological Society Proceedings Volume 2015 Annual Spring Meeting Macey Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM NEW MEXICO GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2015 SPRING MEETING Friday, April 24, 2015 Macey Center NM Tech Campus Socorro, New Mexico 87801 NMGS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President: Mary Dowse Vice President: David Ennis Treasurer: Matthew Heizler Secretary: Susan Lucas Kamat Past President: Virginia McLemore 2015 SPRING MEETING COMMITTEE General Chair: Matthew Heizler Technical Program Chair: Peter Fawcett Registration Chair: Connie Apache ON-SITE REGISTRATION Connie Apache WEB SUPPORT Adam Read ORAL SESSION CHAIRS Peter Fawcett, Matt Zimmerer, Lewis Land, Spencer Lucas, Matt Heizler Session 1: Theme Session - Session 2: Volcanology and Paleoclimate: Is the Past the Key to Proterozoic Tectonics: the Future? Auditorium: 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Galena Room: 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Chair: Peter Fawcett Chair: Matthew Zimmerer GLOBAL ICE AGES, REGIONAL TECTONISM U-PB GEOCHRONOLOGY OF ASH FALL TUFFS AND LATE PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTATION IN IN THE MCRAE FORMATION (UPPER NEW MEXICO CRETACEOUS), SOUTH-CENTRAL NEW MEXICO — Spencer G. Lucas and Karl Krainer — Greg Mack, Jeffrey M. Amato, and Garland 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM R. Upchurch 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM URANIUM ISOTOPE EVIDENCE FOR PERVASIVE TIMING, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND DISTRIBUTION MARINE ANOXIA DURING THE LATE OF MAGMATISM IN THE RIO GRANDE RIFT ORDOVICIAN MASS EXTINCTION. — Rediet Abera, Brad Sion, Jolante van Wijk, — Rickey W Bartlett, Maya Elrick, Yemane Gary Axen, Dan Koning, Richard Chamberlin, Asmerom, Viorel Atudorei, and Victor Polyak Evan Gragg, Kyle Murray, and Jeff Dobbins 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM FAUNAL AND FLORAL DYNAMICS DURING THE N-S EXTENSION AND BIMODAL MAGMATISM EARLY PALEOCENE: THE RECORD FROM THE DURING EARLY RIO GRANDE RIFTING: SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO INSIGHTS FROM E-W STRIKING DIKES AT — Thomas E.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Flooding Affects Habitat and Landscape Dynamics of a Gravel
    Seasonal flooding affects habitat and landscape dynamics of a gravel-bed river floodplain Katelyn P. Driscoll1,2,5 and F. Richard Hauer1,3,4,6 1Systems Ecology Graduate Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA 2Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 USA 3Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana 59806 USA 4Montana Institute on Ecosystems, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA Abstract: Floodplains are comprised of aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are reshaped frequently by hydrologic processes that operate at multiple spatial and temporal scales. It is well established that hydrologic and geomorphic dynamics are the primary drivers of habitat change in river floodplains over extended time periods. However, the effect of fluctuating discharge on floodplain habitat structure during seasonal flooding is less well understood. We collected ultra-high resolution digital multispectral imagery of a gravel-bed river floodplain in western Montana on 6 dates during a typical seasonal flood pulse and used it to quantify changes in habitat abundance and diversity as- sociated with annual flooding. We observed significant changes in areal abundance of many habitat types, such as riffles, runs, shallow shorelines, and overbank flow. However, the relative abundance of some habitats, such as back- waters, springbrooks, pools, and ponds, changed very little. We also examined habitat transition patterns through- out the flood pulse. Few habitat transitions occurred in the main channel, which was dominated by riffle and run habitat. In contrast, in the near-channel, scoured habitats of the floodplain were dominated by cobble bars at low flows but transitioned to isolated flood channels at moderate discharge.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Character, Riverscape & Visual Amenity Assessments
    Natural Character, Riverscape & Visual Amenity Assessments Clutha/Mata-Au Water Quantity Plan Change – Stage 1 Prepared for Otago Regional Council 15 October 2018 Document Quality Assurance Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2018. Natural Character, Riverscape & Visual Amenity Assessments: Clutha/Mata-Au Water Quantity Plan Change- Stage 1. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Otago Regional Council. Prepared by: Bron Faulkner Senior Principal/ Landscape Architect Boffa Miskell Limited Sue McManaway Landscape Architect Landwriters Reviewed by: Yvonne Pfluger Senior Principal / Landscape Planner Boffa Miskell Limited Status: Final Revision / version: B Issue date: 15 October 2018 Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or
    [Show full text]
  • On the Quantitative.Invent01·Y of the Riverscape' ,I
