DOCSLIB.ORG

BALD EAGLES (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) NESTING in OREGON and ALONG the LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, 1978-2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BALD EAGLES (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) NESTING in OREGON and ALONG the LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, 1978-2007 BALD EAGLES (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) NESTING IN OREGON AND ALONG THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, 1978-2007 Final Report By: Frank B. Isaacs & Robert G. Anthony Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331, USA 18 March 2011 BALD EAGLES (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) NESTING IN OREGON AND ALONG THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER,1978-2007 Final Report By: Frank B. Isaacs Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331, USA [email protected] and Robert G. Anthony Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331, USA [email protected] 18 March 2011 Suggested citation: Isaacs, F. B., and R. G. Anthony. 2011. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting in Oregon and along the lower Columbia River, 1978-2007. Final Report, 18 March 2011. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE.....................................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................2 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................8 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................13 Boundaries.................................................................................................................13 Topography................................................................................................................14 Climate.......................................................................................................................14 Habitat Diversity.........................................................................................................15 Land Ownership and Forests .....................................................................................16 Shoreline....................................................................................................................17 Recovery Zones and Watersheds..............................................................................18 METHODS.....................................................................................................................20 Terminology ...............................................................................................................20 Protocol......................................................................................................................22 Data Management and Analyses ...............................................................................27 Population Size ..........................................................................................................28 Distribution .................................................................................................................30 Nesting Phenology.....................................................................................................31 Productivity ................................................................................................................32 Abandoned Breeding Areas .......................................................................................33 Aquatic Features Associated with Breeding Areas ....................................................33 Band Returns and Marked Eagles .............................................................................34 Columbia River Segments .........................................................................................35 Density of Breeding Areas .........................................................................................37 Distance from Water and Elevation of Breeding Areas ..............................................39 Historical Breeding Population ...................................................................................39 Mate Changes at Breeding Areas ..............................................................................41 Nest Building and Copulation.....................................................................................41 Nest Trees, Nests, Gaps in Use, and Nest Tree Changes.........................................42 New Breeding Areas ..................................................................................................43 Other Species and Bald Eagle Nests.........................................................................44 Ownership of Nest Trees ...........................................................................................44 Population Size by Month ..........................................................................................45 Year-To-Year Nesting Outcomes...............................................................................46 RESULTS......................................................................................................................47 Population Size ..........................................................................................................47 Distribution .................................................................................................................49 Nesting Phenology.....................................................................................................51 Productivity ................................................................................................................54 Abandoned Breeding Areas .......................................................................................56 Aquatic Features Associated with Breeding Areas ....................................................57 Band Returns and Marked Eagles .............................................................................58 2 Columbia River Segments .........................................................................................60 Density of Breeding Areas .........................................................................................62 Distance from Water and Elevation of Breeding Areas ..............................................64 Historical Breeding Population ...................................................................................66 Mate Changes at Breeding Areas ..............................................................................67 Nest Building and Copulation.....................................................................................68 Nest Trees, Nests, Gaps in Use, and Nest Tree Changes.........................................69 New Breeding Areas ..................................................................................................76 Other Species and Bald Eagle Nests.........................................................................77 Ownership of Nest Trees ...........................................................................................79 Population Size by Month ..........................................................................................81 Year-To-Year Nesting Outcomes...............................................................................81 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................83 Population Size ..........................................................................................................83 Marked Eagles ...........................................................................................................89 Distribution .................................................................................................................92 Nesting Phenology.....................................................................................................96 Productivity ................................................................................................................99 Nest Trees and Nests ..............................................................................................103 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................107 Population Size ........................................................................................................108 Recommendation .................................................................................................109 Monitoring ................................................................................................................109 Recommendation .................................................................................................110 Habitat Management................................................................................................110 Recommendation .................................................................................................111 Occupation of Breeding Areas .................................................................................112 Recommendation .................................................................................................112 Nest Trees ...............................................................................................................112
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jefferson County General Reports
    JEFFERSON COUNT¥ ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY STUDY Geologist (125 days@ $125/day) • $ 15,600 * Editing (65 days@ $77/day) • 5,000 * Cartography. 4,000 * Supplies. • 750 * Printing. • 4,900 Travel and per diem Per diem - $27.50 x 60 days •••••••••• • $1,650 Travel to job - 566 (mi. round trip) x 12 x 14¢. 948 Travel on job - 100 x 60 x 14¢ • • •••• 840 3,438 * Overhead on* items above - $28,788 x 20%. 5,757 TOTAL. • • • $ 39,445 Maps: (1) Geology - 4 or 5 color (1 inch= 3 miles) (2) Mineral deposits (combine with geology?) (3) Urban - 7~' - 1:24,000 (black and white) Bulletin Start August 1 if no ERDA uranit.nn study Start March 1, 1978, if ERDA uranium study Contract for flat fee - 60% from county •••••••••••••• $ 24,000 )< Gs-C!J~C-/j' ~ )( -· /-J t:Cl rT,; >-J c; .,, /~ 6DO ;,, Cdjvz To_; 5;0CJO ;Jl(d-, p F J' cL..,.-'.=. 5 ~ (;Yoo -:? / rtZ,, ✓ J /; ✓ (-; -7so y/- ) <",,,..., •..f10 -0, 4 / 9 CJO 77.o, v _, /-O,.tz: T ;,s ... ~ /.J; L:>Vt 7e.,, u 7o JD";, z 8 3 fl? ,. ,. 2- x: / z. ,c /~ ~ , ' Q ,,,-1 ;;;;-~ / ,,...,,c"? )('. 5 y / 2- )C / ,3. ~ /L~/-'.,'/~5 /4 G'~?--8~·-r - 4 -c,-r 5°' Cr?n-c;;,.>c - ~"'--,s ;' /./'I.,.,,, ✓ ~ "'1L /JJSPc,s,-,s Cc ~&-rs/--. i-v~ ,,'-( qco <- oc,-r- •;,; LJ «: ~,e,o,/ - 7£/ / - - ✓, ~,.G ~ t' )OO -/3Ch/ . • . C),,..J t:,..._,?. ~s "7? .)(/ -0.,...-e:. ~~r. T>m1,~ --<--. ~$r ', 1 ,·? J y ~ /tf. tr--0 ro.. A Jz.&.o If/. IJO '1.i,,,,{ • /tJ.oo /'J.-6-C)O 3, Cf I 00 tJ(tt':ll' 5! 00 ,, .:2,..S~ .56',oo ·' .5t' ro ')..&,/, 00 ,, ~)-1, (co ,.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness-Like Areas, but Instead Declassified Previously Protected Wildlands with High Timber Value
