DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydropower Technical Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydropower Technical Appendix Hydropower Hydropower Technical Appendix UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION Initial Alternatives Information Report Hydropower Technical Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1-1 STUDY AREA.........................................................................................................................1-2 SURFACE WATER STORAGE MEASURES CONSIDERED IN THE IAIR ...........................1-3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................1-3 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS......... 2-1 HYDROPOWER BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2-1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................................2-1 EXISTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN....2-5 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake ............................................................................................2-9 Friant Power Project............................................................................................................2-9 PG&E Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project ..............................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse .........................................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff Dam and Lake................................................................................................2-11 PG&E Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project.........................................................................2-11 Wishon Powerhouse ......................................................................................................2-12 Crane Valley Project Facilities Above Wishon Powerhouse ..........................................2-12 SCE Big Creek Hydroelectric System ...............................................................................2-13 Big Creek No. 4 Powerhouse.........................................................................................2-14 Redinger Dam and Lake ................................................................................................2-14 Big Creek System Facilities Above Redinger Lake........................................................2-15 FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS....................................................................2-17 Existing Power Projects.....................................................................................................2-17 CVP/SWP Power Generation and Use .............................................................................2-17 Regional Trends in Power Generation and Valuation .......................................................2-17 CHAPTER 3. HYDROPOWER EVALUATION OF SURFACE WATER STORAGE MEASURES......................................................................................... 3-1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................3-1 SOURCE OF HYDROLOGIC DATA.......................................................................................3-2 SIMULATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES..............................................................................3-3 Friant Power Project Simulation Assumptions ....................................................................3-3 PG&E Kerckhoff Project Simulation Assumptions...............................................................3-4 PG&E Crane Valley Project - Wishon Powerhouse Simulation Assumptions .....................3-4 SCE Big Creek System – Big Creek No. 4 Powerhouse Simulation Assumptions..............3-4 Upper San Joaquin River Basin i Initial Alternatives Information Report Storage Investigation June 2005 Table of Contents Hydropower Technical Appendix SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER STORAGE SITES .........................................................3-5 RAISE FRIANT DAM..............................................................................................................3-8 Storage Sizes Considered in Hydropower Evaluation.........................................................3-8 Power Generation Parameter Assumptions ........................................................................3-8 Powerhouse Considerations ...............................................................................................3-8 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses..........................................................................3-9 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-10 Transmission .....................................................................................................................3-10 TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR.....................................................................................3-11 Storage Sizes Considered in Hydropower Evaluation.......................................................3-11 Power Generation Parameter Assumptions ......................................................................3-11 TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR - RM 274 .....................................................................3-13 Powerhouse Considerations .............................................................................................3-13 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses........................................................................3-13 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-14 Transmission .....................................................................................................................3-15 TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR - RM 279 .....................................................................3-16 Powerhouse Considerations .............................................................................................3-16 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses........................................................................3-18 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-20 TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR - RM 286 .....................................................................3-21 Powerhouse Considerations .............................................................................................3-21 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses........................................................................3-24 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-26 FINE GOLD RESERVOIR ....................................................................................................3-27 Storage Sizes Considered in Hydropower Evaluation.......................................................3-28 Power Generation Parameter Assumptions ......................................................................3-28 Powerhouse Considerations .............................................................................................3-28 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses........................................................................3-29 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-30 Transmission .....................................................................................................................3-30 