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AUGUST 1968 _ On the Quantitative .Invent01·y of the Riverscape' LPNA B. LEOPOLD AND MAURA O'BRIEN MARCHAND U. S. Geological Survey W""hinglon, D. C.IIO!!42 ,I Ab8tract. In the vicinity of Berkeley. California, 24 minor "alleys were described in terms of factors chosen to represent aspects of the river landscape. A total of 28 factors were evalu­ ated at eaeh site. Some were directly measurable. others were estimated, but each obsen'atioll was assigned to ODe of five categories for tha.t factor. Each factor for each site was then expressed as a uniqueness ratio, which depended on the number of sites being in Ute same category. The uniqueness ratio is believed to represent one way the scarcity of a given river­ &CRpe can be ranked quantitatively without bias based 011 notions of good or bad, and without assigning monetary value. GENERAL STATEMENT differently. depending upon individual back­ ground, interest, desires, and thus one's objec­ On property we grow pigs or peanulll. On tives. we grow suburbs or sunJlowers. On land­ The present paper presents a tcntntiye nod pe we grow feelings or frustrations. The modest attempt to record the presence or ab­ 'ty of a landscape may be an asset to sence of chosen factors that contribute to iety, or it may be a 'scarlet letter' that should aesthetic worth. Observations were made in a . d us of wbat we have thrown away. All restricted range of exnmples in one locality, empts to preserve the environment must ne- Alameda and Contra Costa count.ics near San ily rewesent a compromise between the Francisco Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Top left: Clackamas bull trout reintroduction, Clackamas River, Oregon. David Herasimtschuk, Freshwaters Illustrated; Top, right: Glines Canyon Dam removal, Elwha River, Washington. John Gussman, Doubleclick Productions; Center: South Fork Skagit River and Skagit Bay, Washington. City of Seattle; Bottom: Riverscape surveys, East Fork Quinault River, Washington. National Park Service, Olympic National Park Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) September 2015 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office Portland, Oregon Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Current Status of Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ........................................................ A-6 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ....................................................... A-8 Ongoing Coastal Recovery Unit Conservation Measures (Summary) ..................................... A-33 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ..................................................................................... A-38 Recovery Measures Narrative ................................................................................................... A-39 Implementation Schedule for
    [Show full text]
  • A Groundwater Sapping in Stream Piracy
    Darryll T. Pederson, Department of energy to the system as increased logic settings, such as in a delta, stream Geosciences, University of Nebraska, recharge causes groundwater levels to piracy is a cyclic event. The final act of Lincoln, NE 68588-0340, USA rise, accelerating stream piracy. stream piracy is likely a rapid event that should be reflected as such in the geo- INTRODUCTION logic record. Understanding the mecha- The term stream piracy brings to mind nisms for stream piracy can lead to bet- ABSTRACT an action of forcible taking, leaving the ter understanding of the geologic record. Stream piracy describes a water-diver- helpless and plundered river poorer for Recognition that stream piracy has sion event during which water from one the experience—a takeoff on stories of occurred in the past is commonly based stream is captured by another stream the pirates of old. In an ironic sense, on observations such as barbed tribu- with a lower base level. Its past occur- two schools of thought are claiming vil- taries, dry valleys, beheaded streams, rence is recognized by unusual patterns lain status. Lane (1899) thought the term and elbows of capture. A marked of drainage, changes in accumulating too violent and sudden, and he used change of composition of accumulating sediment, and cyclic patterns of sediment “stream capture” to describe a ground- sediment in deltas, sedimentary basins, deposition. Stream piracy has been re- water-sapping–driven event, which he terraces, and/or biotic distributions also ported on all time and size scales, but its envisioned to be less dramatic and to be may signify upstream piracy (Bishop, mechanisms are controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • WATS 5150 – Fluvial Geomorphology WEEK 5: Habitat Suitability Models
