DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Environmental Assessment DRAFT Environmental Assessment For issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for incidental take of Fender’s blue butterfly in Yamhill County. Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District McMinnville, Oregon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon December 2014 Title for Proposed Action: Environmental Assessment for issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for Incidental Take of Fender’s Blue Butterfly in Yamhill County. Unit of Fish and Wildlife Service Proposing Action: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Legal Mandate for Proposed Action: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Section 10(a)(1)(B), as implemented by 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by 40 CFR 1500, et. seq. Applicant: Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District. Date: December 2014. This document was prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife by staff at the Institute for Applied Ecology: Lorena Wisehart, Conservation Biologist Carolyn Menke, Conservation Biologist Tom Kaye, Executive Director & Senior Ecologist The Institute for Applied Ecology is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to conserve native ecosystems through restoration, research, and education. P.O. Box 2855 Corvallis, OR 97339-2855 (541)753-3099 www.appliedeco.org Yamhill SWCD Fender’s Blue Butterfly HCP EA Contents Contents 1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Need .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Location and Scope ....................................................................................................................... 5 2 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Proposed Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Individual Permits Alternative .................................................................................................... 11 2.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................. 11 2.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ........................................................................................ 11 3 Description of the Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 13 3.1 Physiographic Setting .................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Topography and Soils .................................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Upland Prairie Habitat ................................................................................................................ 16 3.5 Wildlife and Fish .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Protected Species ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.7 Water Resources (Quantity and Quality) .................................................................................... 24 3.8 Air Quality and Noise .................................................................................................................. 30 3.9 Cultural and Historical Resources ............................................................................................... 31 3.10 Land Use and Ownership and Socio-Economic Factors .............................................................. 32 3.11 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 38 4 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................ 40 4.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 40 4.2 Topography and Soils .................................................................................................................. 41 4.3 Upland Prairie Habitat ................................................................................................................ 41 4.4 Wildlife and Fish .......................................................................................................................... 42 4.5 Protected Species ........................................................................................................................ 42 4.6 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 51 4.7 Air Quality and Noise .................................................................................................................. 52 4.8 Cultural and Historical Resources ............................................................................................... 53 4.9 Land Use, Socio-economic Factors, and Environmental Justice ................................................. 53 4.10 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 54 i Yamhill SWCD Fender’s Blue Butterfly HCP EA Contents 4.11 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 54 4.12 Summary of Effects ..................................................................................................................... 57 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others ....................................................................................... 59 5.1 Yamhill SWCD .............................................................................................................................. 59 5.2 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 59 5.4 Stakeholder Advisory Committee ............................................................................................... 59 5.5 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................................... 60 5.6 HCP Planning Team ..................................................................................................................... 60 5.7 Public Review of Draft Environmental Assessment .................................................................... 