YOKOHL VALLEY RESERVOIR..........................................................................................3-31 Storage Sizes Considered in Hydropower Evaluation.......................................................3-31 Power Generation Parameter Assumptions ......................................................................3-31 Powerhouse Considerations .............................................................................................3-31 Estimated Energy Generation and Losses........................................................................3-32 Potential for Pumped Storage Development .....................................................................3-33 Transmission .....................................................................................................................3-33 RM 315 RESERVOIR...........................................................................................................3-34 GRANITE PROJECT............................................................................................................3-34 JACKASS-CHIQUITO PROJECT.........................................................................................3-35 COMPARISON OF NET HYDROPOWER GENERATION...................................................3-36 NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................................3-36 CHAPTER 4. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................ 4-1 CHAPTER 5. REFERENCES..................................................................................... 5-1 Initial Alternatives Information Report ii Upper San Joaquin River Basin June 2005 Storage Investigation Hydropower Technical Appendix Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1. EVENTS INFLUENCING HYDROPOWER AND WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN ......................2-2 TABLE 2-2. HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 238/Tuesday, December 12, 2006/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 74515 service called eSubscription that allows f. Location: On the San Joaquin River, 119,940 acre-feet at an elevation of you to keep track of all formal issuances near North Fork, California. The project about 3,330 feet above mean sea level; and submittals in specific dockets. This affects 2,036 cres of Federal land one power tunnel about 7.5 miles long, can reduce the amount of time you administered by the Sierra National to convey water from Mammoth Pool spend researching proceedings by Forest. Reservoir to Mammoth Pool automatically providing you with g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Powerhouse; two small diversions on notification of these filings, document Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). Rock Creek and Ross Creek; and one 230 summaries and direct links to the h. Applicant Contact: Russ W. kV transmission line about 6.7 miles documents. To register for this service, Krieger, Vice President Power long that connects the Mammoth Pool go to http://www.ferc.gov/ Production, Southern California Edison Powerhouse to the non-project Big esubscribenow.htm. Company, 300 N. Lone Hill Ave., San Creek No. 3 Switchyard. Type of Public meetings or site visits will be Dimas, CA 91773. Phone: 909–394– Application: New—Major Modified posted on the Commission’s calendar 8667. License located at http://www.ferc.gov/ i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at (202) m. A copy of the application is EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along 502–6095, or e-mail: available for review at the Commission with other related information.
    [Show full text]
  • Terr–14 Mule Deer
    TERR–14 MULE DEER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2001 and 2002, the literature review, a camera feasibility study, the Mammoth Pool migration study (observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study), and a hunter access study were completed. A map of known mule deer summer and winter ranges, migration corridors, and holding areas was created based on the literature review. The camera feasibility study was conducted in the fall of 2001 to test the remote camera system for the spring 2002 remote camera study. The cameras were successful at capturing photographs of 82 animals, including photographs of six deer, during this testing period. The Mammoth Pool migration study consisted of an observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study. The study focused on documenting key migration routes across the reservoir and relative use, identifying potential migration barriers, and documenting any deer mortality in the reservoir. The observation study consisted of two observers positioned with binoculars at two observation points on Mammoth Pool at dusk and dawn in order to observe migrating deer. There were no observations of deer using the dam road. Two observations of deer were made out of a total of 51 observation periods. One observation consisted of a single deer that swam from the Windy Point Boat Launch area to the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch area. The other observation was of one group of five adult deer approaching the reservoir near the observation point by the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch, but turning back up the hill. There was no sign of difficulty in the deer swimming or exiting the reservoir and no obvious disturbance to the deer that turned back.
    [Show full text]
  • SCE Petition for Declaratory Order
    Troutman Sanders LLP 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-2134 troutman.com Charles R. Sensiba [email protected] June 17, 2019 Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: Southern California Edison Company; Petition for Declaratory Order and Request for Expedited Consideration; Project Nos. 67-__, 120-__, 2085-__,2086-__, 2174-__, 2175-__ Dear Secretary Bose: As set forth in the enclosed Petition for Declaratory Order (“Petition”), Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) respectfully requests the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) to declare on an expedited basis that the California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) has waived authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA”) for failure to act on SCE’s requests for water quality certification (“WQC”) within the statutorily prescribed one-year time period for all six projects within the Big Creek Hydroelectric System (collectively referred to as the “Big Creek Projects”) that are pending for relicensing before the Commission. For purposes of this Petition, the Big Creek Projects consist of Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8, and Eastwood Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 67); Big Creek No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 120); Mammoth Pool Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2085); Vermilion Valley Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2086); Portal Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2174); and Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2175).2 The Commission’s relicensing of the Big Creek Projects has been delayed for well over a decade—and in some instances for nearly 20 years—due in large measure to SWRCB’s consistent annual direction that SCE submit a withdrawal-and-resubmittal letter for the express purpose of attempting to provide SWRCB another year to act on SCE’s WQC requests.