    48 OREGON WILD A Brief Political History of Oregon’s Wilderness Protections Government protection should be thrown around every wild grove and forest on the Although the Forest Service pioneered the concept of wilderness protection in the mountains, as it is around every private orchard, and trees in public parks. To say 1920s and 1930s, by the late 1940s and 1950s, it was methodically undoing whatever nothing of their values as fountains of timber, they are worth infinitely more than all good it had done earlier by declassifying administrative wilderness areas that contained the gardens and parks of town. any commercial timber. —John Muir1 Just prior to the end of its second term, and after receiving over a million public comments in support of protecting national forest roadless areas, the Clinton Administration promulgated a regulation (a.k.a. “the Roadless Rule”) to protect the Inadequacies of Administrative remaining unprotected wildlands (greater than 5,000 acres in size) in the National Forest System from road building and logging. At the time, Clinton’s Forest Service Protections chief Mike Dombeck asked rhetorically: here is “government protection,” and then there is government protection. Mere public ownership — especially if managed by the Bureau of Is it worth one-quarter of 1 percent of our nation’s timber supply or a fraction of a Land Management — affords land little real or permanent protection. fraction of our oil and gas to protect 58.5 million acres of wild and unfragmented land T National forests enjoy somewhat more protection than BLM lands, but in perpetuity?2 to fully protect, conserve and restore federal forests often requires a combination of Wilderness designation and additional appropriate congressional Dombeck’s remarks echoed those of a Forest Service scientist from an earlier era.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 14 Obsidian Use in the Willamette Valley and Adjacent Western Cascades of Oregon
    CHAPTER 14 Obsidian Use in the Willamette Valley and Adjacent Western Cascades of Oregon Paul W. Baxter and Thomas J. Connolly University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History ([email protected]; [email protected]) Craig E. Skinner Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory ([email protected]) Introduction Interaction spheres recognized throughout the materials…not locally available or only in small Plateau (Hayden and Schulting 1997) and Pacific amounts” (Ames and Maschner 1999:180). On the Northwest Coast (Ames and Maschner 1999; Northwest Coast, one such material is obsidian, Carlson 1994; Galm 1994; Hughes and Connolly which is visually distinctive, easily redistributed, 1999) have been seen as critical in the evolution of and could be used to create more prestige goods for the complex Northwest Coast cultural expression the household’s elites. (Ames 1994:213). Tracking such exchange Because of its trackability, obsidian archaeologically is complicated to the extent that it characterization studies have been integral to involved perishable or consumable goods that have defining interaction spheres extending well into left no trace. But commodities such as obsidian, prehistory (Ames 1994:223). The issue we explore which is both commonly present in archaeological here is the extent to which people of the Willamette contexts in the region and easily traceable to Valley participated in the regional exchange source, provide an important tool in mapping long- networks. The large site-to-site variations seen in distance economic links. the frequencies of Inman Creek and Obsidian Cliffs Previous obsidian characterization studies have obsidians, especially in the lower Willamette speculated that the distribution of obsidian in Valley, imply their distribution as commodities, western Oregon was due to direct procurement and rather than natural deposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Metolius River Subbasin Fish Management Plan