60 6 Glossary and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 61 7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 65 ii Yamhill SWCD Fender’s Blue Butterfly HCP EA Contents List of Tables Table 2.1 Current and projected future land use within the HCP Plan Area (PA). ..................................... 10 Table 3.1 Dominant soil types of the Plan Area. Source USDA NRCS SSURGO 2.2 Database. .................... 16 Table 3.2 Listed, proposed, and candidate species with the potential to occur in Yamhill County (USFWS 2013). ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 3.3 EPA 303(d) water quality limited streams in Yamhill County. .................................................... 27 Table 3.4 Water quality limited streams in the Plan Area. ......................................................................... 27 Table 3.5 Land use in the Yamhill basin (Yamhill River Subbasin Local Advisory Committee 2009). ......... 32 Table 3.6 Zoning Classifications in the Plan Area. ....................................................................................... 34 Table 3.7 Land ownership in the Yamhill basin (Yamhill County and a portion of Polk County) (Yamhill River Subbasin Local Advisory Committee 2009). ......................................................................... 36 Table 4.1 Estimated impacts to Fender’s blue habitat from Covered Activities over the 50-year HCP ITP term, in acres and square meters of foliar (leaf) cover (at 100% lupine ground cover). .............. 44 Table 4.2 Impacts to Fender’s blue butterfly host and nectar plants within the pasture areas (and areas projected to become pasture) of the HCP Plan Area over the course of the ITP. Estimates based on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, 0.5% STRYCHNINE MILO for HAND
    Jl.l!l€' 23, 1997 Dr. Alan V. Tasker Acting Leader, rata Support Teaill Tec.'mical and Sciemtific Services USDA/AHflS/BBEP Unit ISO ) 4700 River Foad Rivcreale, ND 20737 Dear Dr. Tasker, Subject: 0.5% Str.fclmine Mlo rex Ha.'ld Baiting fucket C,ophers EPA Registratirn No. 56228-19 Your Slil;;nissions of Septemb€r 23, 19%, and June 2, 1997 ~Je nave reviewed ,YOUr sl.ibmi~sicn of Sept€T."'~r 19, 1996:. ThE' cnongp--s in tl"le inert ingredients a'ld t..'1e revised basic and alte..."7late Confidential StatC1"~nts of Forl'1Ula (CSFs) ;;.r8 acceptable. He 1=1<: fort-l;;.rd to receiving the product chemistry data on the nc-w formulation. Your letter of SepteJl'J::>er 23, 19%, imicates thClt some of these studies ~Jere underway at that tire. The proposed revis20 label stibIcJ tted 00 June 2, 1997, is J:-.asically ) acceptC!ble, but the change identified l.-elow must be made. 1. In the "NOI'E TO PHYSICIAN", change "CI\UrION," to "NOrrcp.:" so as not to conflict with the label's required signal Nord "I'i"lNGFR". 8u.1:'mit one r:::q:y of the fin.-J.l printed label before releasing this prcrluct for shipment. :;;~x¥~~ COP~ E William H. JacObs BEST AVA'LAB\.. i\cting Product 1<1a.'l8.ger 14 Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch Reo.istration Division (7505C) :::::, ~.. ..w·-1······ _.. ._-j.. ......w. ··1· "~'~"·Tm--I··· ·1· ............ ·····1· _............. DATE ~ •......••.•....... .........•..••.• ....... ~ ..•....... ..........................................................................................- ....... EPA Form 1320-102-70) OFFICIAL FILE COpy r.. PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS 0.5% STRYCHNINE r~1.0 HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND FOR HAND BAITING STORAGE AND DISPOSAL I -, DOMESTIC ANIMALS Do not contaminate water, food, or POCKET GOPHERS feed by storage or disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly
    Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy); Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\31OCR2.SGM 31OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 63862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Role of Critical Habitat in Actual future consultations that analyze Practice of Administering and impacts to designated critical habitat, Fish and Wildlife Service Implementing the Act particularly those that appear to be Attention to and protection of habitat resulting in an adverse modification 50 CFR Part 17 is paramount to successful conservation determination. Such consultations will actions. The role that designation of be reviewed by the Regional Office prior RIN 1018–AT91 critical habitat plays in protecting to finalizing to ensure that an adequate habitat of listed species, however, is analysis has been conducted that is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife often misunderstood. As discussed in informed by the Director’s guidance. On the other hand, to the extent that and Plants; Designation of Critical more detail below in the discussion of designation of critical habitat provides Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly exclusions under ESA section 4(b)(2), protection, that protection can come at (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus there are significant limitations on the significant social and economic cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill Creek Watershed Assessment