    Instream Geomorphic Units I. Intro → Geomorphic Units & Process-Form Associations II. Classification & Field Identification III. Your Book (River Styles) I. Sculpted, Erosional Bedrock & Boulder GUs II. Mid-Channel, Depositional GUs III. Bank-Attached, Depositional GUs IV. Sculpted, Erosional Fine-Grained GUs V. Unit & Compound GUs VI. Forced GUs IV. Continuum of GUs V. Fluvial Taxonomy GUs (Topographically Defined) I. Tier 1 – Stage II. Tier 2 – Shape / Form III. Tier 3 – Attributed VI. GUT (Geomorphic Unit Toolkit) Reminder… • In fluvial, we found over 100 different terms to describe geomorphic units, of which 68 were actually distinctive… • This is based on same units as above, but with some clarifications • Done with your Book’s Authors • The legend should include a) margins, b) geomorphic units, and c) structural elements From: Wheaton et al. (2015) – Geomorphology; DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.010 Taxonomy for Mapping Fluvial Landforms • Four Tiers • Stage Height • Shape / Form • Morphology • Roughness/Vegetation • Over 100 fluvial geomorphic units found in literature, of which 68 are distinctive (3b) • Clearer, topographically based definitions From: https://riverscapes.github.io/pyGUT/ Wheaton et al. (2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.010 Williams et al. (2020) DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136817 Instream Geomorphic Units I. Intro → Geomorphic Units & Process-Form Associations II. Classification & Field Identification III. Your Book (River Styles) I. Sculpted, Erosional Bedrock & Boulder GUs II. Mid-Channel, Depositional GUs III. Bank-Attached, Depositional GUs IV. Sculpted, Erosional Fine-Grained GUs V. Unit & Compound GUs VI. Forced GUs IV. Continuum of GUs V. Fluvial Taxonomy GUs (Topographically Defined) I.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Flow Directions in River Channel Networks Using Planform Morphology and Topology
    Earth Surf. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2019-19 Manuscript under review for journal Earth Surf. Dynam. Discussion started: 23 May 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Determining flow directions in river channel networks using planform morphology and topology Jon Schwenk1*, Anastasia Piliouras1, Joel C. Rowland1 5 1Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division Correspondence to: Jon Schwenk ([email protected]) Abstract. The abundance of global, remotely-sensed surface water observations has paved the way toward characterizing and modeling how water moves across the Earth’s surface through complex channel networks. In 10 particular, deltas and braided river channel networks may contain thousands of links that route water, sediment, and nutrients across landscapes. In order to model flows through channel networks and characterize network structure, the direction of flow for each link within the network must be known. In this work, we propose a rapid, automatic, and objective method to identify flow directions for all links of a channel network using only remotely-sensed imagery and knowledge of the network’s inlet and outlet locations. We designed a suite of direction-predicting 15 algorithms (DPAs), each of which exploits a particular morphologic characteristic of the channel network to provide a prediction of a link’s flow direction. DPAs were chained together to create “recipes”, or algorithms that set all the flow directions of a channel network. Separate recipes were built for deltas and braided rivers and applied to seven delta and two braided river channel networks. Across all nine channel networks, the recipes’ predicted flow directions agreed with expert judgement for 97% of all tested links, and most disagreements were attributed to 20 unusual channel network topologies that can easily be accounted for by pre-seeding critical links with known flow directions.
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Assessment
    RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENT UPPERIMIDDLE GRANDE RONDE RIVER 8t CATHERINE CREEK June 1995 Developed By: Leslie B. Bach Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Project Staff: Thomas Kaye ~ Oregon Department of Agriculture Larry Caton & D. Mitch Wolgamott. .. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Jim Turner & Mary Hanson Oregon Department of Fish and Wlldllfe Daniel Wermlel Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Eric Gillett & Mathew Gilson .. Oregon Department of Administrative Services (State Service Center for Geographical Information Systems) ti.u BLJ: The Oregon Watershed Health Program ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Water Quality Division Administrator Mike Downs Surface Water Section Kevin Downing, Acting Manager Layout Design, Graphics, 8t Typesetting Hope Y. Smith CCJJonnie" Word Processing Chris R. Watson A number ofpeople assisted in creating this document by providing data, analysis, information, ideas or technical review. A sincere thank you goes to: Dr. Ellen Blsbop - Oregon Watersbed Healtb Program; Marcia Brett - Oregon State University, Aaron Bodor ­ Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality; Stepbanle Burcbfield - Oregon Dept. of Flsb and Wildlife; Mlcbael Clscell ­ Oregon Water Resources Department; Amy Clark - Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality; Sbaron Clarke - U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Nortbwest Researcb Station;Rlcbard Cooper - Oregon Water ResourcesDepartment; Ronald Geltgey - Oregon Dept. of Geology and Minerai Industries; Karl Grover - USFS, Wallowa·Wbltman National Forest; Milton mil - Oregon Dept. of Flsb and Wildlife; Mark HenJum - Oregon Dept. of Flsb and Wildlife; Dr. Herbert Huddleston - Oregon State University; Cbarles Huntington - Clearwater Blostudles, Inc.; Dr. Ray Jalndl - Oregon Dept. of Agriculture; Jimmy Kagan - Oregon Natural Heritage Program; Albert Mlrati - Oregon Dept. of Flsb and Wildlife; Reed Marbut - Oregon Water Resources Department; Kelly Moore - Oregon Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Catherine Creek Tributary Assessment Hydraulics Appendix