    METOLIUS RIVER SUBBASIN FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN UPPER DESCHUTES FISH DISTRICT December 1996 Principal Authors: Ted Fies Brenda Lewis Mark Manion Steve Marx ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The principal authors wish to acknowledge the help, encouragement, comments, and edits contributed by a large number of people including the Technical and Public Advisory Committees, ODFW Fish Division and Habitat Conservation Division staffs, Central Region staffs, other basin planners, district biologists, and staff from other agencies helped answer questions throughout the development of the plan. We especially want to thank members of the public who contributed excellent comments and management direction. We would also like to thank our families and friends who supported us during the five years of completing this task. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Map of the Metolius River Subbasin 1 Introduction 2 METOLIUS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES INCLUDING LAKE CREEK 4 Current Land Classification and Management 4 Access 5 Habitat and Habitat Limitations 6 Fish Resources 11 Fish Stocking History 17 Angling Regulations 19 Fishery 20 Fish Management 21 Management Issues 29 Management Direction 30 SUTTLE AND BLUE LAKES SUBBASIN 41 Suttle and Blue Lakes, and Link Creek 41 Location and Ownership 41 Habitat and Habitat Limitations 42 Fish Stocking History 45 Angling Regulations 46 Fish Management 48 Management Issues 51 Management Direction 52 METOLIUS SUBBASIN HIGH LAKES 57 Overview, Location and Ownership 57 Access 57 Habitat and Habitat Limitations 57 Fish Management 58 Management Issues 61 Management Direction 61 APPENDICES 67 Appendix A: References 67 Appendix B: Glossary 71 Appendix C: Oregon Administrative Rules 77 ii FOREWORD The Fish Management Policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) requires that management plans be prepared for each basin or management unit.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021.06.11 BBR Resort Map Ktk.Indd
    Fire Dept.non–emergency: 541-693-6911 | 911 | 541-693-6911 Dept.non–emergency: Fire . 13511 Hawks Beard, near Bishop’s Cap Cap Bishop’s near Beard, Hawks 13511 ROCK CLIMBING helicopters transport from the Sports Field. Field. Sports the from transport helicopters EXPLORE THE make up the Ranch. Ranch. the up make First Ascent Climbing o¡ers specialized climbing and has a fully-equipped fi rst aid room. Medical Medical room. aid rst fi fully-equipped a has and ums and various cabin clusters. About 1,200 homesites homesites 1,200 About clusters. cabin various and ums ADVENTURES services at Smith Rock State Park for all abilities. The BBR Fire Dept. is sta¡ ed with paramedics 24/7 24/7 paramedics with ed sta¡ is Dept. Fire BBR The Meadow (south). There also are three sets of condomini- of sets three are also There (south). Meadow BBR recommends helmets for all riders. all for helmets recommends BBR 1-866-climb11 | GoClimbing.com Home, South Meadow and Rock Ridge (center), and Glaze Glaze and (center), Ridge Rock and Meadow South Home, FIRST AID AID FIRST BACKYARD WITH OUTFITTERS when operating a bicycle, Razor, or inline skates. skates. inline or Razor, bicycle, a operating when into sections: Golf Home (NW), East Meadow (NE), Spring Spring (NE), Meadow East (NW), Home Golf sections: into BLACK BUTTE LOOKOUT • Anyone under 16 needs to wear a HELMET HELMET a wear to needs 16 under Anyone • for such a large residential resort. The Ranch is divided divided is Ranch The resort. residential large a such for FLY FISHING Police non–emergency: 541-693-6911 | 911 | 541-693-6911 non–emergency: Police Ranch Homeowners’ Association, a unique arrangement arrangement unique a Association, Homeowners’ Ranch Hike BBR’s namesake in this 3.6 mile, 1,556 foot climb.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Allison Patterson for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife Science presented on November 13, 2012 Title: Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California Abstract approved: Daniel D. Roby Availability of suitable nesting habitat that is free of nest predators and provides access to adequate prey resources within commuting distance is a major factor limiting seabird populations. Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia ) in western North America have shifted their breeding habitat from naturally occurring habitats in interior wetlands, lakes, and rivers to primarily human-created habitats in coastal bays and estuaries. This shift has brought Caspian terns into conflict with fisheries of conservation concern, in particular anadromous salmonids. Prior to the 2010 breeding season, three artificial islands were built in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex as alternative nesting habitat for Caspian terns currently nesting at the world’s largest colony for the species, near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon. I investigated the efficacy of habitat creation (island building) and social attraction (decoys and recorded vocalizations) for establishing new breeding colonies in the Upper Klamath Basin, California. In 2010, approximately 258 pairs of Caspian terns attempted to nest on the new islands and raised an average of 0.65 fledglings/breeding pair; in 2011, 222 pairs attempted to nest and raised an average of 0.11 fledglings/breeding pair. Competition with California and ring-billed gulls ( Larus californicus and L. delawarensis ) for nesting space, gull predation on Caspian tern eggs and chicks, low water levels, and depredation by great horned owls (Bubo virginianus ) were the primary factors limiting colony development and productivity, especially in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Monitoring of Upper Klamath- Agency Lakes Adfluvial Redband Trout
