DOCSLIB.ORG

FERC Project No. 2337-077

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FERC Project No. 2337-077 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Prospect No. 3 Project FERC Project No. 2337-077 Oregon Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power .............................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ........................................................................ 3 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ............................................ 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...................................................................... 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .......................................................... 5 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................... 5 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ......................................... 5 1.4 Public Review and Consultation ........................................................ 6 1.4.1 Scoping .................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Interventions ............................................................................ 7 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ................................... 7 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 8 2.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................ 8 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities........................................................ 8 2.1.2 Project Safety .......................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ...................................................... 9 2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures ........................................ 10 2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ........................................................................ 10 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .................................................... 10 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations ................................................. 10 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ....................................... 10 2.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions ........................................................................................ 12 2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................... 13 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 16 3.1 General Description of the River Basin ........................................... 16 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects ............................................................ 17 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ................................................................. 18 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ..................................................................... 18 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ........................................ 19 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources ................................................ 19 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ................................................................. 24 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................. 75 ii 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................... 88 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use ...................................................... 93 3.3.6 Aesthetics .............................................................................. 96 3.3.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................ 98 3.4 No-Action Alternative .................................................................... 107 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................... 107 4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 108 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 109 4.2.1 No-action Alternative .......................................................... 109 4.2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ........................................................... 109 4.2.3 Staff Alternative .................................................................. 109 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES.............................. 110 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 116 5.1 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................... 116 5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative ..... 116 5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ......................................................... 134 5.4 Summary of Section 10(j) Recommendations and 4(e) conditions 135 5.4.1 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies .............. 135 5.4.2 Land Management Agency’s Section 4(e) Conditions ....... 146 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ........................................ 146 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................... 148 7.0 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................. 149 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................. 152 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (Source: PacifiCorp License Application). .................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Periodicity of rainbow and cutthroat trout in the Rogue River Basin (source: PacifiCorp, 2003). ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 3. Percent of maximum average weighted suitability for target cutthroat and rainbow life stages (Source: license application as modified by staff). ..... 34 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Water quality standards applicable to the project (Source: license application as modified by staff). ................................................................ 24 Table 2. Bypassed reach trout snorkel survey results by size class for each of three sampling reach (Source: license application as modified by staff). ........... 30 Table 3. Percent exceedance levels for average monthly flows at historic USGS gage no. 14332000 in the bypassed reach (Source: license application as modified by staff). ....................................................................................... 35 Table 4. Percent change in average weighted suitability for cutthroat trout fry and juvenile life stages in upper South Fork bypassed reach between existing, bypassed reach median flows and proposed or recommended minimum flows (Source: PacifiCorp, 2015a as modified by staff). .......... 36 Table 5. Percent change in average weighted suitability for cutthroat trout adult and spawning life stages in upper South Fork bypassed reach between existing, bypassed reach median flows and proposed or recommended minimum flows (Source: PacifiCorp, 2015a as modified by staff). .......... 