    APPENDIX D – HYDRAULICS Catherine Creek Tributary Assessment Hydraulics Appendix Grande Ronde Project, OR Pacific Northwest Region SRH Report 2012-05 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation December 2011 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Photo taken on Grande Ronde River near station 25,265 on April 27, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation December 2011 Executive Summary Reclamation’s Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group at the Technical Service Center developed a one dimensional (1D) hydraulic model to analyze the Catherine Creek Assessment area hydraulic conditions during flood flows. Approximately 60 miles of channel were modeled including a portion of Catherine Creek, Grande Ronde River, and State Ditch. A steady-flow model was developed to examine the existing hydraulic conditions of Catherine Creek. Steady flow model input consists of a channel geometry, infrastructure dimensions and operating conditions, input discharge, a downstream boundary condition, and roughness values. Terrain models were developed as topographic input to the hydraulic model based on LiDAR data above wetted channel areas and bathymetric surveys within the wetted channel areas. A total of 803 cross-section lines spaced approximately 450 feet apart were applied to cover the 60 river miles modeled across the three streams. Levee elements were assigned manually in HEC-RAS.
    [Show full text]
  • INSTITUTIONALISING the PICTURESQUE: the Discourse of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects
    INSTITUTIONALISING THE PICTURESQUE: The discourse of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture at Lincoln University by Jacky Bowring Lincoln University 1997 To Dorothy and Ella iii Abstract of a thesis submitted in fulfIlment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture INSTITUTIONALISING THE PICTURESQUE: The discourse of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects by Jacky Bowring Despite its origins in England two hundred years ago, the picturesque continues to influence landscape architectural practice in late twentieth-century New Zealand. The evidence for this is derived from a close reading of the published discourse of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, particularly the now defunct professional journal, The Landscape. Through conceptualising the picturesque as a language, a model is developed which provides a framework for recording the survey results. The way in which the picturesque persists as naturalised conventions in the discourse is expressed as four landscape myths. Through extending the metaphor of language, pidgins and creoles provide an analogy for the introduction and development of the picturesque in New Zealand. Some implications for theory, practice and education follow. Keywords picturesque, New Zealand, landscape architecture, myth, language, natural, discourse iv Preface The motivation for this thesis was the way in which the New Zealand landscape reflects the various influences that have shaped it. In the context of landscape architecture the specific focus is the designed landscape, and particularly the perpetuation of design conventions. Through my own education at Lincoln College (now Lincoln University) I became aware of how aspects of the teaching of landscape architecture were based on uncritically presented design 'truths'.
    [Show full text]
  • 'In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for The
    'IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FO R THE COUNTY OF UNION . IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE ) RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS ) TO THE USE OF THE WATERS OF GRANDE RONDE ) RIVER ABOVE THE MOUTH OF GORDON CREEK AND ) OF ALL ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE SAID POINT, ) DECREE . INCLUDING GORDON CREEK, EXCEPT MILL CREEK, HERE- ) TOFORE ADJUDICATED, IN UNION COUNTY, OREGON . ) Now at this time the above entitled matter coming on for consideratio n by the Court, and it appearing that certain appeals were taken from the forme r decree of this Court as entered March 13th, 1924, and that mandates of the Supreme Court were filed with the Clerk of this Court February 16, 1925, modifying said decree of this Court as to the rights allowed to E . E . Grout and to the estate o f George Gekeler, and that otherwise no changes have been made in the water right s adjudicated to the respective claimants, as set forth in the findings of th e State Water Board dated the 10th day of April, 1918, and supplemental findings o f said Board dated the 22nd day of June, 1921, as modified by said decree of thi s Court, and it further appearing that a final consolidated decree may now be entere d completely describing all rights, as provided by said decree, it i s CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the relative rights o f the various claimants to the use of the waters of GRANDE RONDE RIVER above the mout h of Gordon Creek, and all of its tributaries above said point, including Gordon Creek , excepting Mill Creek, heretofore adjudicated, are hereby adjudicated, determined an d settled as follows, to-wit : 1 .
    [Show full text]