DOCSLIB.ORG

A Location Analysis of Vandalism to the Rock Art of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Location Analysis of Vandalism to the Rock Art of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 5-26-1993 A Location Analysis of Vandalism to the Rock Art of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Julia J. Wilt Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Wilt, Julia J., "A Location Analysis of Vandalism to the Rock Art of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area" (1993). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4661. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6545 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]. AN ABSTRACf OF THE THESIS OF Julia J. Wilt for the Master of Science Degree in Geography presented May 26, 1993. Title: A Locational Analysis of Vandalism to the Rock Art of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMIITEE: Teresa L Bulman, Chair Martha A Works Daniel M. J oh'f(sd'n / Ke eth M. Ames Archaeological sites in the New World are the fragile and non-renewable remains of cultures which flourished for thousands of years prior to European contact and displacement. Sites which escape the effects of erosion and development often fall victim to vandalism. Cultural resources, including rock art and other archaeological sites, are protected by state and federal laws which 2 prohibit the removal or disturbance of the sites, whether from development or from vandalism. Vandalism is frequently seen as a problem for law enforcement rather than a problem for cultural resource management. Management plans which include cultural resource protection provisions and guidelines often focus on threats to cultural resources from development, and omit planning which targets vandalism. The rock art sites of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ("Scenic Area") have been affected by developments such as The Dalles Dam and by the vandalism. In this study, the nature and degree of vandalism to the rock art sites in the Scenic Area is considered in the context of public awareness of, and access to, these sites. Rock art sites which are easily located and which have been the focus of public awareness are hypothesized to be the most severely vandalized. To test this hypothesis, fifteen of the 44 rock art sites in the Scenic Area were selected for study, and were assessed for kind and degree of vandalism, and means and ease of access. The results of analysis yielded two statistically significant associations of variables which support the hypothesis: an association between vandalism and public awareness of sites, and an association between vandalism and the primary means of access. The analysis suggests that public awareness is one of the most important issues which land managers must address when designing cultural resource protection plans. A LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS OF VANDALISM TO THE ROCK ART OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA by JULIA J. WILT A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in GEOGRAPHY Portland State University 1993 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES: The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Julia J. Wilt presented May 26, 1993. Teresa L Bulman, Chair APPROVED: epartment of Geography ,ch, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people provided information and assistance with this project. Foremost among them are Dr. James Keyser, regional archaeologist in the Pacific Northwest for the Forest Service, who contributed film and processing; Rick McClure, Forest Service archaeologist in the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest, who furnished site records and other materials, as well as a copy of his own renowned master's thesis; Mike Boynton, Forest Service archaeologist in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, who spent a tremendous amount of time answering all my questions, cheerfully searching for documents, phone numbers, names, and other innumerable bits of information, as well as reviewing Chapter III and some of my maps; and Greg Bettis, who also donated time and documents, and who assisted in the location of some of the more elusive sites. Others who contributed their time and expertise include Allen Bell at the Columbia River Gorge Commission; Rich Davis, park ranger at Horsethief Lake State Park; Dr. Robert Fountain of the Statistics Consulting Lab at Portland State University; Rob Whitlam and Sara Steel at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington; Alice Tratebas, Bureau of Land Management archaeologist at Whoopup Canyon, Wyoming; and Eric Carlson, who provided the drawing which illustrates the vandalism at Horsethief Lake State Park. iv Finally, I wish to thank members of the faculty, administration, and fellow graduate students at Portland State University: Carolyn Perry, whose friendship and technical expertise were crucial in the completion of this document; Manette Simpson, Amy Benson, and Tom Harvey, for their friendship, support, and counsel; and most importantly, my committee, particularly my advisor, Dr. Teresa Bulman. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iii LIST OF TABLES . vii LIST OF FIGURES . viii CHAPTER I INTRODUcriON .................................... 1 II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................. 8 III LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ... 19 Geology and Physiography of the Gorge . 21 Climate and Vegetation of the Scenic Area . 26 Fauna . 27 Prehistory . 29 Rock Art of the Gorge . 37 Euro-American Contact and Settlement . 41 N lAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT .............. 47 Current Status of the Rock Art as a Cultural Resource . 54 V METHODOLOGY . 70 Data Collection . 73 Data Analysis . 76 vi PAGE Data Limitations . 81 VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................... 84 Management and Policy Implications ................ 102 VII CONCLUSIONS ........... o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o • o o 0 o o 113 REFEREN CBS o •• o o • • o o •• o • o • o • o • • • o • • • • • • o • o • • • • o • o o • • o • • • o o 116 APPENDICES A THE 15 ROCK ART SITES SELECfED FOR THE STUDY OF VANDALISM IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA AND THEIR RElATIONSHIP TO THE VARIABLES AFFECTING VANDALISM . o o o o • o o o o o o o o • o ••••• o • o • o • o o .0 o o o o o • o 0124 B THE RESULTS OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .. o. 0. 