    [Show full text]
  • PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions
    PIT Tag Monitoring for Emigrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Three Flow Conditions Introduction Historically, California’s upper San Joaquin River (SJR) supported stable populations of fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). However, both populations were extirpated from the system in the mid-twentieth century following the development of Friant Dam (Moyle 2002). In response to the San Joaquin River litigation Settlement, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) has implemented an objective to restore a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon, as well as other fishes, in the system. Because the anadromous life-cycle of SJR Chinook salmon requires conveyance of juveniles from a riverine system to the Pacific Ocean to support the return of spawning adults, meeting this objective requires the consideration of environmental conditions and a connected river system. Though there are likely a multitude of environmental parameters that impact emigrating juvenile salmon, flow regime and predation are often cited as having a significant effect on travel speed and survivability (Raymond 1968; Berggren and Filardo1993; Michel et al. 2013). Flows in the SJR are highly regulated as means to support agricultural production, and non-native piscivorous fish in the restoration reach tend to occur more frequently downstream of Reach 1 (Gravelly Ford to confluence of Merced River; SJRRP 2013 I&M Report). Anecdotal evidence collected during SJRRP fish inventory and monitoring efforts suggests many of the non-native piscivores tend to reside in anthropogenic altered habitats (e.g., mine pits, altered channels, etc), which may pose a challenge to emigrating salmon. River flow conditions and water temperatures were managed during spring releases to elicit downstream fish movement with pulse flows and receding flows benches to avoid stranding.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Sustainment: the North Fork Mono Tribe's
    Native Sustainment The North Fork Mono Tribe's Stories, History, and Teaching of Its Land and Water Tenure in 1918 and 2009 Jared Dahl Aldern Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Prescott College in Education with a Concentration in Sustainability Education May 2010 Steven J. Crum, Ph.D. George Lipsitz, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Margaret Field, Ph.D. Theresa Gregor, Ph.D. External Expert Reader External Expert Reader Pramod Parajuli, Ph.D. Committee Chair Native Sustainment ii Copyright © 2010 by Jared Dahl Aldern. All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation may be used, reproduced, stored, recorded, or transmitted in any form or manner whatsoever without written permission from the copyright holder or his agent(s), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in the papers of students, and in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Requests for such permission should be addressed to: Jared Dahl Aldern 2658 East Alluvial Avenue, #103 Clovis, CA 93611 Native Sustainment iii Acknowledgments Gratitude to: The North Fork Mono Tribe, its Chairman, Ron Goode, and members Melvin Carmen (R.I.P.), Lois Conner, Stan Dandy, Richard Lavelle, Ruby Pomona, and Grace Tex for their support, kindnesses, and teachings. My doctoral committee: Steven J. Crum, Margaret Field, Theresa Gregor, George Lipsitz, and Pramod Parajuli for listening, for reading, and for their mentorship. Jagannath Adhikari, Kat Anderson, Steve Archer, Donna Begay, Lisa
    [Show full text]
  • Terr–3 Special-Status Plant Populations
    TERR–3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2001 and 2002, the review of existing information, agency consultation, vegetation community mapping, and focused special-status plant surveys were completed. Based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001a), CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2003), USDA-FS Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species for Region 5 (USDA-FS 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List (USFWS 2003), and Sierra National Forest (SNF) Sensitive Plant List (Clines 2002), there were 100 special-status plant species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. Known occurrences of these species were mapped. Vegetation communities were evaluated to locate areas that could potentially support special-status plant species. Each community was determined to have the potential to support at least one special-status plant species. During the spring and summer of 2002, special-status plant surveys were conducted. For each special-status plant species or population identified, a CNDDB form was completed, and photographs were taken. The locations were mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Vascular plant species observed during surveys were recorded. No state or federally listed special-status plant species were identified during special- status plant surveys. Seven special-status plant species, totaling 60 populations, were identified during surveys. There were 22 populations of Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola) identified. Two populations are located near Mammoth Pool, one at Bear Forebay, and the rest are in the Florence Lake area.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Vista Scenic Byway Sierra National Forest