    Yamhill Basin Council Mill Watershed Assessment December 30, 1999 Funding for the Mill Assessment was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Resource Assistance for Rural Environments. Mill Assessment Project Manager: Robert J. Bower, Principal Author Co-authors: Chris Lupoli, Linfield College intern, for Riparian section and assisted with Wetlands Conditions section. Tamara Quandt, Linfield College intern, for Sensitive Species section. Editors: Melissa Leoni, Yamhill Basin Council, McMinnville, OR Alison Bower, Forest Ecologist, Corvallis, OR Contributors: Bill Ferber, Salem, Water Resources Department (WRD) Chester Novak, Salem, Bureau Land Management (BLM) Dan Upton, Dallas, Willamette Industries David Anderson, Monmouth, Boise Cascade Dean Anderson, Dallas, Polk County Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Dennis Ades, Salem, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Gary Galovich, Corvallis, Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Mark Koski, Salem, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Patrick Hawe, Salem, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rob Tracey, McMinnville, Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) Stan Christensen, McMinnville, Yamhill Soil Water Conservation District Susan Maleki, Corvallis, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Warren Tausch, Tillamook Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Special Thanks: ! John Cruickshank, Gooseneck Creek resident for his assistance with the Historical, and Channel Modification sections and in the gathering of historical photographs. ! Gooseneck Creek Watershed Group for their support and guidance. ! John Caputo, Yamhill County GIS. ! BLM and Polk County GIS for providing some of the GIS base layers used to create the maps in this assessment. ! USDA Service Center, Natural Resource Conservation Service, McMinnville, for copying and office support. ! Polk and Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation Districts. ! Nick Varnum, PNG Environmental Inc., Tigard, for assisting with the Hydrology and Channel Habitat Typing sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Development in Western Oregon, 1825-1861
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1-1-2011 The Pursuit of Commerce: Agricultural Development in Western Oregon, 1825-1861 Cessna R. Smith Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Smith, Cessna R., "The Pursuit of Commerce: Agricultural Development in Western Oregon, 1825-1861" (2011). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 258. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.258 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]. The Pursuit of Commerce: Agricultural Development in Western Oregon, 1825-1861 by Cessna R. Smith A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Thesis Committee: William L. Lang, Chair David A. Horowitz David A. Johnson Barbara A. Brower Portland State University ©2011 ABSTRACT This thesis examines how the pursuit of commercial gain affected the development of agriculture in western Oregon’s Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River Valleys. The period of study begins when the British owned Hudson’s Bay Company began to farm land in and around Fort Vancouver in 1825, and ends in 1861—during the time when agrarian settlement was beginning to expand east of the Cascade Mountains. Given that agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • Using Custom Transportation Data Collection Software with Handheld
    1 Validating Predicted Rural Corridor Travel Times from an Automated License Plate Recognition System: Oregon’s Frontier Project Robert L. Bertini Matthew Lasky Christopher M. Monsere Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 Phone: 503-725-4249 Fax: 503-725-5950 Email: [email protected] SUMMARY This paper summarizes the results of a field validation of a corridor travel time prediction system that uses automated license plate recognition–the Frontier Travel Time project. As part of the Frontier project, the Oregon Department of Transportation deployed a video image processing system with license plate recognition and privacy-protecting data encryption, a central server, and proprietary algorithms to predict corridor travel times on a 25 mile section of rural highway in northwest Oregon. The system predicted travel times were compared to data independently collected by probe vehicles equipped with Global Positioning System devices. The comparison shows that the predicted travel times were not statistically different than the travel times observed by the probe vehicles. Despite attempts to validate the system under congested conditions, all comparisons were made under essentially free flow travel. Further validation of the system in a congested corridor with alternate routes is recommended. INTRODUCTION Traveler information systems, designed to predict travel times and delays have primarily been implemented in large metropolitan areas. High volumes of commuter and time-sensitive freight traffic, availability of alternate routes, departure times and modes, and in many cases instrumented freeways, make developing these systems cost-effective and useful for the traveling public. The California-Oregon Advanced Transportation System (COATS) has been a joint effort between California and Oregon Departments of Transportation to demonstrate that advanced transportation technologies can successfully be transferred to rural environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Adopted Resolution No. 06-03.Tif
