DOCSLIB.ORG

Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest Zigzag Ranger District June 2017 For More Information Contact: Bill Westbrook, District Ranger Zigzag Ranger District Mt. Hood National Forest 70220 E. Highway 26 Zigzag, Oregon 97049 503-622-3191 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Zigzag Ranger District at 503-622- 3191. Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment Table of Contents Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ....................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 4 Cooperative Agreement ............................................................................................................ 4 Public Interest Promoted by the Exchange ............................................................................... 4 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 5 Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 5 Forest Plan Direction Applicable to this Project ...................................................................... 6 Forest Service Management Direction ..................................................................................... 8 What will be Decided? ................................................................................................................ 9 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 9 Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Issue 1: Institutional Effects ................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 13 Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................................... 13 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 13 Intended Future Management ................................................................................................. 15 Proposed Action Assumptions and Project Design Features .................................................. 17 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ................................................................. 18 Deed Restrictions.................................................................................................................... 18 Direct Purchase ....................................................................................................................... 19 Inclusion of Additional Parcels in the Exchange .................................................................... 19 Comparative Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...................................................... 19 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................... 25 How We Considered Potential Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 25 Consideration of Past Actions ................................................................................................ 26 Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ..................................................... 26 How Specialist Reports Were Used .......................................................................................... 27 Aquatic Species and Habitat ..................................................................................................... 27 Resource Indicators and Measures ......................................................................................... 27 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................ 27 Existing Condition .................................................................................................................. 28 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ................................................................................ 31 Summary of Effects ................................................................................................................ 38 Botanical Resources .................................................................................................................. 39 Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 39 Existing Condition .................................................................................................................. 40 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................ 43 Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................... 46 Existing Condition .................................................................................................................. 46 Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 48 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 49 Wetland and Floodplains Analysis Requirements for Land Exchanges ................................. 49 Existing Condition .................................................................................................................. 50 Direct and Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................... 57 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................. 61 i Bull Run Land Exchange Preliminary Assessment Wildlife Species and Habitat ..................................................................................................... 61 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species .................................................. 61 Region 6 Sensitive Species ..................................................................................................... 70 Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................... 71 Survey and Manage Species ................................................................................................... 75 Migratory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Portland Water Bureau and United States Forest Service Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Annual Report April 2019
    Portland Water Bureau and United States Forest Service Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Annual Report April 2019 Bull Run Watershed Semi-Annual Meeting 1 2 CONTENTS A. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 4 B. SECURITY and ACCESS MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 4 Bull Run Security Access Policies and Procedures ...................................................... 4 C. EMERGENCY PLANNING and RESPONSE .............................................................. 5 Life Flight Helicopter Landing Zones ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................... 5 2018 Projects: Road 10 (“10H”; Road 10 Shoulder Repair) ......................................... 5 2019 Projects: Road 10 (“10R”: MP 28.77 - 31.85) ....................................................... 5 E. FIRE PLANNING, PREVENTION, DETECTION, and SUPPRESSION ................... 6 Other Fires - 2017 ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Hickman Butte Fire Lookout ........................................................................................ 7 F. WATER MONITORING (Quality and Quantity) ...................................................... 8 G. NATURAL RESOURCES – TERRESTRIAL ............................................................... 9 Invasive Species - Plants ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding Is a Common Occurrence in Northwest Oregon
    PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 11/07/2016 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding is a common occurrence in Northwest Oregon. All Flood Hazards jurisdictions in the Planning Area have rivers with high flood risk called Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), except Wood High Village. Portions of the unincorporated area are particularly exposed to high flood risk from riverine flooding. •Unicorporated Multnomah County Developed areas in Gresham and Troutdale have moderate levels of risk to riverine flooding. Preliminary Flood Insurance Moderate Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Sandy River developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2016 •Gresham •Troutdale show significant additional risk to residents in Troutdale. Channel migration along the Sandy River poses risk to Low-Moderate hundreds of homes in Troutdale and unincorporated areas. •Fairview Some undeveloped areas of unincorporated Multnomah •Wood Village County are subject to urban flooding, but the impacts are low. Developed areas in the cities have a more moderate risk to Low urban flooding. •None Levee systems protect low-lying areas along the Columbia River, including thousands of residents and billions of dollars *Level of risk is based on the local OEM in assessed property. Though the probability of levee failure is Hazard Analysis scores determined by low, the impacts would be high for the Planning Area. each jurisdiction in the Planning Area. See Appendix C for more information Dam failure, though rare, can causing flooding in downstream on the methodology and scoring. communities in the Planning Area. Depending on the size of the dam, flooding can be localized or extreme and far-reaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Run River Water Temperature Evaluation, June 2004
    Bull Run River Water Temperature Evaluation Prepared by: City of Portland Bureau of Water Works Portland, Oregon June 2004 Contents Page Preface................................................................................................................................................... 1 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1 Report Organization............................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 2 Section 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 The Bull Run River and Associated Water Development ................................................ 3 Current and Historical Anadromous Fish Use of the Lower Bull Run .......................... 3 Historical and Current City Water Supply Operations .................................................... 4 River Reaches of the Bull Run River.................................................................................... 4 Water Quality Criteria and Beneficial Uses of the Bull Run ............................................ 5 Section 2. What were the pre-project (natural) temperature conditions in the lower Bull Run River? ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia River Gorge: Its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway by IRA A
    VOLUMB 2 NUMBBI3 NOVBMBBR, 1916 . THE .MINERAL · RESOURCES OF OREGON ' PuLhaLed Monthly By The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology Mitchell Point tunnel and viaduct, Columbia River Hi~hway The .. Asenstrasse'' of America The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations Entered aa oeoond cl,... matter at Corvallis, Ore., on Feb. 10, l9lt, accordintt to tbe Act or Auc. :U, 1912. .,.,._ ;t ' OREGON BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY COMMISSION On1cm or THm Co><M188ION AND ExmBIT OREGON BUILDING, PORTLAND, OREGON Orncm or TBm DtBIICTOR CORVALLIS, OREGON .,~ 1 AMDJ WITHY COMBE, Governor HENDY M. PABKB, Director C OMMISSION ABTBUB M. SWARTLEY, Mining Engineer H. N. LAWRill:, Port.land IRA A. WILLIAMS, Geologist W. C. FELLOWS, Sumpter 1. F . REDDY, Grants Pass 1. L. WooD. Albany R. M. BIITT8, Cornucopia P. L. CAI<PBELL, Eugene W 1. KEBR. Corvallis ........ Volume 2 Number 3 ~f. November Issue {...j .· -~ of the MINERAL RESOURCES OF OREGON Published by The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology ~•, ;: · CONTAINING The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History l Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway t. By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations 1916 ILLUSTRATIONS Mitchell Point t unnel and v iaduct Beacon Rock from Columbia River (photo by Gifford & Prentiss) front cover Highway .. 72 Geologic map of Columbia river gorge. 3 Beacon Rock, near view . ....... 73 East P ortland and Mt. Hood . 1 3 Mt. Hamilton and Table mountain .. 75 Inclined volcanic ejecta, Mt. Tabor. 19 Eagle creek tuff-conglomerate west of Lava cliff along Sandy river.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Creek Watershed, Clackamas River, Oregon
    United States Department of Agriculture The Fisheries Program Forest Service Pacific Response to the Floods Northwest Region 2001 of the mid-1990’s Wash Creek Bridge, Fish Creek Watershed, Clackamas River, Oregon. Mt. Hood National Forest 2001 Thank you to the employees of the Mt. Hood National Forest who contributed photographs and information for this report. The Fisheries Program Response to the Floods of the mid-1990’s Mt. Hood National Forest 2001 Report by Tracii Hickman Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................1 The February 1996 Storm ..........................................................................................1 Flood Impacts on the Mt. Hood National Forest .......................................................3 Fish Habitat Restoration ............................................................................................6 Case Studies...............................................................................................................7 Barlow Ranger District Ramsey Creek ................................................................................................10 Clackamas River Ranger District Upper Clackamas Side Channels...................................................................11 Fish Creek ......................................................................................................12 Zigzag Ranger District Little Zigzag Culvert Replacement................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • City Club of Portland Bulletin Vol. 54, No. 12 (1973-8-17)
    Portland State University PDXScholar City Club of Portland Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 8-17-1973 City Club of Portland Bulletin vol. 54, no. 12 (1973-8-17) City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.) Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub Part of the Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.), "City Club of Portland Bulletin vol. 54, no. 12 (1973-8-17)" (1973). City Club of Portland. 283. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub/283 This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in City Club of Portland by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. * NEWSPAPER SECOND CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT PORTLAND, OREGON * ~ I f., Printed herein for presentation, discussion and action on Friday, August 17, 1973: REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES IN THE BULL RUN DIVISION )( )( )( The Committee: John Eliot Allen, George F. Brice, III, Albert B. Chaddock, Robert T. Huston, Robert T. Jett, E. Barry Post, Hubert E. Walker, John 1. Frewing, Chairman and Philip A. Briegleb and Thornton T. Munger, Consultants. .~ This report printed with the assistance of the PORTLAND CITY CLUB FOUNDATION, Inc. 505 Wood lark Bldg. Portland, Oregon 97205 (Additional copies $ i .00) "To inform its members and the community in public matters and to arouse in them a realization of the obligations of citizenship." 46 PORTLAND CITY CLUB BULLETIN TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Water Bureau CUSTOMER NEWSLETTER CITY of PORTLAND, OREGON • AUTUMN 2017
