DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Yuba 10J Environmenal Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Yuba 10J Environmenal Assessment Draft Environmental Assessment Designate and Authorize the Reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon in the upper Yuba River under Endangered Species Act Section 10(j) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WEST COAST REGION CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE 650 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 5-100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 2020 Placeholder Cover Sheet Draft Environmental Assessment Designate and Authorize Reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon in the upper Yuba River under Endangered Species Act Section 10(j) Proposed Action: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to: (1) Designate and authorize the release of a nonessential experimental population of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon pursuant to Endangered Species Act section 10(j) in the upper Yuba River and its tributaries upstream of Englebright Dam; and (2) Establish take prohibitions for the nonessential experimental population and exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d). Type of Statement: Environmental Assessment For Further Information: Jonathan Ambrose ([email protected]) National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, California Central Valley Office National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region California Central Valley Office Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 930-3600 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DRAFT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Federal Lead and Cooperating Agencies ....................................................................................... 3 1.2 Overview of the ESA Section 10(j) Designation Regulatory Framework ..................................... 3 1.2.1 The Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................ 3 1.2.2 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing ................................................ 3 1.2.3 Experimental Populations under ESA section 10(j) ......................................................... 6 1.2.4 ESA section 4(d) Regulations ........................................................................................... 9 1.2.5 Relationship of the Proposed Experimental Population to ESA Recovery Efforts .......... 9 1.2.6 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies ........................................................................ 10 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 12 2.1 Purpose of the Action .................................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Need for the Action ..................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 ACTION AREA................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Description of the Action Area .................................................................................................... 13 4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of an Experimental Population, No Authorization for Reintroduction, and no Adoption of Protective Regulations .......................... 15 4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population, Authorization for Reintroduction, and Adoption of Limited Protective Regulations ................................................................................................................. 16 4.2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Regulatory Process ......................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population, Authorization for Reintroduction, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ............................................... 20 4.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Regulatory Process ......................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Alternative Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail .................................................................... 24 4.4.1 Designation as an Essential Experimental Population .................................................... 24 4.4.2. NEP Area Limited to the North Yuba River ................................................................... 25 5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 27 5.1 Description of the Analysis Area ................................................................................................. 27 5.2 Overview and Approach .............................................................................................................. 27 5.3 Aquatic Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 28 5.3.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 28 5.3.2 Fish Passage Considerations ........................................................................................... 32 5.3.3 Water Quality.................................................................................................................. 34 5.3.4 Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Availability and Quality ............................................... 37 5.3.5 Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 40 5.3.6 Watershed Habitat Restoration Efforts ........................................................................... 40 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon i December 2020 Endangered Species Act section 10(j) EA DRAFT 5.4 Fisheries Resources ..................................................................................................................... 42 5.4.1 ESA-listed Fish Species .................................................................................................. 42 5.4.2 Other Native Fish Species .............................................................................................. 42 5.4.3 Non-Native Fish Species ................................................................................................ 