DOCSLIB.ORG

Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. David Brauner. Graduate students Judith Sanders-Chapman,Alexy Simmons, and myself served as field supervisors. The students participating in the excavations were JanelleBaglien, Joseph Coyne, Annie Ford, MicheleGiammatteo, Dennis Griffin, John Hatch, Peter Holm, ChuckKifer, Pete Kiigemagi, Duncan MacLeod, Alan McCabe,Valerie Merrill, Dave Schmitt, Jennifer Short,Lucie Tisdale, and Matt Zweifel. Amy Brauner, Dennis Crawford, DonMueller, and Lynda Sekora volunteered valuableassistance in the field work. The archaeological collections wereprocessed and catalogued by Janelle Baglien, Mike Drydan,Chuck Kifer, Mike McCandless, and Lucie Tisdale. The analysis was made possible bythe support of the Wm. L. Finley National WildlifeRefuge manager. I am most grateful to palmer Sekora for hissupport and encouragement while writing this report. Dr. David Brauner assisted in formulatingthe direction and scope of the analysis and photographed mostof the artifact collections. Special thanks go to Dr. Lee Lyman,who identified the faunal collection andcontributed valuable analytical insights into the data. Tony Walters volunteered valuable ethnobotanicalresearch time in the identification of plant samples. Lee Sappington, University of Idaho Research Associate,provided an affordable X-ray fluorescence traceelement analysis of the obsidian specimens. Radiocarbon dates were analyzed under the direction of Dr. Sheppardat the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Washington StateUniversity. I would like to thank my colleagues, ClaytonLebow, for help in formulating the analytic methods inthe lithic analysis; Lucie Tisdale, for producing mostof the base map data from which the locationalinformation is derived; and Thomas Connolly, from the Universityof Oregon, for providing copies of his research papers. Furd Halsell produced the artifact drawing. I am especially gratefulto my committee, Dr. Richard Ross (chairman), Dr.Courtland Smith, and Dr. Thomas McClintock for assisting me andediting this report. Technical assistance was providedby Susannah Tenny, Administrative Assistant, Departmentof Anthropology. Eleanor Curtis spent severallate nights driving the floppy disk. Dr. Elizabeth Budy ofIntermountain Research offered valuable comments onediting the first draft. The assistance of Jim Gilmore and DougSoutherland (Nevada State Museum) in the darkroomis greatly appreciated. Lastly, my deepest appreciation to my veryspecial family. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Environmental Setting 6 Geography 6 Geology 7 Soils 9 Climate 11 Flora 12 Fauna 18 Chapter 3. Ethnographic Setting 20 Linguistic Identity and Distribution 20 The Reconstruction of Kalapuya Culture 31 Subsistence and Settlement Pattern 36 Chapter 4. Previous Archaeology 52 Chapter 5. Methodology 74 Field Methodology 74 Analytic Methodology 77 Chapter 6. Descriptive Archaeology 82 35BE37 82 35BE10 100 35BE39 112 Chapter 7. Discussion and Conclusions 125 Lithic Technology and production patterns 125 Reconstruction of prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns 142 References Cited 152 APPENDIX A: Fauna in the Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge 163 APPENDIX B: Artifact Typology 175 APPENDIX C: Ethnobotanical Research Service Report 198 APPENDIX D: Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Report 201 APPENDIX E: X-Ray Fluorescence Trace Element Analysis 203 APPENDIX F: Artifact Photographs 207 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Location of the Wm. L. FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 2 2. Vegetation in the Wm. L.Finley National Wildlife Refuge 15 3. Oregon Indian distribution in 1850 22 4. The Kalapuya communities 24 5. Reconstruction of Kalapuyasubsistence pattern 37 6. Location of majorarchaeological sites discussed in the text 53 7. Location of test pits, 35BE37 84 8. Stratigraphic profile of thewest wall, test pit B, 35BE37 86 9. Stratigraphic profile, testpit H, west wall, site 35BE37 96 10. Location