    Sierra Vista Scenic Byway Sierra National Forest WELCOME pute. Travel six miles south on Italian Bar Road Located in the Sierra National Forest, the Sierra (Rd.225) to visit the marker. Vista Scenic Byway is a designated member of the National Scenic Byway System. The entire route REDINGER OVERLOOK (3320’) meanders along National Forest roads, from North Outstanding view can be seen of Redinger Lake, the Fork to the exit point on Highway 41 past Nelder San Joaquin River and the surrounding rugged Sierra Grove, and without stopping takes about five hours front country. This area of the San Joaquin River to drive. drainage provides a winter home for the San Joaquin deer herd. Deer move out of this area in the hot dry The Byway is a seasonal route as forest roads are summer months and mi grate to higher country to blocked by snow and roads are not plowed or main- find food and water. tained during winter months. The Byway is gener- ally open from June through October. Call ahead to ROSS CABIN (4000’) check road and weather conditions. The Ross Cabin was built in the late 1860s by Jessie Blakey Ross and is one of the oldest standing log Following are some features along the route start- cabins in the area. The log cabin displays various de- ing at the Ranger Station in North Fork, proceeding signs in foundation construction and log assembly up the Minarets road north to the Beasore Road, brought to the west, exemplifying the pioneer spirit then south to Cold Springs summit, west to Fresno and technology of the mid-nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Team Trip Report (June 18-20, 2003)
    APPENDIX A.3 Hydropower Team Trip Report (June 18-20, 2003) UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION - PHASE 1 HYDROPOWER ANALYSIS TRIP REPORT - SITE VISITS TO RETAINED SITES June 18 – 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION This field trip report was prepared to document on-site data collection activities in support of an appraisal-level hydropower evaluation of surface storage options under consideration in the Phase 1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation. As part of Task 1, Data Collection, field trips were made to three potential Temperance Flat dam locations on the San Joaquin River at river mile (RM) 274, RM 279, RM 286; and at two potential dam sites for off-steam storage reservoirs at Fine Gold Creek and Yokohl Creek. Field trips were also made to the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) hydroelectric facilities likely to be impacted by dams at RM 274, RM 279 and RM 286. The PG&E facilities included Wishon Powerhouse, Kerckhoff Dam, Kerckhoff No: 1 Powerhouse and Kerckhoff No: 2 Powerhouse. The SCE facilities included Big Creek No: 4 Powerhouse, Redinger Dam and Big Creek No: 3 Powerhouse. The PG&E and SCE facilities are all located on the San Joaquin River. Potential dam locations and existing PG&E and SCE facilities were visited as follows: Wednesday, June 18, 2003: RM 286, Big Creek No: 4 Powerhouse, Redinger Dam, Big Creek No: 3 Powerhouse, and Fine Gold Creek. Thursday, June 19, 2003: Kerckhoff Dam, Wishon Powerhouse, Kerckhoff No: 1 Powerhouse, Kerckhoff No: 2 Powerhouse, and Yokohl Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation
    Draft Feasibility Report Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to 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. Executive Summary The Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage This Draft Feasibility Report documents the Investigation (Investigation) is a joint feasibility of alternative plans, including a range feasibility study by the U.S. Department of of operations and physical features, for the the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation potential Temperance Flat River Mile 274 (Reclamation), in cooperation with the Reservoir. California Department of Water Resources Key Findings to Date: (DWR). The purpose of the Investigation is • All alternative plans would provide benefits to determine the potential type and extent of for water supply reliability, enhancement of Federal, State of California (State), and the San Joaquin River ecosystem, and other resources. regional interest in a potential project to • All alternative plans are technically feasible, expand water storage capacity in the upper constructible, and can be operated and San Joaquin River watershed for improving maintained. water supply reliability and flexibility of the • Environmental analyses to date suggest that water management system for agricultural, all alternative plans would be urban, and environmental uses; and environmentally feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperance Flat Reservoir
    Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Temperance Flat Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation San Joaquin River looking downstream towards Millerton Lake Temperance Flat Reservoir Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report A Joint Study by: Bureau of Reclamation California Department Mid-Pacific Region of Water Resources In Coordination with: Prepared by: The California Bay-Delta Authority October 2003 Surface Water Storage Option Technical Memorandum TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1-1 STORAGE OPTIONS SUMMARY.....................................................................................1-1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS................................................................1-4 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................................................1-4 RM 274 Options..............................................................................................................1-4
    [Show full text]
  • ZACHARY B. SHARP, Phd Research Engineer, Utah State University 435‐797‐3167 / [email protected]
    ZACHARY B. SHARP, PhD Research Engineer, Utah State University 435‐797‐3167 / [email protected] EDUCATION PhD Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, 2016 Major: Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Dissertation: Applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics in Flow Metering and Meter Design. MS Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, 2009 Major: Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics. Thesis: Energy Losses in Cross Junctions BS Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, 2008 Major: Civil and Environmental Engineering. WORK SUMMARY 2009 ‐ Present: Research Engineer, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 2009 ‐ Present: Independent Engineering Consultant 2007 ‐ 2009: Research Assistant/Graduate Student, Utah State University/Utah Water Research Laboratory 2004 - 2007: Engineering Lab technician, Utah State University/Utah Water Research Laboratory 1998 ‐ 2004: Construction Worker, Various companies and responsibilities in residential and commercial construction EXPERIENCE Extensive experience performing hydraulic structure physical model studies on dams and spillways, pumping pits, power plant intakes, erosion control issues, pipelines, channels, spillway basins, gated structures, control structures, outlet and energy dissipation structures, fish screens, bypasses, sewer and storm water systems. A sample list of model studies is shown below. Hydraulic Structures (Partial Listing) 2016, Physical Model Study of the Tekai Dam and Stair Step Spillway for to evaluate gate operation Snowy Mountain Engineering Consultants (SMEC). 2016, Physical Model Study of the Brainerd Dam to evaluate gate operation for Barr Engineering. 2015, Physical Model Study of the 2nd Street Pump Station in Fargo North Dakota conducted for the Cascade Pump company. 2015, Physical Model Study of the John Hart Generating Station intake structure and operating gate conducted for SCN-Lavalin.
    [Show full text]
  • Ca-Sierra-Way.Pdf
    IN ANSWERING REFER TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON I ~ how ~ yw ~ &ari.ng yov brief vial'b to ~ aaa ~ tha'b - bMi nG ~- - 4180t1Sm 'tho lllgb • ..._ "84· ~p l ltMG NOel'IOCl 1'0W ~ relio- a'bivo '° l-9~ I em entsiNlr ia ~ fllVh ucnw ata~ idlat thaA) 1e 9 1.aok of UOObQl- ot tbfJ Bil.$ Slen& ve&d bl Wa tenlteeyff" 1 was uw.tous " ~ what mowo are belng mado by the ~ Se.Mee - e~ llft onl.111ble scotloa or bhG B!c.h 8:$ona 9'Y ~ .tbe cmbift> Pff39" flfC&. KeN D.t:vur iJo "*9G er ~. I '°I.I.eve 1*ab onr wo!l hlPraJ ou'btlng t~ougti 'the VGr/ ~ of tlhe OD'bt\n 81.ern. wl~i eountey la mt GBlV ~le Wis WOtllt.\ be o ~ AfllmdiW• Yem dll ~ .U tba-t. tltlGN wu e ftJeftlf!Eil~ bl ow l'latioiml P.eeou~ "'°" to ~ ~ tdlatt -- mp &ABR ~ PaWk be ~ etft wu1d ~ ~-- nmgta Uver ~ r._,!w ad '118 ~ moumt~ ~ abow ._.. msretal "'"""- lid.-. Whtie ouh a pnpnl1Jl&a b still on11 a 180mmtm,.,~ IWVG.»llhelen• tl'lld.- "'9 flOa8Bt ~'1 w&8'sw~l1lvlllmnsmdfi)'\iea~ lbe- 11.evo -= one ot the men ~- DBaDS d ~ t1h9 doVelop_.. of web a ,an wu1d be taa. ~ of iiho mp &l.Ol'N i1'0ati. av ~ ~. haB a VfAl'T NA1 in­ tend 1n ,_, nok propeuiidon• au&. vs.en,. ls tu~ wbloh I bad '"' mimi ·whH. l apn 1Jo veu a.bout tho pe1ai'ldlltr ot our diMUosing the '6ole '"'"'• Bea L Thompaon.
    [Show full text]