37 Table 6. Percent change in average weighted suitability for target rainbow trout life stages in upper South Fork reach between existing, bypassed reach median flows and proposed or recommended minimum flows (Source: PacifiCorp, 2015a as modified by staff). ..................................................... 38 Table 7. Summary of fish ladder measurements under low-flow conditions and whether they meet Oregon DFW recommended criteria (Source: license application as modified by staff). ................................................................ 45 Table 8. Summary of fish ladder measurements under high-flow conditions and whether they meet Oregon DFW recommended criteria (Source: license application as modified by staff). ................................................................ 46 Table 9. Fish screen hydraulic measurements under low-flow conditions (Source: license application and PacifiCorp, 2016a, as modified by staff). ............... 52 Table 10. Fish screen hydraulic measurements under high-flow conditions after baffle adjustments (Source: license application and PacifiCorp, 2016a, as modified by staff). ....................................................................................... 53 Table 11. Summary of fish screen biological evaluation results (Source: license application). ................................................................................................. 55 Table 12. Fish Passage Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan Schedule of Activities (Source: PacifiCorp, 2016c). ..................................................... 59 Table 13. Special-status plant species identified in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States of America 123 Ferc ¶ 62021
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 123 FERC ¶ 62,021 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PacifiCorp Project No. 2630-004 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (April 8, 2008) INTRODUCTION 1. On June 27, 2003, PacifiCorp filed an application for a new license pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 to continue operation and maintenance of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project No. 2630. The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 41.56 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Rogue River, Middle Fork Rogue River, and Red Blanket Creek in Jackson County, Oregon.2 The project does not occupy federal lands. 2. On October 26, 2006, PacifiCorp filed a Settlement Agreement (settlement) signed by it and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon DFW) that addresses certain resident trout issues related to this relicense proceeding, including ramping rate effects and large woody debris management. 3. As discussed below, I am issuing a new license for the project. The license incorporates most of the settlement’s provisions. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2000). 2 The project is part of PacifiCorp’s interconnected system that transmits power across state lines for public utility purposes. The project was constructed in different segments, the first of which was completed in 1911 (Prospect No. 1) and the last in 1944 (Prospect No. 4). Because the project (1) is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, (2) affects interstate commerce through its connection to an interstate power grid, and (3) has had significant post-1935 construction, it is required to be licensed pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION. 157 Other Settlements of the Chetleschantunne Composition of Site and Actual Occupational Depth 165 166 Bone Artif
    151 THE PISTOL RIVER SITE OF SOUTHWEST OREGON Eugene Heflin INTRODUCTION. 153 GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA 156 DESCRIPTION, HISTORY AND LOCATION OF SITE 157 Other Settlements of the Chetleschantunne . 162 EXCAVATION Maps and Method of Locating House Pits 162 House Pits . 163 Composition of Site and Actual Occupational Depth . 164 Molluscan and Other Remains Found in Shell Midden . 165 Bone Remains . 165 Stone Artifacts . 166 Sculpture . 169 Bone Artifacts . 169 Burials . 170 Items of Caucasian Manufacture . a 171 CONCLUSIONS . 174 EXPLANATION OF PLATES . 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 203 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Map 1. Map of Chetleshin . 158 Plates . 184 153 INTRODUCTION The coastal Indian village sites of Oregon, especially those of the southwestern section of the state, have been neglected archaeolog- ically in the past, and today few remain which have withstood the forces of nature and wanton destruction by man. The Pistol River occupation site, anciently known to its inhabitants as Chetleshin or Chetlessentan, was located on a high bluff overlooking both river and ocean, about 8.5 miles south of Gold Beach, Oregon. For a time this was one of the few prehistoric sites to escape the constant spoilative activities of the pothunter, but in 1961 it finally became a victim of his aggressiveness. Prior to this, Chetleshin had been part of the W. H. Henry sheep ranch and had been held by the family for many years. Until a highway was constructed from Gold Beach to Brookings, the region was difficult of access and could be reached only by an old county trail. At various times the village area had been under cultivation and had produced bountiful crops due to its extremely rich soil, at other times it had been used for sheep pasture.
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Low Impact Hydropower Institute Recertification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337; LIHI
    Application for Low Impact Hydropower Institute Recertification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337; LIHI Certificate No. 109) Jackson County, Oregon Prepared by: PacifiCorp 925 South Grape Street, Building 5 Medford, OR 97501 February 2020 Application for LIHI Recertification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (Certificate No. 109) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... II LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... IV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. VI 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 South Fork Diversion Dam ........................................................................... 8 1.1.2 South Fork Impoundment ............................................................................. 8 1.1.3 Fish Passage Facilities .................................................................................. 8 1.1.4 Proposed Auxiliary Minimum Flow Release System ................................. 10 1.1.5 Conduit
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest FSEIS
    United States Department of Agriculture FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for the greatest good September 2015 VicinityVicinity Map Map OREGON Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest High Cascades Powers 5 ¨¦§ Grants Pass Wild Rivers Gold Beach Medford I Siskiyou Mountains Wild Rivers OREGON CALIFORNIA The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Lead Agency: TARGET CenterUSDA at Forest(202) 720 Service-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaintIn accordance of discrimination, with Federal write civil to rights USDA, law Director, and U.S. Office Department of of Civil Rights,Rogue 1400 River-Siskiyou Independence Avenue,National S.W., Forest Washington,Agriculture D.C. 20250 -(USDA)9410, or civilcall (800)rights 795 regulations-3272 (voice) and or policies, (202) the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation and Findings Report