of test pits, site 35BE10 101 11. Stratigraphic profile, testpit D, site 35BE10 (B) 104 12. Location of test pits, 35BE39 116 13. Stratigraphic profile of testpit C, north wall, 35BE39 117 14. Location of obsidian sourcesused for comparison with the 35BE37 sample 206 15. Projectile points, 35BE37 208 16. Projectile points, 35BE37 210 17. Projectile points, 35BE37 212 18. Projectile points, 35BE37 214 19. Projectile points, 35BE10 216 20. Projectile points, 35BE1OB 218 21. Projectile points, 35BE1OB 220 22. Knives, 35BE37 222 23. Drills and gravers, 35BE37 224 24. Scrapers, 35BE37 226 25. Worked river cobbles, 35BE37 228 26. Edge ground cobbles, 35BE37 230 27. Hammerstones, 35BE37 232 28. Anvil and pestle, 35BE37 234 29. Mortars, 35BE37 236 30. Shaft abraders, 35BE37 238 31. Manuports, 35BE37 240 32. Incised bone, 35BE37 242 33. Drills, gravers, andworked river cobbles, 35BE10 244 34. Cobble choppers, 35BE10 246 r 35. Pestles and hammerstones, 35BE10 248 36. Graver-perforators and scrapers,35BE39 250 37. Worked river cobble,edge polished cobbles, cobble chopper, hammerstone, and mortar 35BE39 252 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Climatic Data, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon Weather Station 12 2. Variations for the Term Kalapuya 23 3. Central Willamette Valley Kalapuya Groupsin Various Sources 30 4. Inventory of Kalapuyan Food Resources 43 5. Kalapuya Material Culture 48 6. Location of Major Archaeological Sites Discussed in Text (Key to Figure 6) 54 7. Archaeological Traits Commonly Associated with Chronological Periods of the Upper Willamette Valley 70 8. Summary of Upper Willamette Valley Site Chronology 72 9. Artifact Distribution, Upper Cultural Stratum, 35BE37 87 10. Frequency Distribution of Debitage, 35BE37 89 11. Faunal Remains, 35BE37 91 12. Artifact Distribution, Lower Cultural Stratum, 35BE37 98 13. Faunal Remains, 35BE10 (Area B) 110 14. Prehistoric Artifact Assemblage for 35BE10 113 15. Faunal Remains, 35BE39 119 16. Prehistoric Tool Assemblage for 35BE39 121 17. Distribution of Artifacts at Site 35BE39 122 18. Frequency Distribution of Debitage, 35BE39 124 19. Material Composition in Debitage andTool Collections from Sites 35BE37, 35BE10, and 35BE39 126 20. Summary of Selected Attributes Derived from 353E37 Debitage 127 21. Comparison of CryptocrystallineSilica Flaked Tools and Debitage, Site 35BE37 130 22. Comparative Abundances of Obsidianin Debitage Collections from Selected Willamette Valley Sites 132 23. Distribution and Frequency ofProjectile Point Types Found at 35BE37, 35BE10, and 35BE39 140 24. Mammals of Wm. L. Finley NationalWildlife Refuge 165 25. Fish of the Wm. L FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 168 26. Reptiles of the Wm. L. FinleyWildlife Refuge 170 27. Birds of the Wm. L. FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 171 28. Trace ElementIntensities for Samples From 35E37 205 29. Correlation of theObsidian Items From 358E37 205 Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette Valley Chapter 1. Introduction located in south- The William L.Finley Refuge is of Corvallis, central Benton County,about ten miles south of this refuge is Oregon (Figure1). The 5,325 acres federal ownership on perhaps the largestland parcel in The Refuge was the floor of theWillamette Valley. William L. Finley, an established in 1964and named for President Theodore early naturalistwho persuaded wildlife refuges. Roosevelt to createthe first national in the Finley The evaluationof cultural resources survey Refuge began in 1980with an archaeological In accordancewith conducted by OregonState University. Environmental Policy various federallegislation (National Preservation Act of 1966, Act of 1969,National Historic Fish and Wildlife and Executive Order11593), the U.S. protect, and enhance Service was obliged"to inventory, lands they manage" the culturalenvironment on the inventory (Wildeson 1977:i). The cultural resource preliminary step in (Peterson, Bell,Brauner
Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources

    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.
  • Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026

    Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026

    McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
  • Lower Mckenzie River Watershed

    Lower Mckenzie River Watershed

    McKenzie River Watershed Baseline Monitoring Report 2000 to 2009 Karl A. Morgenstern David Donahue Nancy Toth Eugene Water & Electric Board January 2011 ii Acknowledgements The Eugene Water & Electric Board would like to acknowledge the various agencies and organizations that assisted with water quality sampling, providing guidance and input and assisting with the development of this document. McKenzie Watershed Council Water Quality Committee Members McKenzie Watershed Council Larry Six Mohawk Watershed Partnership Jared Weybright Weyerhaueser Company Maryanne Reiter Weyerhaueser Company Bob Danehy International Paper Company Loren Leighton U.S. Forest Service Dave Kreitzing U.S. Forest Service Bonnie Hammond U.S. Bureau of Land Management Steve Liebhardt U.S. Bureau of Land Management Janet Robbins City of Springfield Chuck Gottfried City of Springfield Todd Miller Springfield Utility Board Amy Chinitz Springfield Utility Board Dave Embleton Retired from Springfield Utility Board Chuck Davis Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality Chris Bayham Springfield School District Stuart Perlmeter Army Corps of Engineers Greg Taylor Eugene Water & Electric Board Karl Morgenstern Eugene Water & Electric Board David Donahue Eugene Water & Electric Board Nancy Toth Partners Providing Sampling Support, Database Support and Document Review U.S. Forest Service Mike Cobb U.S. Forest Service David Bickford City of Springfield Shawn Krueger Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Rubin Eugene Water & Electric Board Bob DenOuden Eugene Water & Electric Board
  • Mount Mazama: Explosion Versus Collapse

    Mount Mazama: Explosion Versus Collapse

    Mount Mazama: Explosion versus Collapse WARREN D. SMITH, Ph.D. Professor of Geology University of Oregon CARL R. SWAR TZLOW, Ph.D. Park N aturalist Lassen National Park [Reprint from Bulletin of Geological Society of America. Vol. XLVII , December 1936. ] .. (. I I University of O regon EUGENE BULLETIN OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA VOL. 47, PP. 1809-taso. 6 PLS., s FIGS. DECEMBER 31, 1936 MOUNT MAZAMA: EXPLOSION VERSUS COLLAPSE ~y WARREN D. SMITH AND CARL R. SWARTZLOW CONTENTS -Page Introduction ..................................................... •.:..... • 1809 Distribution, character, and amount of erupted material ..•.......• ·• . • . • . • . • 1812 Dillcr's "bn.ckflow" in Clcctwood Cove. • • . • . • • . • .. • . • • • . • • . .. • 1816 Shape nnd character of the crater. • . • . • . • • . • . • . • • • • . • . 1817 Absence of extruded lava of recent date. • . • • • . • . • • • • . • • . 1821 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON MONOGRAPHS· I\1nterinls of the rim . • . • • . • . • . • . • • • • • . 1822 · l\1cchanics of coJiapse. • • . • • • • . • . • • • • . 1824 Studies in Geology and Geography Records of some Pacific rim volcanoes .......•••••••... ·. • • • . • • . • • . • 1827 No; 1. February 1937 Summary and conclusions ........•.......•..•..••••.•.....•....•.•..•..•.• 1820 Published by' the University of Oregon Oregon State System of Higher ·· ILLUSTRATIONS Education, Eugene, Oregon Figure Pago I. Cross section of Crater Lake ............•••...•••••.....•••...••.••. : .. 1810 2. Pumice areas. • • • • . • . • . • . 1813 3. Section in Wheeler
  • Print Adopted Resolution No. 06-03.Tif

    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,
  • Greenberry Irrigation District Proposed Water Service Contract Draft Environmental Assessment

    Greenberry Irrigation District Proposed Water Service Contract Draft Environmental Assessment

    PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONTRACT GREENBERRY IRRIGATION DISTRICT WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, BENTON COUNTY, OREGON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION LOWER COLUMBIA AREA OFFICE PORTLAND, OREGON FEBRUARY 2007 MISSION STATEMENTS The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our nations natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments of island communities. _________________________________________ The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. PROPOSED WATER-SERVICE CONTRACT GREENBERRY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BENTON COUNTY, WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, OREGON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION LOWER COLUMBIA AREA OFFICE PORTLAND, OR PREPARED ON THE BEHALF OF GREENBERRY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BENTON COUNTY, OR BY CRAVEN CONSULTANT GROUP, TIGARD, OR FEBRUARY 2007 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BA biological assessment BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior cfs cubic feet per second District Greenberry Irrigation District DSL Oregon Department of State Lands EA environmental assessment EFH essential fish habitat EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant units FWS US Fish
  • DOGAMI Open-File Report O-16-06, Metallic and Industrial Mineral Resource Potential of Southern and Eastern Oregon

    DOGAMI Open-File Report O-16-06, Metallic and Industrial Mineral Resource Potential of Southern and Eastern Oregon

    Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist OPEN-FILE REPORT O-16-06 METALLIC AND INDUSTRIAL MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN OREGON: REPORT TO THE OREGON LEGISLATURE Mineral Resource Potential High Moderate Low Present Not Found Base Metals Bentonite Chromite Diatomite Limestone Lithium Nickel Perlite Platinum Group Precious Metals Pumice Silica Sunstones Uranium Zeolite G E O L O G Y F A N O D T N M I E N M E T R R A A L P I E N D D U N S O T G R E I R E S O 1937 Ian P. Madin1, Robert A. Houston1, Clark A. Niewendorp1, Jason D. McClaughry2, Thomas J. Wiley1, and Carlie J.M. Duda1 2016 1 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon St., Ste. 965 Portland, OR 97232 2 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Baker City Field Office, Baker County Courthouse, 1995 3rd St., Ste. 130, Baker City, OR 97814 Metallic and Industrial Mineral Resource Potential of Southern and Eastern Oregon: Report to the Oregon Legislature NOTICE This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or sur- veying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This publication cannot substitute for site-specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Site-specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the publication. Cover image: Maps show mineral resource potential by individual commodity.
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents

    Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents

    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
  • Mohawk/Mcgowan Watershed Analysis

    Mohawk/Mcgowan Watershed Analysis

    MOHAWK/McGOWAN WATERSHED ANALYSIS BLM MAY 1995 Chapter 1 Introduction What Is Watershed Analysis Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure for characterizing watershed and ecological processes to meet specific management and social objectives. Throughout the analytical process the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is trying to gain an understanding about how the physical, biological, and social processes are intertwined. The objective is to identify where linkages and processes (functions) are in jeopardy and where processes are complex. The physical processes at work in a watershed establish limitations upon the biological relationships. The biological adaptations of living organisms balance in natural systems; however, social processes have tilted the balance toward resource extraction. The BLM attempt in the Mohawk/McGowan analysis is to collect baseline resource information and understand where physical, biological and social processes are or will be in conflict. What Watershed Analysis Is NOT Watershed analysis is not an inventory process, and it is not a detailed study of everything in the watershed. Watershed analysis is built around the most important issues. Data gaps will be identified and subsequent iterations of watershed analysis will attempt to fill in the important pieces. Watershed analysis is not intended to be detailed, site-specific project planning. Watershed analysis provides the framework in the context of the larger landscape and looks at the "big picture." It identifies and prioritizes potential project opportunities. Watershed analysis is not done under the direction and limitations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When specific projects are proposed, more detailed project level planning will be done. An Environmental Assessment will be completed at that time.
  • Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook

    Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook

    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook Existing Populations The Willamette Spring Chinook SMU consists of six populations (Table 63). The status of four of these populations including the Molalla, South Santiam, Calapooia, and Upper Willamette is somewhat uncertain. Little is known about these populations, but what is known indicates that the native populations are extremely depressed. While some natural spawning occurs, it is likely that these spawners are the offspring of naturally-spawning hatchery fish since hatchery fish comprise almost the entire naturally-spawning population each year in these basins. Future inventory work is needed for these populations so that they may be more appropriately assessed. Table 63. Population list and existence status for the Willamette Spring Chinook SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Molalla Molalla River basin. Yes North Santiam North Santiam River basin. Yes South Santiam South Santiam River basin. Yes Calapooia Calapooia River basin. Yes McKenzie McKenzie River basin. Yes Upper Willamette Willamette River basin upstream from mouth of McKenzie River. Habitat Use Distribution The distribution criterion was based on proportions of accessible and inaccessible habitat. It must be recognized that these estimates are derived at the 1:100,000 scale and thus will not capture habitat lost in many smaller (1:24,000) streams resulting from barriers such as culverts. Habitat lost in smaller streams will vary by population, but is not likely to account for 50% of any population, and thus does not alter assessment outcomes derived using data at the 1:100,000 scale. Data presented in this report on accessibility of habitat should be viewed as general approximations and not as a definitive analysis on habitat availability/accessibility.
  • Archaeological Investigations at Site 35Ti90, Tillamook, Oregon