    Executive Summary What is the Mitigation Plan? The Polk County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan provides a set of strategies and measures the county can pursue to reduce the risk and fiscal loss to the county and its residents from natural hazards events. The plan includes resources and information that will assist county residents, public and private sector organizations and other interested people in participating in natural hazard mitigation activities. The key activities are summarized in a five-year action plan. The Five-Year Action Plan Matrix lists the activities that will assist Polk County in reducing risk and preventing loss from future natural hazard events. The action items address multi-hazard issues and specific activities for flood, landslide, wildfire, severe winter storm, windstorm, drought, expansive soils, earthquake, and volcanic eruption hazards. What is the Plan’s Mission? The mission of the Polk County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is to assist in reducing risk, preventing loss, and protecting life, property, and the environment from future natural hazard events. The plan fosters collaboration and coordinated partnerships among public and private partners. This can be achieved by increasing public awareness and education and identifying activities to guide the county towards building a safer community. Who Participated in Developing the Plan? The Mitigation Plan is the result of a collaborative planning effort between Polk County residents, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector, and federal,
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Pocket Gopher Damage to Conifer Seedlings D.S
    FOREST PROTECTION EC 1255 • Revised May 2003 $2.50 Controlling Pocket Gopher Damage to Conifer Seedlings D.S. deCalesta, K. Asman, and N. Allen Contents ocket gophers (or just plain Gopher habits and habitat.............. 1 P “gophers”) damage conifer seed- Control program ........................... 2 lings on thousands of Identifying the pest ......................2 acres in Washington, Assessing the need for treatment ...3 Idaho, and Oregon Damage control techniques ...........3 annually. They invade clearcuts and Applying controls .......................... 7 clip (cut off) roots or Figure 1.—Typical Oregon pocket gopher. Christmas tree plantations .............7 girdle (remove bark from) the bases of conifer seedlings and saplings, causing significant economic losses. Forest plantations ........................ 7 This publication will help you design a program to reduce or eliminate Summary .................................... 8 gopher damage to seedlings and saplings in your forest plantation or Christmas tree farm. Sources of supply ......................... 8 First, we describe pocket gophers, their habits, and habitats. Then we For further information .................. 8 discuss procedures for controlling pocket gopher damages—control techniques, their effectiveness and hazard(s) to the environment, and their use under a variety of tree-growing situations. Gopher habits and habitat Three species of pocket gopher can damage conifer seedlings. The two smaller ones, the northern pocket gopher and the Mazama pocket gopher, are 5 to 9 inches long and brown with some white beneath the chin and belly. The northern gopher is found east of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington and in Idaho; the Mazama lives in Oregon and Washington west of the Cascades. David S. deCalesta, former Exten- The Camas pocket gopher is similar looking, but larger (10 to 12 inches) sion wildlife specialist, and Kim than the two others.
    [Show full text]
  • A Settlement Model at the Robert Newel Farmstead (35MA41
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Mollie Manion for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Anthropology presented on March 14 2006 Title: A Settlement Model at the Robert Newell Farmstead (35MA41). French Prairie. Oregon Abstract approved: -- Signature redacted forprivacy. David R. Brauner This thesis is based on the excavations of the Robert Newell farmstead (35MA41), excavated in 2002 and 2003 by the Oregon State University Department of Anthropology archaeological field school. Robert Newell lived at this farm from 1843- 1854. Major architectural features, including a brick hearth and postholes were discovered at the site. This is the first early historic site excavated with such intact architectural features since the Willamette Mission site found in the 1980s. The data from the excavation also revealed artifacts dating from the 1830s through the mid 1850s. I have hypothesized an occupation prior to 1843, when Robert Newell moved onto the property. Based on this hypothesis, a settlement model has been proposed for the site based on the analysis of the archival and archaeological data. I specificallypropose that John Ball, Nathaniel Wyeth's farm workers and William Johnson occupied the site prior to Robert Newell's arrival in 1843. ©Copyright by Mollie Manion March 14, 2006 All Rights Reserved A Settlement Model at the Robert Newell Farmstead (35MA41), French Prairie, Oregon by Mollie Manion A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Presented March 14, 2006 Commencement June 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people to thank on a project like this both personally and professionally First, I would like to thank my husband, Ross Manion.
    [Show full text]
  • City of \Vilsonville, Oregon SOURCE \VA TER ASSESSMENT REPORT
    City of \Vilsonville, Oregon SOURCE \VA TER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE SURFACE WATER SUPPLY September 2002 Prepared For City of Wilsonville 30000 SW Town Center Loop East \Vilsonville, OR 97070 Prepared By M\VH 671 200 TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF WILSONVILLE SOURCE \VA TER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE SURFACE \YATERSUPPLY Description Page No. SECTION -EXECUTIVE SlJMMARY . ... ..... .. .. ..... .. ............. .. ... .... ..... .. ........... 1 . 1-1 Overview . .... ... .. .. ......... .......... .... .... ...... .. .. .... .... ...... ......................... ....... 1-1 Objectives .. ..... .. ... .... .... .... ..... ..... .. ..... ... ... ....... ....... ... .. ...... ..... ..... .. .. 1-1 Summary of Findings ... ... ... ....... ..... .. .... ... ... .. ............ ............ ... ...... ... ... ........ ... .. 1-1 SECTION 2-INTRODUCTION ....... .............. ... ...... ... ......... ....... ...... ...... ..... ...... ..... 2-1 Background ...... .. ..... ..... ...... ... ........... ........ ...... ........ ... ............... ... ... ..... ... 2-2 Site Description . .. .... ....... ....... ... ... .. ... .. ... ..... .. .. ... ... ... ....... ............. ... 2-2 SECTION 3-DELINEATION OF THE PROTECTION AREA .... .......... ...... ......... 3-1 Methodology ..... ......... .. .... ... ... ....... .... ... ... .. ...... .. .... .. .... ... .............. 3-1 Results .......... ...... ............... ............ ............. .............. ...... ............... ............................. 3-2 SECTION IDENTII<ICATIO N OF SENSITIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Yamhill Basin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan
    Yamhill Basin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Developed by the: The Oregon Department of Agriculture With support from the: Yamhill Local Advisory Committee and The Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District The Polk Soil and Water Conservation District December 2017 Yamhill Basin Management Area Contacts: Oregon Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Programs 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97301 (503)-986-4700 ODA Yamhill Basin Agricultural Water Quality Specialist Office: (503)-986-5141 Link to Area Plan: www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/NaturalResources/AgWQ/Pages/AgWQPlans.aspx Yamhill SWCD 2200 SW 2nd Street McMinnville, OR 97128 Phone: (503) 472-1474 http://www.yamhillswcd.org/ Polk SWCD 580 Main Street, Suite A Dallas, OR 97338 Phone: (503) 623- 9680 ext. 101 www.polkswcd.com Yamhill Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan December 2017 Page ii Table of Contents Acronyms and Terms Used in this Document .........................................................................i Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Required Elements of Area Plans ............................................................................................. 1 Plan Content ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Purpose and Background 3 1.1 Purpose of Agricultural Water
    [Show full text]
  • Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan
    BENTON COUNTY PRAIRIE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN DECEMBER 2010 For more information, please contact: Benton County Natural Areas & Parks Department 360 SW Avery Ave. Corvallis, Oregon 97333-1192 Phone: 541.766.6871 - Fax: 541.766.6891 http://www.co.benton.or.us/parks/hcp This document was prepared for Benton County by staff at the Institute for Applied Ecology: Tom Kaye Carolyn Menke Michelle Michaud Rachel Schwindt Lori Wisehart The Institute for Applied Ecology is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to conserve native ecosystems through restoration, research, and education. P.O. Box 2855 Corvallis, OR 97339-2855 (541) 753-3099 www.appliedeco.org Suggested Citation: Benton County. 2010. Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 160 pp plus appendices. www.co.benton.or.us/parks/hcp Front cover photos, top to bottom: Kincaid’s lupine, photo by Tom Kaye Nelson’s checkermallow, photo by Tom Kaye Fender’s blue butterfly, photo by Cheryl Schultz Peacock larkspur, photo by Lori Wisehart Bradshaw’s lomatium, photo by Tom Kaye Taylor’s checkerspot, photo by Dana Ross Willamette daisy, photo by Tom Kaye Benton County Prairie Species HCP Preamble The Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was initiated to bring Benton County’s activities on its own lands into compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Federal law requires a non-federal landowner who wishes to conduct activities that may harm (“take”) threatened or endangered wildlife on their land to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State law requires a non-federal public landowner who wishes to conduct activities that may harm threatened or endangered plants to obtain a permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Francine M. Havercroft for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, History and Anthropology presented on June 16, 1986. Title: Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: V Richard E. Ross During the summer of 1981, Oregon State University archaeologically tested three prehistoric sites on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. Among the sites tested were typical Willamette Valley floodplain and adjacent upland sites. Most settlement-subsistence pattern models proposed for the Willamette Valley have been generated with data from the eastern valley floor, western Cascade Range foothills. The work at Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge provides one of the first opportunities to view similar settings along the western margins of the Willamette Valley. Valley Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette by Francine M. Havercroft A THESIS submitted to Oregon StateUniversity in partial fulfillmentof the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts in InterdisciplinaryStudies Completed June 15, 1986 Commencement June 1987 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology inAT6cg-tof major A Redacted for Privacy Professor of History in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Chairman of department of Anthropology Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented June 16, 1986 Typed by Ellinor Curtis for Francine M. Havercroft ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout this project, several individuals have provided valuable contributions, and I extend a debt of gratitude to all those who have helped. The Oregon State university Archaeology field school, conducted atthe Wm. L. Finley Refuge, wasdirected by Dr.
    [Show full text]