43 5.4.4 Fish Disease Considerations ........................................................................................... 44 5.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 44 5.5.1 Federal and California Listed or Special Status Species ................................................ 45 5.6 Land Use and Ownership ............................................................................................................ 47 5.7 Tourism and Recreation ............................................................................................................... 50 5.8 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................... 51 5.9 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 54 5.9.1 Prehistoric Context ......................................................................................................... 55 5.9.2 Ethnohistoric Context ..................................................................................................... 56 5.9.3 Historical‐Era Context .................................................................................................... 57 5.9.4 Native American Consultation........................................................................................ 58 5.10 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................. 59 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 62 6.1 Analysis Approach and Alternative Description Summaries ...................................................... 62 6.1.1 Determination of Whether Effects of an Alternative are Significant .............................. 63 6.2 Effects on Aquatic Habitat .......................................................................................................... 64 6.2.1 Effects on Fish Passage .................................................................................................. 65 6.2.2 Effects on Water Quality ................................................................................................ 66 6.2.3 Effects on Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Availability and Quality .............................. 70 6.2.4 Effects on Essential Fish Habitat .................................................................................... 71 6.3 Effects on Fisheries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yuba River Temperature Monitoring Project
    YUBA RIVER TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROJECT Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento/San Joaquin River Fishery Restoration Office Michael L. Deas, P.E. February 28, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.........................................................................................................2 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 1.1 Project Objective.............................................................................................3 1.2 Project Organization and Acknowledgements..................................................3 2. Project Summary.....................................................................................................4 2.1 Monitoring Locations......................................................................................4 2.2 Deployment/Field Work..................................................................................5 2.3 Quality Control ...............................................................................................5 2.4 Additional Data Sources..................................................................................5 2.5 Data Sets.........................................................................................................7 3. Findings..................................................................................................................8 3.1 Important Processes ........................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN and RECORD of DECISION
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN and RECORD OF DECISION For the Folsom Field Office California December 2007 _________________________________________ William S. Haigh, Folsom Field Office Manager __________________________________________ Mike Pool, California State Director Sierra Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision_____________________________________ This page intentionally left blank. Sierra Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision__________________________ Table of Contents 1.0 Record of Decision ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Changes from the Proposed RMP to the Approved RMP.......................................................... 1 1.2 Alternatives.............................................................................................................................2 1.3 Management Considerations...................................................................................................3 1.4 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................................3 1.5 Plan Monitoring.......................................................................................................................4 1.6 Public Involvement..................................................................................................................4 1.7 Administrative Remedies.........................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan
    Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon Central Valley Steelhead National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region November 2009 1 Themes of the CV Recovery Plan • This is a long-term plan that will take several decades to fully implement • The recovery plan is intended to be a “living document” that is periodically updated to include the best available information regarding the status or needs of the species • Implementation will be challenging and will require the help of many stakeholders • The plan is intended to have realistic and attainable recovery criteria (i.e, de-listing criteria) 2 What are Recovery Plans? • Purpose of the Endangered Species Act: To conserve (recover) listed species and their ecosystems • Required under section 4(f) of the ESA for all Federally listed species • Provide the road map to species recovery • Must contain objective, measurable criteria for delisting a species • Guidance documents, not regulations 3 Winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered) 4 Status of Species – Winter-run Chinook 5 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Threatened) 6 Status of Species – Spring-run Chinook Declining abundance across range: Extinction risk is increasing Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Adult Summer Holding Escapement Rivers/Creeks 25,000 Sacramento Battle 20,000 Clear Beegum 15,000 Antelope Mill 10,000 Deer Big Chico 5,000 Butte 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 7 Central Valley steelhead (Threatened) 8 Key
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropy Just at the Restore Wildlands, Wild Rivers and Leverage Public and Private Funds for Moment in History When Sierra Conservation
    The Sierra Fund SAVING THE SIERRA 2001-2005 . Organizational Report Our Mission The mission of The Sierra Fund is to protect and preserve the Sierra Nevada. As an innovative community foundation for the environment, we do this by partnering with private donors and public agencies to increase and organize investment in the land, air, water and human resources of the Sierra Nevada. Our Philosophy The Sierra Fund ~ • Works to develop new sources of individual, foundation and corporate funding to help solve the region’s environmental crises. • Expands the capacity of community-based organizations already hard at work protecting the Sierra Nevada, helping to ensure their success and sustainability. • Supports a full toolbox of conservation solutions aimed at effective action, from community organizing, collaboration and education to litigation and legislative advocacy. • Leverages private financial capital to inspire larger, long-term public conservation investments in the resources of the Sierra Nevada. www.sierrafund.org Front cover photo of the South Fork American River. The Sierra Fund successfully advocated for $2 million in state funds in partnership with the American River Conservancy to complete acquisition of 2,315 acres and finish the 8-mile trail from Salmon Falls to the Gold Discovery Park. DEAR FRIENDS OF THE SIERRA, The Sierra Nevada, the jeweled crown of California, is a rugged, 400-mile-long mountain range that borders the state’s eastern edge. Dubbed the “Range of Light” by John Muir more than 100 years ago, the Sierra inspires the human imagination and powers the human spirit. This range features the tallest mountains in the continental United States and boasts the singular jewels of Lake Tahoe and Yosemite Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Target Species Mapping for the Green Visions Plan
    Target Species Habitat Mapping California Quail and Mountain Quail (Callipepla californica and Oreortyx pictus) Family: Phasianidae Order: Galliformes Class: Aves WHR #: B140 and B141 Distribution: California quail are found in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, California, and Baja California, and have been introduced in other states such as Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah (Peterson 1961). In California, they are widespread but absent from the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades, the White Mountains, and the Warner Mountains, and are replaced by the related Gambel’s quail (C. gambelii) in some desert regions (Peterson 1961, Small 1994). In southern California, they are found from the Coast Range south to the Mexican border, and occur as far east as the western fringes of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, such as in the Antelope Valley (Garrett and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). California quail range from sea level to about 5000 ft (1524 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) Mountain quail are resident from northern Washington and northern Idaho, south through parts of Oregon, northwestern Nevada, California, and northern Baja California (Peterson 1961). In southern California, mountain quail are found in nearly all of the mountain ranges west of the deserts, including the southern Coast Ranges, from the Santa Lucia Mountains south through Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, and the Peninsular Ranges south to the Mexican border (Garrot and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). In the Transverse Ranges, a small population occurs in the western Santa Monica Mountains, and larger populations occur in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (Small 1994). Mountain quail are found at elevations from below 2000 ft (610 meters) to over 9000 ft (2743 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section evaluates potential hydrology and water quality impacts that could result from the proposed SOI Plan update (proposed project). Information in this section comes from County of Nevada GIS mapping analysis as well as existing federal, state, and local regulations. The evaluation includes a discussion of the proposed project compatibility with these required applicable regulations and provides mitigation measures, if needed and as appropriate that would reduce these impacts. The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality is derived primarily from the following sources and agencies: • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); • United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); • Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWQCB); • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); • Nevada City Zoning Ordinance 4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The area climate generally consists of dry and mild to hot summers and relatively wet winters. In the upper elevation around Nevada City (City) and Grass Valley, snow levels are usually above 5,000 ft. The averages minimum and monthly maximum temperatures of from the Nevada City area in the foothills to the valley area near the Town of Lincoln from approximately 26 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit (oF). The proposed SOI Plan update area is in the eastern portion of the service area and encircles the City. In this area, the City’s jurisdictional boundaries include approximately 1,470 incorporated acres (2018, Nevada County GIS data) and the current SOI (exclusive of the incorporated area) includes approximately 2,702 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Lake Huron in 2010 Special Publication 13-01