    Archaeological Investigations at Site 35Ti90, Tillamook, Oregon

    DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT SITE 35TI90, TILLAMOOK, OREGON By: Bill R. Roulette, M.A., RPA, Thomas E. Becker, M.A., RPA, Lucille E. Harris, M.A., and Erica D. McCormick, M.Sc. With contributions by: Krey N. Easton and Frederick C. Anderson, M.A. February 3, 2012 APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, INC., REPORT NO. 686 Findings: + (35TI90) County: Tillamook T/R/S: Section 25, T1S, R10W, WM Quad/Date: Tillamook, OR (1985) Project Type: Site Damage Assessment, Testing, Data Recovery, Monitoring New Prehistoric 0 Historic 0 Isolate 0 Archaeological Permit Nos.: AP-964, -1055, -1191 Curation Location: Oregon State Museum of Natural and Cultural History under Accession Number 1739 DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT SITE 35TI90, TILLAMOOK, OREGON By: Bill R. Roulette, M.A., RPA, Thomas E. Becker, M.A., RPA, Lucille E. Harris, M.A., and Erica D. McCormick, M.Sc. With contributions by: Krey N. Easton and Frederick C. Anderson, M.A. Prepared for Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Portland, OR 97201 February 3, 2012 APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, INC., REPORT NO. 686 Archaeological Investigations at Site 35TI90, Tillamook, Oregon ABSTRACT Between April 2007 and October 2009, Applied Archaeological Research, Inc. (AAR) conducted multiple phases of archaeological investigations at the part of site 35TI90 located in the area of potential effects related to the city of Tillamook’s upgrade and expansion of its wastewater treatment plant (TWTP) located along the Trask River at the western edge of the city. Archaeological investigations described in this report include evaluative test excavations, a site damage assessment, three rounds of data recovery, investigations related to an inadvertent discovery, and archaeological monitoring.
  • Overview for Geologic Field-Trip Guides to Mount Mazama, Crater Lake Caldera, and Newberry Volcano, Oregon

    Overview for Geologic Field-Trip Guides to Mount Mazama, Crater Lake Caldera, and Newberry Volcano, Oregon

    Overview for Geologic Field-Trip Guides to Mount Mazama, Crater Lake Caldera, and Newberry Volcano, Oregon Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5022–J U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover (top photo): View east-northeast from Garfield Peak on the south rim of Crater Lake caldera. Peak on skyline is 8,929 feet (2,722 meters) Mount Scott, an ~420 thousand years before present (ka) dacite stratovolcano considered to be part of Mount Mazama, the volcano that collapsed during the caldera-forming eruption ~7,700 years ago. The caldera walls in this view expose Mazama lava flows and fragmental deposits from as old as ~400 ka at Phantom Cone, adjacent to tiny Phantom Ship island, to as young as ~27 ka at Redcloud Cliff, the V-shaped face at the top of the wall left of center. The beheaded glacial valley of Kerr Notch, the low point on the caldera rim, is seen between Phantom Ship and Mount Scott. Photograph by Carly McLanahan. Cover (bottom photo): Newberry Volcano, Oregon, is the largest volcano in the Cascades volcanic arc. This north-facing view taken from the volcano’s peak, Paulina Peak (elevation 7,984 feet), encompasses much of the volcano’s 4-by-5-milewide central caldera, a volcanic depression formed in a powerful explosive eruption about 75,000 years ago. The caldera’s two lakes, Paulina Lake (left) and the slightly higher East Lake (right), are fed in part by active hot springs heated by molten rock (magma) deep beneath the caldera. The Central Pumice Cone sits between the lakes.