    Evaluation and Findings Report Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Prospect 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) February 2020 Water Quality Program Northwest Region 700 NE Multnomah St. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Phone: 503-229-5696 800-452-4011 Fax: 503-229-5850 Contact: Marilyn Fonseca www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: Marilyn Fonseca 503-229-6804 Documents provided upon request in an alternate format for individuals with disabilities or in a language other than English for people with limited English skills. To request a document in another format or language, call DEQ in Portland at 503-229-5696, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, ext. 5696; or email [email protected]. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ii Prospect 3 Hydroelectric Project Evaluation and Findings Report February 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Requirements for Certification ................................................................................................................ 5 3. Summary of Application ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Overview of Vancouver Barracks, 1846-1898, with Suggestions for Further Research
    Part I, “Our Manifest Destiny Bids Fair for Fulfillment”: An Historical Overview of Vancouver Barracks, 1846-1898, with suggestions for further research Military men and women pose for a group photo at Vancouver Barracks, circa 1880s Photo courtesy of Clark County Museum written by Donna L. Sinclair Center for Columbia River History Funded by The National Park Service, Department of the Interior Final Copy, February 2004 This document is the first in a research partnership between the Center for Columbia River History (CCRH) and the National Park Service (NPS) at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. The Park Service contracts with CCRH to encourage and support professional historical research, study, lectures and development in higher education programs related to the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site and the Vancouver National Historic Reserve (VNHR). CCRH is a consortium of the Washington State Historical Society, Portland State University, and Washington State University Vancouver. The mission of the Center for Columbia River History is to promote study of the history of the Columbia River Basin. Introduction For more than 150 years, Vancouver Barracks has been a site of strategic importance in the Pacific Northwest. Established in 1849, the post became a supply base for troops, goods, and services to the interior northwest and the western coast. Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century soldiers from Vancouver were deployed to explore the northwest, build regional transportation and communication systems, respond to Indian-settler conflicts, and control civil and labor unrest. A thriving community developed nearby, deeply connected economically and socially with the military base. From its inception through WWII, Vancouver was a distinctly military place, an integral part of the city’s character.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's History
    Oregon’s History: People of the Northwest in the Land of Eden Oregon’s History: People of the Northwest in the Land of Eden ATHANASIOS MICHAELS Oregon’s History: People of the Northwest in the Land of Eden by Athanasios Michaels is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Contents Introduction 1 1. Origins: Indigenous Inhabitants and Landscapes 3 2. Curiosity, Commerce, Conquest, and Competition: 12 Fur Trade Empires and Discovery 3. Oregon Fever and Western Expansion: Manifest 36 Destiny in the Garden of Eden 4. Native Americans in the Land of Eden: An Elegy of 63 Early Statehood 5. Statehood: Constitutional Exclusions and the Civil 101 War 6. Oregon at the Turn of the Twentieth Century 137 7. The Dawn of the Civil Rights Movement and the 179 World Wars in Oregon 8. Cold War and Counterculture 231 9. End of the Twentieth Century and Beyond 265 Appendix 279 Preface Oregon’s History: People of the Northwest in the Land of Eden presents the people, places, and events of the state of Oregon from a humanist-driven perspective and recounts the struggles various peoples endured to achieve inclusion in the community. Its inspiration came from Carlos Schwantes historical survey, The Pacific Northwest: An Interpretive History which provides a glimpse of national events in American history through a regional approach. David Peterson Del Mar’s Oregon Promise: An Interpretive History has a similar approach as Schwantes, it is a reflective social and cultural history of the state’s diversity. The text offers a broad perspective of various ethnicities, political figures, and marginalized identities.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to CITY of SHADY COVE Jackson County, Oregon
    Welcome to CITY OF SHADY COVE Jackson County, Oregon “The jewel of the Upper Rogue” ABOUT SHADY COVE HISTORY As early as the 1870s, pioneers looking for the promise of free land were drawn to the Shady Cove area where tiny rural schools served the hard-working families. A post office was opened in the area in 1882 with the community known as Etna. The post office was eventually moved to the community of Trail – just upriver of Shady Cove. How Shady Cove acquired its name is still a mystery. Some believe in the early 1900s, a man named “Barnes” laid out a town site on the east side of the river in an area that the locals still call “The Cove.” The Cove is a bend in the Rogue River located a few hundred yards upstream from the Shady Cove Bridge. However, the name “Shady Cove” didn’t become official until 1939 when a post office was once again established within the community. Periodic floods have punctuated the city’s history, with the first flood recorded in 1869, followed by others in 1890, 1927, and 1964. In the 1960s Shady Cove’s population increased from a few hundred to more than 1,300. Shady Cove was incorporated as a city in 1972. Additional growth came with the construction of Lost Creek Lake and Dam on the Rogue River nine miles north of Shady Cove. At first the Shady Cove economy was based upon the timber industry. In the 1980s the once thriving timber industry in the region began declining.