0 127 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Cultural Stages and Associated Sites in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ............................ 30 II Description of the Resource Management Entities in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ................ 50 III Summary of the Cultural Resource Protection Provisions and Guidelines for the General Management Areas of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ....................... 65 IV Descriptive, Locational, Access, and Awareness Variables of the 15 Rock Art Sites Selected for Study in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area . 77 V Statistically Significant Associations Between the Variables to the Vandalism of the 15 Rock Art Sites Selected for Study in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ........... 85 VI The Six Vandalized Rock Art Sites from the 15 Selected for Study and the Statistically Significant Variables Affecting Vandalism . 86 VII Summary of Cultural Resource Management Recommendations for the Management Entities in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area . 111 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ............ 20 2. Representative Early, Middle, and Late Archaic sites in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 32 3. Tsagiglalal, or "She Who Watches", a petroglyph in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 39 4. Natural and cultural features in the eastern portion of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 40 5. Looter's pits, dug at the base of a rock art site in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 59 6. A red and white pictograph at Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington, A) before vandalization, and B) after vandalization . 61 7. An example of vandalism which occurred in Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington, in the summer of 1992 . 62 8. The 156 prehistoric archaeological sites in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, by county . 64 9. The 44 non-inundated rock art sites in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area . 71 10. Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington ................... 72 11. The 15 rock art sites selected for the study of vandalism to the rock art sites of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area . 75 12. Off-road vehicles near a rock art site outside Wishram, Washington ................................. 90 ix 13. Graffiti situated near a rock art site in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area............... 91 14. Graffiti in the form of a recent, non-Indian petroglyph, situated near a prehistoric rock art site in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.......... 92 15. Graffiti at Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington ........... 94 16. Rock-climber at a pictograph site in Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington ................................ 96 17. Vandalized pictographs outside of Wishram, Washington . 97 18. Petroglyph panels salvaged during the construction of The Dalles Dam .................................. 101 19. Sign at Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington, which cautions against the removal or disturbance of artifacts . 104 20. The effects of pigeons on the petroglyph panels at The Dalles Dam in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area . .1 09 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Archaeological sites in the New World, including rock art, are the rare and endangered elements of the past cultural landscape, one that extends from the end of the Pleistocene to the present. The pressures of European-American settlement caused that landscape, and the people who created it, to be greatly diminished, and in a few cases obliterated, in a remarkably short period of time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Relic Hunting, Archaeology, and Loss of Native American Heritage at the Dalles
    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology Winter 2007 Relic Hunting, Archaeology, and Loss of Native American Heritage at The Dalles Virginia L. Butler Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Butler, V. L. (2007). Relic Hunting, Archaeology, and Loss of Native American Heritage at The Dalles. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 108(4), 624-643. This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. VIRGINIA L. BUTLER Relic Hunting, Archaeology, and Loss of Native American at Heritage The Dalles Excavation ofWake Map mound will be resumed thissummer by universitystudents who willfind theirexcavation of lastyear sadly addled bypot huntersdisclaimed by theOregon Archaeological Society... most of thearea around it [themound] are beginning to look as if theyhad beenworked over by a gold dredge.... The Indians dont like it but arent doing anythingabout it. "It doesnt look right,"said Chief CharleyKahelamat, who lives at themound. "All those thingsbelong to theIndians." ? Oregonian, March 29,1933 NINETEENTH CENTURY EXPLORERS marveled at the thousandsof across Native people
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott
    Dammed Societies: Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott McGill Senior Capstone Project Faculty Advisors: Dr. Jamie Dolan, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, and Dr. David McCanna McGill 1 Abstract Since dam construction began in the New Deal Era, it has represented a dominance of humankind over nature. These massive structures have harnessed, collected, and distributed electricity from the rivers they hold back and allow humans to reap the benefits of that cycle. One of the areas where dams are particularly apparent is in the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. While the dams in this region certainly have allowed the area to develop and build by using the electricity collected by these dams, they have also had several negative effects on the tribal people in the region who once fished the mighty Columbia during its populous salmon runs and relied on the salmon for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons. This project seeks to examine the costs of human advancement when it comes to dams, and will do so by studying three dams located in the Columbia River Basin: The Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, and The Grand Coulee Dam. These dams will be studied using Black’s Theory of Law as a framework to examine the manner in which law was applied to each case. The research finds that although the dams certainly provide a useful resource to the people of the region, it has had negative effects on the Native American people who depended on the river. McGill 2 Introduction When President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Creek Canyon
