DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION Exhibit E: Environmental Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION Exhibit E: Environmental Report GOLDENDALE ENERGY STORAGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 14861 Klickitat County, Washington DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION Exhibit E: Environmental Report For: FFP Project 101, LLC December 2019 Draft License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 General Description of the Locale .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Existing Environment ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Major Land Uses .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Major Water Uses ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Water Use and Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Existing Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Surface Waterbodies ............................................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Water Quantity ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Potential Resource Impacts ............................................................................................................ 13 2.2.1 Surface Waterbodies ........................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Water Quantity .................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Applicant Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 18 3.0 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical .......................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Fish and Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Potential Resource Impacts ................................................................................................. 22 3.1.3 Applicant Recommendations .............................................................................................. 22 3.2 Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Potential Resource Impacts ................................................................................................. 41 3.2.3 Applicant Recommendations .............................................................................................. 44 3.3 Botanical Resources ....................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................................... 46 3.3.2 Potential Resource Impacts ................................................................................................. 66 Goldendale Energy Storage Project FFP Project 101, LLC FERC Project No. 14861 Page i December 2019 Draft License Application 3.3.3 Applicant Recommendations .............................................................................................. 67 4.0 Historical and Archaeological Resources/Cultural and Tribal Resources ...................................... 68 4.1 Existing Environment .................................................................................................................... 68 4.1.1 Previous Archaeological Resources Studies ....................................................................... 70 4.1.2 Previously Identified Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 71 4.1.3 Yakama Tribe 2019 Survey ................................................................................................ 72 4.2 Potential Impacts to Historic Properties......................................................................................... 75 4.2.1 Methodology and Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................. 75 4.2.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 76 4.2.3 Construction ........................................................................................................................ 77 4.2.4 Operations ........................................................................................................................... 77 4.3 Applicant Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 77 5.0 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................. 78 5.1 Existing Environment .................................................................................................................... 78 5.1.1 Households and Income ...................................................................................................... 78 5.1.2 Geographic Mobility ........................................................................................................... 78 5.1.3 Education ............................................................................................................................ 78 5.1.4 Industries ............................................................................................................................. 79 5.1.5 Occupation and type of Employer....................................................................................... 80 5.1.6 Travel to work ..................................................................................................................... 80 5.1.7 Housing ............................................................................................................................... 80 5.2 Potential Resource Impacts ............................................................................................................ 80 5.2.1 Employment and Wage Impacts ......................................................................................... 81 5.2.2 In-Migration to the Project Area ......................................................................................... 83 5.2.3 Housing Impacts ................................................................................................................. 83 5.2.4 Effects on Local Government and Services ........................................................................ 84 5.2.5 Economic Impact Summary ................................................................................................ 85 5.3 Applicant Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 86 6.0 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 86 6.1 Existing Environment and Geology ............................................................................................... 86 6.1.1 Miocene Basalt .................................................................................................................... 90 6.1.2 Quaternary Deposits ............................................................................................................ 90 6.1.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 91 Goldendale Energy Storage Project FFP Project 101, LLC FERC Project No. 14861 Page ii December 2019 Draft License Application 6.1.4 Geologic Structures ............................................................................................................. 94 6.1.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plant List Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail
    *Non-native Bristow Prairie & High Divide Trail Plant List as of 7/12/2016 compiled by Tanya Harvey T24S.R3E.S33;T25S.R3E.S4 westerncascades.com FERNS & ALLIES Pseudotsuga menziesii Ribes lacustre Athyriaceae Tsuga heterophylla Ribes sanguineum Athyrium filix-femina Tsuga mertensiana Ribes viscosissimum Cystopteridaceae Taxaceae Rhamnaceae Cystopteris fragilis Taxus brevifolia Ceanothus velutinus Dennstaedtiaceae TREES & SHRUBS: DICOTS Rosaceae Pteridium aquilinum Adoxaceae Amelanchier alnifolia Dryopteridaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Holodiscus discolor Polystichum imbricans (Sambucus mexicana, S. cerulea) Prunus emarginata (Polystichum munitum var. imbricans) Sambucus racemosa Rosa gymnocarpa Polystichum lonchitis Berberidaceae Rubus lasiococcus Polystichum munitum Berberis aquifolium (Mahonia aquifolium) Rubus leucodermis Equisetaceae Berberis nervosa Rubus nivalis Equisetum arvense (Mahonia nervosa) Rubus parviflorus Ophioglossaceae Betulaceae Botrychium simplex Rubus ursinus Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata Sceptridium multifidum (Alnus sinuata) Sorbus scopulina (Botrychium multifidum) Caprifoliaceae Spiraea douglasii Polypodiaceae Lonicera ciliosa Salicaceae Polypodium hesperium Lonicera conjugialis Populus tremuloides Pteridaceae Symphoricarpos albus Salix geyeriana Aspidotis densa Symphoricarpos mollis Salix scouleriana Cheilanthes gracillima (Symphoricarpos hesperius) Salix sitchensis Cryptogramma acrostichoides Celastraceae Salix sp. (Cryptogramma crispa) Paxistima myrsinites Sapindaceae Selaginellaceae (Pachystima myrsinites)
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Below and the Shoreline Analysis Report];
    C U M U L A T I V E I M P A C T S A NALYSIS Klickitat County’s Shoreline Master Plan Prepared for: Klickitat County 228 W Main Street Goldendale, WA 98620 Prepared by: April 2019 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 121201 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. April 2019. Cumulative Impacts Analysis of Klickitat County’s Shoreline Master Plan. Prepared for Klickitat County, WA. The Watershed Company April 2019 T A B L E O F C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ......................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Approach and Overview ................................................................. 3 2 Summary of Existing Conditions ...................... 4 2.1 White Salmon (WRIA 29b) ................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Klickitat (WRIA 30) ............................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Final Umatilla Basin Water Supply Study for the Confederated Tribes
    FINAL UMATILLA BASIN WATER SUPPLY STUDY for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho January 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Protecting America's Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. General location map. CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Study Background ..................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 2 History ................................................................................................................... 3 Appraisal-Level Water Supply Alternatives .................................................................. 4 Hydrology Baseline .................................................................................................... 5 WID Full Exchange ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Morrow County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan
    MORROW COUNTY PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a regional partnership funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program. The Mid-Columbia Region grant was awarded in the fall of 2005 to support the development of natural hazard mitigation plans for communities in the region. The County utilized a planning process, plan framework, and plan development support provided by the Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup (ONHW) at the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center. u.s. Department of Homeland Security Region X 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 FEMA December 15,2006 Honorable Terry Tallman, Chair Honorable John Wenholz Honorable Ray Grace Morrow County Board ofCommissioners P.O. Box 788 Heppner, Oregon 97836 Dear Commissioners Tallman, Wenholz, and Grace: The U.S. Department ofHomeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved the Morrow County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan as a multi-jurisdictional local plan as outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. With approval ofthis plan, the following entities are now eligible to apply for the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act's hazard mitigation project grants through December 15,2011: Morrow County City oflone City of Boardman City of Irrigon City ofHeppner City ofLexington The plan's approval provides eligibility to apply for hazard mitigation projects through your state. Grant applications will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and other requirements ofthe particular hazard mitigation grant program. For example, a mitigation project identified in the approved plan mayor may not meet the eligibility requirements for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project
    McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bonneville Power Administration February 2002 McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0332) Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department of Army: Corps of Engineers. States Involved: Oregon and Washington Abstract: Bonneville is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a 79-mile-long 500-kilovolt- transmission line in Benton and Klickitat Counties, Washington, and Umatilla and Sherman counties, Oregon. The new line would start at Bonneville’s McNary Substation in Oregon and would cross the Columbia River just north of the substation into Washington. The line would then proceed west for about 70 miles along the Columbia River. At the John Day Dam, the line would again cross the Columbia River into Oregon and terminate at Bonneville’s John Day Substation. The new line would parallel existing transmission lines for the entire length; mostly within existing available right-of-way. Presently, the existing transmission lines in the area are operating at capacity. These lines help move power from the east side of the Cascades to the west side, where there is a high need for electricity (cities along the I-5 corridor). Because the Northwest has only recently recovered from a shortfall in electric energy supply and a volatile wholesale power market in which prices reached record highs, there are many new proposals for facilities to generate new power.