    Life History and Monitoring of Upper Klamath- Agency Lakes Adfluvial Redband Trout William R. Tinniswood (Author) Michael Harrington (Editor) Klamath Watershed District Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015 Introduction Spawning surveys are the primary monitoring tool for monitoring bull trout and anadromous fish species in Oregon (Jacobs et al. 2009, Gallagher et al. 2007, Jacobsen et al. 2014,). Randomized redd counts are utilized to monitor steelhead escapement on coastal Oregon tributaries (Jacobsen et al. 2014). Numerous studies of disparate salmonid species have shown positive significant relationships between redd counts and estimates of escapement (Gallagher et al. 2007), redd counts are strongly correlated with adult escapements (Dunham et al. 2001) and bull trout redd counts can detect a 50% decline in the population over 10 years (Howell and Sankovich 2012). However, redd counts can have significant sources of bias and error (Dunham et al. 2001), 5 year trends in redd counts can be misleading (Howell and Sankovich 2012) and redd counts should be conducted by experienced surveyors (Howell and Sankovich 2012, Muhlfield et al. 2006). The primary sources of spawning survey error include (Dunham et al. 2001, Holocek and Walters 2007). 1) Inexperienced and/or surveyor variability 2) Index surveys 3) Species overlap (ie. brown trout, brook trout, and hatchery rainbow trout) 4) Redd identification a. Test redds, b. Double counting , c. Omitting redds, d. Counting redds caused by hydraulic scour e. sample size otherwise known as number of spawning surveys conducted or redd age f. Superimposition g, substrate type, coloration, and productivity h. flow i. visibility j. habitat complexity k.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 23, No. the ORE.-BIN January 1961 STATE of OREGON Portland
    THE ORE BIN Volume 23, 1961 Vol. 23, No. THE ORE.-BIN January 1961 STATE OF OREGON Portland, Oregon DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES Head Office: 1069 State Office Bldg., Portland 1, Oregon Telephone: CApitol 6-2161, Ext. 488 State Governing Board Hollis M. Dole, Director William Kennedy, Chairman, Portland Harold Banta Baker Stoff Earl S. Mollard Riddle R. G. Bowen Geologist Field Offices R. E. Corcoran Geologist 2033 First Street, Boker L. L. Hoogland Assayer and Chemist N. S. Wagner, Field Geologist Rolph S. Mason Mining Engineer H. C. Brooks, Field Geologist T. C. Matthews Spectroscopist 239 S. E. "H" Street, Grants Pass V. C. Newton, Jr. Petroleum Engineer Len Ramp, Field Geologist H. G. Schlicker Geologist Norman Peterson, Field Geologist M. L. Steere Geologist * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OREGON MINERAL PRODUCTION IN 1960 By Ralph S. Mason* Oregon's mineral industry produced its second highest value of row minerals in 1960. Following a nation-wide economic trend during the year, the industry was off approximately $3 million from lost year's record-breaking high of $49.8 million, according to preliminary estimates mode by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. The heavy construction commodities, crushed stone and sand and grovel, reflected construction log and were responsible for most of the change from lost year. Metal mining, aside from nickel, was quiet. The state's only uronium mine and one of the two mercury producers shut down. Industrial mineral products showed both gains and losses as compared to the previous year. Cement production was up 12 percent while clays declined 15 percent and diatomite 3 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • View Site Details
    Curtis Ct Eugene Barclay Dr 126 To Hoodoo Ski Area To Camp Polk Area/ Sisters, Oregon Suttle Lake 20 Salem Sheriff’s Indian Ford Springs Black Butte Ranch Barclay Dr Office Post Office Aylor Ct Squaw Creek Canyon 22 Corvallis Camp Sherman Yapoah Crater Dr Metolious Arrow Leaf Trail Tollgate Areas Tam Rim Dr Sisters Park Dr Mckinney Butte Rd Park Pl Larch St Sisters Park Ct Parkside Ln Parkside Blackbutte Ave Black Butte Ave Maple St Locust Ln High Maple Ln School Industrial Park Aspenwood Ave Sisters Area Tamarack St Songbird St Collier Glacier Dr Chamber of Commerce and Information Center Sentry Fir StFir Trinity Way Trinity Adams Ave Green Ridge Ave 126 Forest Ranch Ave Wheeler Loop Service Rope Pl Loop Locust St Pine St Elm St Middle Ash St Main Ave 20 Spruce St Canter Ct School Sisters Cedar St HoodAve Ranger Library Brooks Camp Rd Station Cascade Ave/Hwy 20 Cowboy St Rope St Perit Huntington Rd 242 Cascade Ave Dark Horse Ln City Hall To McKenzie Pass Scenic Route Timber Creek Alley (Closed in Winter at Milepost 84) Creekside Dr Dee Wright Observatory Oak St Hood Ave Timber Pine Dr Crossroads Subdivision Elementary School Cold Springs Campground Creek View Dr (Milepost 88) Washington Ave Timber Creek Dr Larch St Cedar St Fire Village Whychus Creek Hall Green Park Public Restrooms Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave West Village Alley Creekside Ct Playground/Park Spruce St School StFir St Helens Ave Creekside Dr Information Locations 126 Population: 1,490 Elm St To Redmond Overnight Camping Sisters Elevation: 3,182’ Sisters City Park Dr Aspen
    [Show full text]
  • MVUM) Were Made by the Responsible Official Pursuant to 36 !