    THE STATE OF LAKE HURON IN 2010 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 13-01 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified on October 11, 1955. It was organized in April 1956 and assumed its duties as set forth in the Convention on July 1, 1956. The Commission has two major responsibilities: first, develop coordinated programs of research in the Great Lakes, and, on the basis of the findings, recommend measures which will permit the maximum sustained productivity of stocks of fish of common concern; second, formulate and implement a program to eradicate or minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. The Commission is also required to publish or authorize the publication of scientific or other information obtained in the performance of its duties. In fulfillment of this requirement the Commission publishes the Technical Report Series, intended for peer-reviewed scientific literature; Special Publications, designed primarily for dissemination of reports produced by working committees of the Commission; and other (non-serial) publications. Technical Reports are most suitable for either interdisciplinary review and synthesis papers of general interest to Great Lakes fisheries researchers, managers, and administrators, or more narrowly focused material with special relevance to a single but important aspect of the Commission's program. Special Publications, being working documents, may evolve with the findings of and charges to a particular committee. Both publications follow the style of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Sponsorship of Technical Reports or Special Publications does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions contained therein are endorsed by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Existing Environment
    Yuba County Water Agency Narrows Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1403 SECTION 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT In addition to this introductory information, this section is divided into two subsections. Section 3.1 provides a general description of the river basin in which the Project occurs. Section 3.2 provides existing, relevant and reasonably available information regarding the resources. 3.1 General Description of the River Basin 3.1.1 Existing Water Projects in the Yuba River Basin Sixteen existing water projects occur in the Yuba River Basin. Eight of the water projects are licensed or exempt from licensing by FERC. Together, these eight projects have a combined FERC-authorized capacity of 782.1 MW, of which the Narrows Hydroelectric Project has approximately 1.5 percent of the total capacity. The remaining eight non-FERC-licensed projects do not contain generating facilities. Each of these water projects is described briefly below. 3.1.1.1 Narrows Hydroelectric Project The existing Narrows Hydroelectric Project is described in detail in Section 2 of this PAD. 3.1.1.2 Upstream of the Narrows Hydroelectric Project 3.1.1.2.1 South Feather Power Project The 117.5-MW South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 2088, is a water supply/power project constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is owned and operated by the South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). None of the project facilities or features is located in the Yuba River watershed except for the Slate Creek Diversion Dam, which is located on a tributary to the North Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • Coregonus Nigripinnis) in Northern Algonquin Provincial Park
    HABITAT PREFERENCES AND FEEDING ECOLOGY OF BLACKFIN CISCO (COREGONUS NIGRIPINNIS) IN NORTHERN ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Arts and Science Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Allan Henry Miller Bell 2017 Environmental and Life Sciences M.Sc. Graduate Program September 2017 ABSTRACT Depth Distribution and Feeding Structure Differentiation of Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis) In Northern Algonquin Provincial Park Allan Henry Miller Bell Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis), a deepwater cisco species once endemic to the Laurentian Great Lakes, was discovered in Algonquin Provincial Park in four lakes situated within a drainage outflow of glacial Lake Algonquin. Blackfin habitat preference was examined by analyzing which covariates best described their depth distribution using hurdle models in a multi-model approach. Although depth best described their distribution, the nearly isothermal hypolimnion in which Blackfin reside indicated a preference for cold-water habitat. Feeding structure differentiation separated Blackfin from other coregonines, with Blackfin possessing the most numerous (50-66) gill rakers, and, via allometric regression, the longest gill rakers and lower gill arches. Selection for feeding efficiency may be a result of Mysis diluviana affecting planktonic size structure in lakes containing Blackfin Cisco, an effect also discovered in Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). This thesis provides insight into the habitat preferences and feeding ecology of Blackfin and provides a basis for future study. Keywords: Blackfin Cisco, Lake Whitefish, coregonine, Mysis, habitat, feeding ecology, hurdle models, allometric regression, Algonquin Provincial Park ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Food‐Web Structure and Ecosystem Function in the Laurentian Great