    [Show full text]
  • State Waterway Navigability Determination
    BODY OF WATER & LOCATION NAV CG NON-NAV CG REMARKS yellow highlight = apply to USCG for permit up to RM stipulated Alsea Bay, OR X Estuary of Pacific Ocean. Alsea River, OR X Flows into Alsea Bay, Waldport, OR. Navigable to mile 13. Ash Creek, OR X Tributary of Willamette River at Independence, OR. Barrett Slough, OR X Tributary of Lewis and Clark River. Bayou St. John, OR X Court decision, 1935 AMC 594, 10 Mile Lake, Coos County, OR. Bear Creek (Coos County), OR X Tributary of Coquille River (tidal at mile 0.5) Beaver Creek, OR X Tributary of Nestucca River. Beaver Slough, OR X See Clatskanie River. Big Creek (Lane County), OR X At U.S. 101 bridge (tidal). Big Creek (Lincoln County), OR X Flows into Pacific Ocean. Big Creek Slough, OR X Upstream end at Knappa, OR (tidal). At site of Birch Creek (Sparks) Bridge on Canyon Road near Birch Creek, OR X Pendleton, OR. Side channel of Yaquina River. 3 mi. downstream from Toledo, Blind Slough, OR X OR (tidal). Tributary of Knappa Slough. 10 mi. upstream from Astoria, OR Blind Slough/ Gnat Creek, OR X (tidal at mile 2.0). Boone Slough, OR X Tributary of Yaquina River between Newport and Toledo, OR. Side channel of Willamette River. 3 miles upstream from Booneville Channel, OR X Corvallis, OR. Boulder Creek, OR X 7 miles N of Lake Quinalt. Side channel of Columbia River. 5 miles N of Clatskanie, OR Bradbury Slough, OR X (tidal). Brownlee Reservoir, ID /OR X See Snake River. Also known as South Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Tomorrow Sherman County, Oregon
    Planning for Tomorrow Sherman County, Oregon 1967 Long Range Planning Conference Contents Page MARKETING AND Introduction 3 TRANSPORTATION Sherman County, Oregon 4 Page Roads 26 PUBLIC AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS State Highways 26 Recreation 5 County Roads 27 Irrigation 5 Grain Grades and Quality 28 Industry 5 Market Information 29 Legislation 6 Marketing Service Organizations29 Public Relations 6 Local Business 6 WATER RESOURCE Industrial Development 6 DEVELOPMENT Chart on Sherman County Population Data and Trend 7 Irrigation 32 County Government 8 Ground Water Survey 33 County Planning Commission 8 Soil Conservation Projects 33 Pumping Sites 33 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT State and Federal Projects 34 Libraries 9 Long-Range Forecast 34 Museum 9 The Community 10 LIVESTOCK AND RANGE Housing 10 Beef Cattle 35 Summary 10 Hogs 36 Horses 36 RECREATION AND SPORTS Range 36 Park and Recreation Planning 11 Summary 37 Park Development 11 Chart on Sherman Counnty LAND USE AND CROPS Waterfront Development 12 Tennis Courts 13 Crop Production 38 Swimming Pool 13 Insect Problems 38 Summary 14 Plant Disease Control 38 Fertilizer Programs 39 YOUTH AND FAMILY LIFE Variety Testing 39 Youth Center 15 Barley and Spring Wheat 39 Swimming Pool 15 Seed Quality 40 New Families 15 Irrigated Crops 40 Summer Program for Youngsters16Soil Conservation 40 3uvenile Court 16 Dryland Farming 40 Emotional Problems of Youth 16 Conservation Practice Adoption40 Culture 17 Research and Demonstration Senior Citizens 17 Needs 41 Home Extension 17 Conservation Coordination, Tech- HEALTH AND
    [Show full text]
  • FY2014 FCRPS Annual Report-3-4-15
    Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FISCAL YEAR 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Under the Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for Management of Historic Properties Affected by Multipurpose Operations of Fourteen Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act March 31, 2015 Lake Roosevelt - 2014 FY2014 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 31, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 2.0 FCRPS CULTURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT ......................... 1 2.1 Section 106 NHPA Compliance – Archaeological and Historic Sites, and Standing Historic Structures....................................................................................... 2 2.2 Determination of the Project-Specific Portion of the Area of Potential Effects ........ 2 2.3 Identification of Historic Properties (Inventory) ........................................................ 4 2.4 Evaluation of Historic Significance ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Affinities of Horse Mountain, Grouse Mountain, Board