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON and INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 3 of 3 Clackamas County
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 3 of 3 Clackamas County Community Community Name Number BARLOW, CITY OF 410013 CANBY, CITY OF 410014 DAMASCUS, CITY OF 410006 *ESTACADA, CITY OF 410016 GLADSTONE, CITY OF 410017 HAPPY VALLEY, CITY OF 410026 *JOHNSON CITY, CITY OF 410267 LAKE OSWEGO, CITY OF 410018 MILWAUKIE, CITY OF 410019 *MOLALLA, CITY OF 410020 OREGON CITY, CITY OF 410021 RIVERGROVE, CITY OF 410022 SANDY, CITY OF 410023 WEST LINN, CITY OF 410024 WILSONVILLE, CITY OF 410025 CLACKAMAS COUNTY 415588 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified REVISED: JANUARY 18, 2019 Reprinted with corrections on December 6, 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 41005CV003B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide Effective Date: June 17, 2008 Revised Countywide Date: January 18, 2019 This FIS report was reissued on December 6, 2019 to make corrections; this version replaces any previous versions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia River Treaty
    The Columbia River Treaty John Shurts General Counsel Northwest Power and Conservation Council Portland, Oregon CREW May 2014 Northwest Power and slide 1 Conservation Council Columbia River Treaty (1961/64) 15 maf of storage in Canada (Mica, Duncan, Keenleyside/Arrow) Downstream flood control and power generation benefits Sharing of downstream benefits – incl. Canadian Entitlement to ½ of downstream Northwest Power and Conservation power benefits Council Columbia River Treaty (cont’d) US authorized to build Libby Dam on Kootenai River – no sharing of benefits – operations coordinated Entities designated to implement Treaty are BC Hydro in BC; Bonneville Admin and Corps Div Commander Northwest in US Power and Conservation Council Canadian Outflows for Power and Flood Control on Planning Basis Arrow+Duncan Treaty Outflows (60-yr Avg.) 140000 120000 Unregulated 100000 04AOP Regulated 80000 60000 40000 20000 Arrow+Duncan Outflow in cfs in Outflow Arrow+Duncan 0 SEP FEB JAN DEC OCT NOV MAR MAY JULY NorthwestJUNE 15-Apr 30-Apr 31-Aug 15-Aug Power and slide 5 Conservation Council Columbia River: average regulated flows average flows at The Dalles -- natural and regulated 500000 400000 Natural Regulated 300000 200000 Cubic Feet per SecondFeet Cubic per 100000 0 Northwest Power and slide 6 Conservation Council Bonneville Dam 1948 Northwest Power and 1996 Conservation Council Kinbasket Lake (Mica Dam) slide 9 AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF AND USABLE RESERVOIR STORAGE MAJOR WESTERN RIVER BASINS 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 Average Annual Runoff 150 Usable Reservoir Storage 140 130 120 110 100 90 MILLIONS OF ACRE FEETACRE MILLIONS OF 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Columbia Colorado Missouri Northwest RIVER BASINS Power and Conservation Council Northwest Power and Conservation Council U .
    [Show full text]
  • Seals and Sea Lions in the Columbia River
    Seals and Sea Lions in the Columbia River: An Evaluation and Summary of Research By Deward E. Walker, Jr., Ph.D. WALKER RESEARCH GROUP, LTD. June 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................ 1 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 B. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 4 II. Pinniped Predation .................................................................................................................. 7 A. Pinniped Ranges ..................................................................................................................... 7 B. Pinniped Increases .................................................................................................................. 7 C. Mitigation Efforts at Bonneville Dam .................................................................................. 13 D. Effects of Pinneped Predation on Tribes .............................................................................. 16 III. Traditional Tribal Uses of Seals and Sea Lions ................................................................. 17 A. The Traditional Presence of Seals and Sea Lions in the Columbia River ............................ 18 B. Tribal Use of Seals and Sea Lions .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildwood Recreation Site Brochure
    PLEASE BLM Salem District • Leash and pick up after your pet. • Leave your picnic site cleaner than you Wildwood found it. R E C R E A T I O N S I T E • Respect others and behave courteously. If your actions create a problem for Come Experience the Magic Welcome to Wildwood! others, you will be asked to leave. of Rivers and the Miracle of Salmon • Amplified music is not allowed. Heart of the Upper Sandy River Watershed • Lock your car and keep valuables out of sight. ildwood is nestled in the forested Astoria • No skateboarding 30 foothills of the Cascade Mountains, 26 Pendleton • Stay on trails to avoid trampling Portland 84 Tillamook The Dalles vegetation and disturbing wildlife. along the spectacular Wild and 101 N 197 395 84 W 5 97 Scenic Salmon River. Wildwood is a day-use A Salem • DON'T bring glass containers near E Wildwood the river. facility located 40 miles east of Portland, off U.S. C Newport Recreation 26 Baker O City Madras Highway 26, just past the 39 mile marker. Albany Site 26 • DON'T fish, swim, or wade in waters that 20 Eugene Bend are restricted — including at or near the Florence Vale underwater viewing chamber. 20 C Managed by the USDI Bureau of Land I F O R E G O N Coos Bay Burns I Roseburg Management, this 550-acre forest park C 97 GENERAL INFORMATION AND FEES A 5 features Cascade Streamwatch and Wetland P 101 395 95 The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Wildwood Boardwalk interpretive trails and offers access Grants Pass Medford Recreation Site is open from mid-March through Klamath Lakeview Thanksgiving weekend (8:00 am to sunset).