    *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! 3 ! ! ! 5 ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! 1 2 ! ! ! 7 ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! 3 ! 2 ! ! ! ! 2 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! 2 ! 1 0 1 1 0 ! ! ! ! ! 5 ! 2 ! ! ! ! 7 3 ! 9 ! 1 ! 7 5 ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0.3 570 1 ! ! ! ! ! 3.9 0 0.3 ! 0 2 3 ! 0 ! 7 ! 1 3 ! 0 ! 6 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 0 ! 4 ! ! 3 ! ! ! 0 ! ! 7 ! 3462231 ! ! 0.3 ! ! ! ! 3 ! 0.6 5! ! 2 ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 0.5 ! ! ! ! 1 2 0.9 ! ! 0 ! ! ! 5 ! 3 ! ! ! 0 ! 4 4 ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 2 ! 1!7 ! 2700 7 ! ! ! ! ! 3300134 4 ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 1 3300135 ! ! 6 ! 0 7 ! 2 ! ! 0 ! ! 3 0 ! 7 !! ! 0.7 ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! MARSTER ! ! 1 ! ! 0.5 0 ! ! ! 0 ! ! 1.3 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 332 ! ! 3118 ! ! ! 5 5 ! 0 ! 7 # # ! ! ! * * *# ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! 0.8 # ! * 1 1 5 ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! SPRING ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 0 3 ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! 3 0.8 3 ! ! ! ! 3 0 ! ! ! 4 ! 0 4 2 ! 0.7 ! 6 0 ! ! ! ! 4 6 ! 8 3 3 ! ! 0 ! ! ! 2 ! *# 5 6 7 ! 0 ! 2 ! 0 0 ! 4 ! ! ! 1 ! 0 ! 0 ! 3 ! 3 ! 0 ! ! 5 3 ! 3 ! 3 2 0 ! 3 3462025 ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! 0 5 ! 3 ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! 0 ! 4 ! 4 1 ! 0 ! ! 0 ! ! 1.6 5 ! ! ! 6 ! " ! ! 0 ! ! 0 5 0 ! 4 ! ! 9 1 ! ! 2 ! 1 ! ! 4 ! 3 ! 3 ! ! ! ! 0 ! ! 0.4 ! ! ! 7 0 # 5 ! * 2 # 0 Black Butte ! 3 1 ! * 7 ! ! ! ! ! 0 8 4 1 ! ! ! 2 4 2 # 1.1 ! 2.5 ! ! * ! ! 0 ! ! 0 ! 6 1.1 ! 2 ! # * ! ! 4 # ! 6 # ! * * ! 2 3 ! ! 3462200 # *# * ! ! 1.4 ! ! 8 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! R. 12 E. R. 13 E. 3.7 R. 14 E. R. 15 E. ! R. 16 E. R. 17 E. R.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Late Pleistocene Glaciation and Deglaciation in the Southern Cascade Range
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2004 Record of Late Pleistocene Glaciation and Deglaciation in the Southern Cascade Range. I. Petrological Evidence from Lacustrine Sediment in Upper Klamath Lake, Southern Oregon Richard L. Reynolds US Geological Survey Joseph G. Rosenbaum US Geological Survey Josh Rapp US Geological Survey Michael W. Kerwin US Geological Survey J. Platt Bradbury US Geological Survey See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Reynolds, Richard L.; Rosenbaum, Joseph G.; Rapp, Josh; Kerwin, Michael W.; Bradbury, J. Platt; Adam, David; and Colman, Steven, "Record of Late Pleistocene Glaciation and Deglaciation in the Southern Cascade Range. I. Petrological Evidence from Lacustrine Sediment in Upper Klamath Lake, Southern Oregon" (2004). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 255. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/255 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Richard L. Reynolds, Joseph G. Rosenbaum, Josh Rapp, Michael W. Kerwin, J. Platt Bradbury, David Adam, and Steven Colman This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usgsstaffpub/255 Journal of Paleolimnology 31: 217–233, 2004. 217 # 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Snowdepth Comparison Along the Cascade Range This Compilation Is ©2002-2005 Amar Andalkar
    Page 1 of 5 Historical Snowdepth Comparison along the Cascade Range This compilation is ©2002-2005 Amar Andalkar www.skimountaineer.com Snowdepths in inches for the listed period of record, measured at snow courses, snow stakes, and automated gauges Data provided by: throughout the length of the Cascade Range. Note that snowfall data is available for only a few of these sites. BCRFC British Columbia River Forecast Centre NWAC Northwest Weather & Avalanche Center NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service WRCC Western Regional Climate Center Updated through the 2003-2004 season. Italicized numbers are estimated based on limited available data. CCSS California Cooperative Snow Surveys NPS National Park Service See the end of the chart for an explanation of the Depth and Variability classification codes. WBSR Whistler Blackcomb Ski Resort ECNCA Environment Canada National Climate Archive BRITISH COLUMBIA Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Depth Variab 350 Bridge Glacier, N of Mt Meager (4600 ft) 350 Tenquille Lake, E of Mt Meager (5500 ft) Bridge Glacier (Lower) Average 47 61 65 69 61 Avg Snowfall — L LV 300 300 4600 ft (15 miles north of Mt Meager) Minimum 32 48 40 47 43 Max Snowfall — 250 250 BCRFC, monthly, 1995–present Maximum 63 88 117 108 87 Max Depth 117 (1999) 200 200 This fairly new measurement site is located at the eastern end of the Lillooet Icefield, in the next drainage north of the Mount Meager 171 150 150 Volcanic Complex. Snowdepths are relatively low but quite consistent due to its northerly location and icefield margin microclimate.
    [Show full text]