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF M. Susan Van Laere for the degreeof Master of Arts in Applied Anthropologypresented on March 6, 2000. Title: The Grizzly Bear andthe Deer: The History of Federal Indian Policy and Its Impacton the Coast Reservation Tribes of Oregon, 1856-1877. Abstract Approved Redacted for privacy David R. Brauner The Coast Reservation of Oregonwas established under Executive Order of President Franklin Pierce in November,1855, as a homeland for the southern Oregon tribes. It was an immense, isolatedwilderness, parts of which had burned earlier inthe century. There were some prairies where farmingwas possible, but because the reservation system itself and farming,particularly along the coast,were unknown entities, life for the Indianswas a misery for years. Those responsible for the establishmentof the reservation were subject to the vagaries of the weather, the wilderness,the Congress, and the Office of Indian Affairs. Agents were accountable, not only forthe lives of Oregon Indians, but also for allof the minute details involved in answeringto a governmental agency. Some of the agentswere experienced with the tribes ofwestern Oregon; others were not. All of them believedthat the only way to keep the Indiansfrom dying out was to teach them theEuropean American version of agriculturalism.Eventually, if possible, Oregon Indians would be assimilated into the dominant culture. Mostagents held out little hope for the adults of the tribes. This thesis lays out the background for thedevelopment of United States Indian policies. European Americans' etimocentricideas about what constituted civilization became inextricablywoven into those policies. Those policies were brought in their infant stage to Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project Ferc Project No
    PROSPECT NO. 3 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. P-2337 Final License Application for Major Project—Existing Dam Volume III Exhibit E—Environmental Exhibit Appendices December 2016 PROSPECT NO. 3 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. P-2337 Final License Application for Major Project—Existing Dam Volume I: Initial Statement and Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, G, and H* Volume II: Exhibit E* Volume III: Exhibit E Appendices Volume IV: Exhibit F Appendices (CEII)* (*Provided under separate cover) VOLUME III TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents APPENDIX A. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ........................................ 186 APPENDIX B. FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 214 APPENDIX C. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................... 226 APPENDIX D. HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................... 270 APPENDIX E. CONSULTATION CONTACT LIST ........................................................... 358 Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) December 2016 Final License Application Page iii APPENDIX A. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) December 2016 Final License Application Page E-186 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. P-2337 Prepared by: PacifiCorp Portland, OR August 2016 PacifiCorp Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project Erosion and
    [Show full text]
  • The 1855-1856 Oregon Indian War in Coos County, Oregon
    The 1855-1856 Oregon Indian War in Coos County, Oregon: Eyewitnesses and Storytellers, March 27, 1855 – August 21, 1856 Report by Dr. Bob Zybach, Program Manager Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc. Prepared for Coquille Indian Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office – Cultural Resources Program May 15, 2012 The 1855-1856 Oregon Indian War in Coos County, Oregon: Eyewitnesses and Storytellers, March 27, 1855 – August 21, 1856 This is the documented, and nearly forgotten, story of the systematic “ethnic cleansing” of the Coos, Coquille, Chetco, Umpqua, and Rogue River watersheds of southwest Oregon during the 10-month period from October 1855 through July 1856. Coos County had been created in December 1853, and Curry County was subsequently subdivided from Coos County in December 1855, during time described in this report. In August 1857, the Oregon State Constitution was written by representatives from the Territorial counties in existence at that time. In February 1859, Oregon became a State, and in April 1861, the first battle of the Civil War took place. These are not unrelated events, but they are rarely acknowledged and are poorly understood as a result. This report is an effort to provide a better understanding of the people and circumstances that were involved in the Oregon (or “Rogue River”) Indian War of 1855-1856, and to place them in better context to subsequent State and national histories. This story is entirely told through the eyewitness accounts of more than three dozen participants and observers, and through the subsequent writings of three early historians; each of whom was alive at that time, personally interviewed many of the key people and local residents that were involved, and subsequently wrote books on these topics that remain standard references -- although nearly unknown – to the present time.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Wars.8-98.P65
    A Guide to the Microfiche Edition of Research Collections in Native American Studies The Indian Wars of the West and Frontier Army Life, 18621898 Official Histories and Personal Narratives UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF AMERICA A Guide to the Microfiche Edition of THE INDIAN WARS OF THE WEST AND FRONTIER ARMY LIFE, 1862–1898 Official Histories and Personal Narratives Project Editor and Guide Compiled by: Robert E. Lester A microfiche project of UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF AMERICA An Imprint of CIS 4520 East-West Highway • Bethesda, MD 20814-3389 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Indian wars of the West and frontier army life, 1862–1898 [microform] : official histories and personal narratives / project editor, Robert E. Lester microfiche. Accompanied by a printed guide compiled by Robert E. Lester, entitled: A guide to the microfiche edition of The Indian wars of the West and frontier army life, 1862–1898. ISBN 1-55655-598-9 (alk. paper) 1. Indians of North America--Wars--1862–1865--Sources. 2. Indians of North America--Wars--1866–1895--Sources. 3. United States. Army--Military life--History--19th century--Sources. 4. West (U.S.)--History--19th century--Sources. I. Lester, Robert. II. University Publications of America (Firm) III. Title: Guide to the microfilm edition of The Indian wars of the West and frontier army life, 1862–1898. [E81] 978'.02—dc21 98-12605 CIP Copyright © 1998 by University Publications of America. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-55655-598-9. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Scope and Content Note ................................................................................................. v Arrangement of Material .................................................................................................. ix List of Contributing Institutions ..................................................................................... xi Source Note .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]