    Portland Water Bureau CUSTOMER NEWSLETTER CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON • AUTUMN 2017 The Future of Treatment For almost 100 years, the City of Portland has treated Bull Run River water to make sure it’s safe to drink. For the past 20 years, the City has also adjusted pH to make the water less corrosive to home plumbing. Water treatment adapts to changes in science, technology, and water quality, and the City of Portland continues to adapt. In August, Portland City Council voted unanimously to build a water filtration plant. Scientists and engineers are also studying ways to further reduce the chance of lead A lab technician in Portland's early days exposure from home plumbing. Bull Run Water Treatment Filtration will remove sediments, microbes, and organic material. In 10 to 12 years Bull Run Closure Area Watershed protection limits human activity in Bull Run, preserving water quality. Corrosion Disinfection Since 1892 control treatment protects against illness reduces lead exposure caused by bacteria, from home plumbing. viruses, and some protozoans. Since 1997 Since the 1920s We’re at the very beginning of the filtration project, Filtration plant: and are in the process of improving our corrosion www.portlandoregon.gov/water/filtration control treatment. Learn more, follow along, and find Corrosion control treatment: out about opportunities for public involvement. www.portlandoregon.gov/water/corrosioncontrol Our Customer Service Center Is Moving! SW Broadway DOWNTOWN PORTLAND SW Main StCUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER Our walk-in Customer Service Center is moving on October 9. 1120 SW 5th Ave. SW Madison St Here are a few of the ways you can reach us: (through Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bull Run River-Reservoir System Model
    THE BULL RUN RIVER-RESERVOIR SYSTEM MODEL Robert L. Annear, Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Scott A. Wells, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, P.O. Box 751, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207-0751, Voice 503.725.3048, Fax 503.725.5950, [email protected] Abstract: The Bull Run watershed is located 41.8 kilometers east of Portland, Oregon in the Mt. Hood National Forest and consists of two reservoirs supplying drinking water to over 840,000 people in the Portland metropolitan area. In March 1998 Steelhead and Spring Chinook were listed as threatened in the Lower Columbia basin under the Endangered Species Act. Historical reservoir operations during the summer released no water downstream resulting in stream temperatures exceeding the state water quality standard for salmonids. CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3 is a two-dimensional water quality and hydrodynamic model capable of modeling watersheds with interconnected rivers, reservoirs and estuaries. CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3 was used to model temperature in the reservoirs and river to investigate management strategies to meet water demand and fish habitat requirements. Management strategies evaluated included adding selective withdrawal, increasing reservoir size, constructing a new water supply reservoir, and altering selective withdrawal operations from historical patterns. INTRODUCTION The Bull Run River-Reservoir system is a 264.2 km2 watershed located 41.8 km east of downtown Portland as shown in Figure 1. The watershed has two reservoirs (Reservoir #1 and Reservoir #2) and serves as the primary drinking water source for the City of Portland and several surrounding communities with over 840,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • MUNICIPAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL IMROVEMENT PLANNING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: DECISION CHALLENGES Azad MOHAMMADI, Ph.D., P.E
    MUNICIPAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL IMROVEMENT PLANNING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: DECISION CHALLENGES Azad MOHAMMADI, Ph.D., P.E. Joe DVORAK Hossein PARANDVASH, Ph.D. city of portland bureau of water works. portland, oregon usa [email protected] ABSTRACT The City of Portland Bureau of Water Works (PWB) has supplied domestic water to Portland- area residents since 1885. It is the largest supplier in Oregon, and providing both retail and wholesale water to nearly 840,000 people. Portland’s primary source of supply, the Bull Run Reserve, is an unfiltered water source. The PWB faces a wide variety of challenges and uncertainties in the new millennium. These uncertainties arise from several principal sources: current federal regulatory requirements and potential future changes that affect water quality standards; treatment and the Endangered Species Act (ESA); conservation; decisions by current and potential wholesale customers about whether to obtain supply from Portland or elsewhere; decisions about where to obtain supply in the future and whether groundwater will be a basic component of the future supply or will be reserved only for emergencies; supply reliability; regionalization of the Portland’s supply system; demand forecasts; and the impact of climate variability. In an attempt to better understand these uncertainties, and develop a decision framework for an integrated strategy that will guide the timing and cost implications of the PWB’s capital improvement programs (CIP), the PWB has commissioned a number of technical studies over the past 5 years. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the decision process and the factors that have influenced and shaped the integration of the results of the studies, including the recently completed Climate Variability Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Pipe Foundry Site
    O����� P��� W���� Illustrations left to right top: Forty to sixty Oswego men worked at the pipe foundry. �e man standing fourth from right is Charles Pauling, grandfather of Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling. Courtesy of the Lake Oswego Public Library. Pipe stacked outside the cleaning shed. �e chimney of the second furnace looms in the background. Courtesy of the Lake Oswego Public Library. Switching locomotive at the pipe works. Courtesy of the Lake Oswego Public Library. Illustrations left to right below: Cleaning pipe. Illustration from the West Shore magazine, November 2, 1889. O.I.&S. ad from the West Shore magazine, November 2, 1889. After considering options that included Oswego Lake and the Clackamas River, W���� P��� ��� ��� W��� C���� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Terwilliger Blvd. the committee chose Mount Hood’s Bull Run River as Portland’s water source. � �������������������������� TRYON CREEK STATE• PARK �e Oswego Pipe Works, built by the Oregon Iron & Steel Company in 1888, was Oregon Iron & Steel was awarded a contract to manufacture pipe for the 24-mile TRYON CREEK �������������������������������������������������� the �rst pipe foundry west of Saint Louis. Located on the south bank of Tryon pipeline. On January 2, 1895, the �rst Bull Run water �owed to Portland and within ����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� Creek beside the Willamette River, the foundry was a separate operation from the two years there was a phenomenal decrease in the number of cases of typhoid fever. ���������������������������������������������������� company’s nearby smelting furnace. �e foundry operated intermittently for 40 years Portland achieved the lowest death rate on record at the time. ���� Prosser Mine Site E Ave. Hwy.