    Received: 13 March 2018 | Revised: 14 September 2018 | Accepted: 18 September 2018 DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13203 REVIEW Food- web structure and ecosystem function in the Laurentian Great Lakes—Toward a conceptual model Jessica T. Ives1 | Bailey C. McMeans2 | Kevin S. McCann3 | Aaron T. Fisk4 | Timothy B. Johnson5 | David B. Bunnell6 | Kenneth T. Frank7 | Andrew M. Muir1 1Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan Abstract 2Department of Biology, University of 1. The relationship between food-web structure (i.e., trophic connections, including Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada diet, trophic position, and habitat use, and the strength of these connections) and 3Department of Integrative ecosystem functions (i.e., biological, geochemical, and physical processes in an Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada ecosystem, including decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and nutrient 4Great Lakes Institute for Environmental and energy flows among community members) determines how an ecosystem re- Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada sponds to perturbations, and thus is key to understanding the adaptive capacity of 5Glenora Fisheries Station, Ontario Ministry a system (i.e., ability to respond to perturbation without loss of essential func- of Natural Resources and Forestry, Picton, tions). Given nearly ubiquitous changing environmental conditions and anthropo- Ontario, Canada genic impacts on global lake ecosystems, understanding the adaptive capacity of 6US Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan food webs supporting important resources, such as commercial, recreational, and 7Department of Fisheries and subsistence fisheries, is vital to ecological and economic stability. Oceans, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Ocean Sciences Division, 2. Herein, we describe a conceptual framework that can be used to explore food- Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada web structure and associated ecosystem functions in large lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Describe This Pattern of Absence and Lay out a Plan for Restoring the Species to Areas Where the Species Has Recently Gone Extinct
    San Joaquin Valley Natural Communities Conference March 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting via WHOVA Video Conferencing Program and Abstracts San Joaquin Valley Natural Communities Conference March 25, 2021 8:30 - 8:50 Brian Cypher Welcome to the Conference, Moderator 8:50 - 9:10 Xerónimo Castañeda Six years of Tricolored Blackbird Conservation in the San Joaquin Valley: Challenges and opportunities to save this imperiled species 9:10 - 9:30 Petros Chrysafis Scent deterrent as an applicable predator deterrent 9:30 -9:50 Mike Westphal Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard occupancy in the Northern Clade: How do we reverse the recent pattern of extinction? 9:50 - 10:10 Deborah Woollett Guidelines, applications, and caveats to using detection dogs to find Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard scat 10:10 – 10:30 BREAK 10:30 - 10:50 Erica Kelly Impact of a Sarcoptic Mange Epidemic on a Population of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes 10:50 – 11:30 Nicole Deatherage Urban Landscape Attributes and Competition Affect San Joaquin Kit Fox Occupancy and Spatiotemporal Activity 11:30 – 12:00 LUNCH BREAK 12:00 – 12:30 Quick Talk Presentations Anna Doty Effects of fire on summer roost selection and torpor expression of bats in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: a planned project Patrick Walker Central Valley California tiger salamander behavior within vernal pool grassland complex in Madera County Christopher Lortie Too much of a good thing: richness and restoration in drylands Petros Chrysafis Contribution to eMammal’s Snapshot USA Project Kristie Stein Tricolored Blackbird
    [Show full text]
  • California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group
    California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group SIERRA NEWT Taricha sierrae Family: SALAMANDRIDAE Order: CAUDATA Class: AMPHIBIA A075 Written by: S. Morey Reviewed by: T. Papenfuss Updated by: CWHR Staff May 2013 and Dec 2018 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND SEASONALITY The Sierra newt is found the length of the Sierra, primarily in the foothills; an isolated population also occurs near the headwaters of Shasta Reservoir in Shasta Co. A few populations are also known from the floor of the Central Valley. Occurs primarily in valley- foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, coastal scrub and mixed chaparral, but is also known from annual grassland and mixed conifer types. Elevation range extends from near sea level to about 1830 m (6000 ft) (Jennings and Hayes 1994). SPECIFIC HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Feeding: Postmetamorphic juveniles and terrestrial adults take earthworms, snails, slugs, sowbugs, and insects (Stebbins 1972). Adult males at breeding ponds have been shown to take the eggs and hatching larvae of their own species (Kaplan and Sherman 1980) late in the breeding season, the eggs of other amphibians and trout, as well as adult and larval aquatic insects, small crustaceans, snails, and clams (Borell 1935). Aquatic larvae eat many small aquatic organisms, especially crustaceans. Cover: Terrestrial individuals seek cover under surface objects such as rocks and logs, within hollowed out trees, or in mammal burrows, rock fissures, or human-made structures such as wells. Aquatic larvae find cover beneath submerged rocks, logs, debris, and undercut banks. Reproduction: Eggs are laid in small firm clusters on the submerged portion of emergent vegetation, on submerged vegetation, rootwads, unattached sticks, and on the underside of cobbles off the bottom.
    [Show full text]