    [Show full text]
  • SANDY RIVER PARK Master Plan
    SANDY RIVER PARK Master Plan City of Sandy, Oregon July 2011 ‘GATEWAY TO MT. HOOD’ Sandy River Park Master Plan 1 ‘GATEWAY TO MT. HOOD’ 1515 SE Water Avenue, Suite 100 39250 Pioneer Boulevard Portland, Oregon 97214 Sandy, OR 97055 (503) 224-9560 503-668-5569 (phone) www.grpmack.com 503-668-5891 (fax) GM Project Number: 2090278.00 www.cityofsandy.com 2 Sandy River Park Master Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF SANDY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Ream Enabnit, Community Services Director Melanie Atkinson, Bornstedt Village Resident Seth Atkinson, Finance Director Byron Ball, Sandy High School Environmental Sciences Tracy Brown, Planning Director Chris Cohen, Sandy High School Student Liz French-Storn, Engineering Technician Jason Dumont, The Nature Conservancy Steve Gillis, Parks Maintenance Kate Holleran, Metro Joe Knapp, Network Administrator Vicky Mills, Sandy Mountain Festival Scott Lazenby, City Administrator Shannon Montgomery, Sandy Mountain Festival Linda Malone, Mayor Russ Plaeger, Sandy River Basin Watershed Council Joe Preston, Parks Superintendent Kathleen Walker, US Forest Service Mike Walker, Public Works Director CONSULTANT TEAM GROUP MACKENZIE Dan Jenkins, ASLA, LEED AP Jenny Richmond, ASLA, LEED AP Tommy King, ASLA Ralph Henderson, PE, LEED AP Megan Goplin, EIT, LEED AP JIM SLAGLE RECREATIONAL TRAILS Jim Slagle, Trail Planner Sandy River Park Master Plan 3 This page intentionally left blank. 4 Sandy River Park Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................7 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review Paul Lumley, CRITFC Executive Director Yakama 1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review Paul Lumley, CRITFC Executive Director Yakama 1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Columbia River Treaty Mica Duncan Keenleyside Libby Treaty came into force in 1964, no end date. Canada builds three dams, U.S. gets to build Libby. Twin goals: optimize hydropower and coordinate flood control. With a 10 year notice, Treaty may be terminated starting in 2024 (Sept 2014). US Corps of Engineers dam No mention of tribes, fish or wildlife Other dam US Bureau of Reclamation dam 18 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission U.S. Commitments Payment for flood control benefits ~ $65 million total over the years (good deal for US) Canada receives title to one-half the downstream power benefit produced by U.S. projects due to Canadian storage ~ $300 million annually (bad) After 2024, the other US reservoirs must be used for flood control before we can ask Canada for assistance (bad) Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Implementation Designation of an Entity by each Party “charged with the duty to formulate and carry out operating arrangements necessary to implement the Treaty” Formation of the Permanent Engineering Board 4 members, two from each country, reporting at least annually to the U.S. and Canada Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Treaty Operations Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Columbia Basin Tribes 15 tribes with management authorities and responsibilities affected by the Columbia River Treaty Columbia River
    [Show full text]
  • OFR 2004-7, a Self-Guided Tour of the Geology of the Columbia River
    A Self-Guided Tour of the Geology of the Columbia River Gorge— Portland Airport to Skamania Lodge, RESOURCES Stevenson, Washington by David K. Norman and Jaretta M. Roloff WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Open File Report 2004-7 March 2004 NATURAL trip location DISCLAIMER Neither the State of Washington, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em- ployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informa- tion, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or other- wise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the State of Washington or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the State of Washington or any agency thereof. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Doug Sutherland—Commissioner of Public Lands DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Ron Teissere—State Geologist David K. Norman—Assistant State Geologist Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources PO Box 47007 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 Phone: 360-902-1450 Fax: 360-902-1785 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/ Cover photo: Looking east up the Columbia River Gorge from the Women’s Forum Overlook. Crown Point and its Vista House are visible on top of the cliff on the right side of the river.
    [Show full text]