    [Show full text]
  • CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON and INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 1 of 3 Clackamas County
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 1 of 3 Clackamas County Community Community Name Number BARLOW, CITY OF 410013 CANBY, CITY OF 410014 DAMASCUS, CITY OF 410006 *ESTACADA, CITY OF 410016 GLADSTONE, CITY OF 410017 HAPPY VALLEY, CITY OF 410026 *JOHNSON CITY, CITY OF 410267 LAKE OSWEGO, CITY OF 410018 MILWAUKIE, CITY OF 410019 *MOLALLA, CITY OF 410020 OREGON CITY, CITY OF 410021 RIVERGROVE, CITY OF 410022 SANDY, CITY OF 410023 WEST LINN, CITY OF 410024 WILSONVILLE, CITY OF 410025 CLACKAMAS COUNTY 415588 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified REVISED: JANUARY 18, 2019 Reprinted with corrections on December 6, 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 41005CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide Effective Date: June 17, 2008 Revised Countywide Date: January 18, 2019 This FIS report was reissued on December 6, 2019 to make corrections; this version replaces any previous versions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sandy River Temperature Compliance Evaluation Technical Memorandum Update
    Technical Memorandum 5 Date: March 19, 2021 Project: City of Sandy – Detailed Discharge Alternative Evaluation To: Jordan Wheeler, City Manager Mike Walker, Public Works Director City of Sandy, Oregon From: Matt Hickey, PE Ken Vigil, PE Katie Husk, PE Murraysmith Re: Technical Memorandum 5 – Sandy River Temperature Compliance Evaluation Technical Memorandum Update Introduction Technical Memorandum 5 is a deliverable under Task 4.2 of the Detailed Discharge Alternative Evaluation (DDAE) program. This memo includes a review of potential impacts to temperature on the Sandy River due to effluent discharges from the proposed, new membrane bioreactor facility. Furthermore, Technical Memorandum 5 is an update to the memo prepared on May 22, 2019 as part of the WSFP Continuing Planning Services project (see attached). This update provides the opportunity to review this topic with additional temperature data collected on the Sandy River, and updated estimates of river flows, effluent flows, and effluent temperatures. Sandy River Temperature Data In the May 2019 memo, temperature data for the Sandy River was not available. The mixing analysis that was done in that memo was completed using regulatory temperature criteria. As part of the DDAE program, Waterways Consulting installed temperature probes in four locations on the Sandy River and collected temperature data. The locations of the installed temperature probes are shown in Figure 1. Descriptions of each of the probe locations are shown in Table 1. 20-2776 Page 1 of 9 DDAE: Sandy River Outfall Study March 2021 City of Sandy G:\P DX_P ro jec ts\20\2776 - Sa nd y – Deta iled Disc ha rge Alterna tives Eva lua tio n\GIS\Figures\20-2776-0900-OR-FIGURE 1.m xd 1/13/2021 1:13:33 P M kent.ha rja la Legend .! Sa m pling Lo c a tio n B S u E City Bo und a ry l C l A R M u P n N A SE R M ME A AD i N N O v U L W e R S z S t ma O r D N n o Cr N N K e G E e k R P D E S SE HAUGLUM RD N T L C O IG A T I LA N I E D S G R R I H V S R E A S M E S D R D E T S U L E S S E T E .! N E Site A - Downstream Y C K 13221 Marsh Rd.
    [Show full text]