    FLORISTIC AFFINITIES OF HORSE MOUNTAIN, GROUSE MOUNTAIN, BOARD CAMP MOUNTAIN AND SURROUNDING AREAS, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Cara Witte Scott A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Biology December 2010 FLORISTIC AFFINITIES OF HORSE MOUNTAIN, GROUSE MOUNTAIN, BOARD CAMP MOUNTAIN AND SURROUNDING AREAS, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Cara Witte Scott Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Dr. Michael R. Mesler, Major Professor Date Dr. John O. Sawyer, Committee Member Date Dr. Erik S. Jules, Committee Member Date Dr. John O. Reiss, Committee Member Date Dr. Kenneth R. Aalto, Committee Member Date Dr. Michael R. Mesler, Graduate Coordinator Date Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date ABSTRACT Floristic studies are especially timely since habitat loss is increasing dramatically. From the conservation perspective, it is imperative to document the distribution of plant species in areas that are floristically rich. For this study, I conducted a floristic survey along a 20-mile transect in the Horse Mountain, Grouse Mountain and Board Camp Mountain areas of Humboldt County, California. I also determined the phytogeographical affinities of the taxa I found and made comparisons between my flora and 11 other northwest California floras. Additionally, I made a comparison between my flora and the historical collection of Joseph Prince Tracy, a botanist who collected extensively in the same area during the early 1900s. I used an informal stratified sampling regime to cover the different vegetation types within the study area. Five hundred and forty-eight species were identified from 77 vascular plant families, including 18 California Native Plant Society listed taxa and 28 taxa endemic to northwest California.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Surveys and Vegetation Mapping For
    Appendix A Rare Plant and Vegetation Surveys 2002 and 2003 Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve Prepared For The Nature Conservancy San Diego County Field Office The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation By Virginia Moran, M.S. Botany Sole Proprietor Ecological Outreach Services P.O. Box 2858 Grass Valley, California 95945 Southeast view from the northern portion of the West Ranch with snow-frosted Volcan Mountain in the background. Information contained in this report is that of Ecological Outreach Services and all rights thereof reserved. Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 2 Contents I. Summary ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 4 II. Introduction and Methods……………………………..……………… …………… 5 III Results…………………………………………………………………...…………… 6 III.A. East Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.B. West Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.C. Sensitive Resources of the Santa Ysabel Ranch IV. Discussion……………………………………………………………….……………. 14 V. Conclusion…………………………………………….……………….……………… 18 VI. Management Recommendations…………………….……………………… …….. 19 VII. Suggested Future Projects………………….…….……………………… …………26 VIII. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… …….. 28 IX. References Cited / Consulted ……………………..……………………………….. 29 X. Maps and Figures ………………………….……………………………… ……... 30 Appendices 1 - 6 …………………………….…………………………………………….…44 Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 3 I. Summary The Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve was established in 2001 from a purchase by The Nature Conservancy from the Edwards Family; the Ranch is now owned by the County of San Diego and managed as a Department of Parks and Recreation Open Space Preserve. It totals nearly 5,400 acres and is comprised of two parcels; an "East Ranch” and a "West Ranch". The East Ranch is east of the town of Santa Ysabel (and Highway 79 running north) and is bordered on the east by Farmer's Road in Julian.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List Loletta Lakes and Peak
    *Non-native Loletta Lakes and Peak Plant List as of 7/12/2016 compiled by Tanya Harvey T25S.R3E.S14,15,22,23 westerncascades.com FERNS & ALLIES Ribes erythrocarpum Erigeron foliosus var. confinis Athyriaceae Ribes lacustre Eriophyllum lanatum Athyrium filix-femina Ribes viscosissimum Eucephalus ledophyllus (Aster ledophyllus ) Cystopteridaceae Rhamnaceae Gnaphalium palustre Cystopteris fragilis Ceanothus velutinus Hieracium albiflorum Dennstaedtiaceae Rosaceae Hieracium scouleri Pteridium aquilinum Amelanchier alnifolia Luina hypoleuca Pteridaceae Holodiscus discolor Aspidotis densa Rudbeckia occidentalis Rosa gymnocarpa Cheilanthes gracillima Senecio integerrimus Rubus lasiococcus Cryptogramma acrostichoides Senecio triangularis Sorbus scopulina (Cryptogramma crispa) Stephanomeria lactucina Spiraea douglasii Selaginellaceae Symphyotrichum foliaceum Spiraea splendens Selaginella wallacei (Aster foliaceus) (Spiraea densiflora) TREES & SHRUBS: Berberidaceae CONIFERS Salicaceae Cupressaceae Achlys triphylla Salix eastwoodiae Callitropsis nootkatensis Vancouveria hexandra (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) Salix sitchensis Boraginaceae Calocedrus decurrens HERBACEOUS DICOTS (Libocedrus decurrens) Apiaceae Mertensia paniculata Pinaceae Ligusticum grayi Brassicaceae Abies amabilis Lomatium dissectum Boechera howellii (Arabis platysperma var. howellii) Abies concolor x grandis Lomatium hallii Boechera retrofracta Abies lasiocarpa Lomatium martindalei (Arabis holboellii) Abies magnifica x procera Osmorhiza berteroi Boechera sp. (Osmorhiza chilensis)
    [Show full text]
  • Gi Lliam County
    GI LLIAM COUNTY Gilliam County Cecil Children Cecil Children Janice M Healy (2000) Janice M. Healy (2000) Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Area: 1,223 square miles Population ( I 998): 2,023 County seat: Condon, Population: 790 County established: 25 February 1885 The earliest established public cemetery in Gilliam County was apparently Blalock in 1880. This was during the construction of the trans-continental railway to Portland. Gilliam County then began to be populated by settlers who engaged in wheat and livestock ranching. There was some lumbering in the far south of the county. The 1880's saw the establishment of most of the public cemeteries. Cecil Children Janice M Healy (2000) 317 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County 318 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County 319 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Cecil Children Janice M. Healy (2oco) 320 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Name of Cemetery and also known . I Number of burials Arra Coniston pate started or earriest known burial I Township I Range I Section ARLINGTON D 3.38 1 1882 T3N R21E S28 AKA: 1. MASONIC Leave the 1-84 Freeway and turn onto OR. Hwy. 19 (Locust Street) into town. Turn right off of Locust Street onto Main Street, go about 0.6 of a mile up the hill to the cemetery below the water tower. You will pass the Elementary and High Schools. (Arlington 1971 USGS Quad. map.) BLALOCK 8.75 8 1880-1895 T3N R19E S36 Now underwater in Lake Umatilla. In 1960 all known graves (16) were moved to the Arlington Cemetery as the John Day Dam was being constructed.
    [Show full text]