DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Southwest Regional Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 414-6464 In Reply Refer To: 8-10-10-TAILS# March 29, 2019 08EKLA00-20 I 9-F-0068 Memorandum To: Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon From: Michael Senn, Deputy Assistant Regional Director- Ecological ~~ ~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California Subject: Transmittal of Biological Opinion on Klamath Project Operations Thank you for your December 21, 2018, letter requesting initiation of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). During the consultation period, USFWS received memoranda describing changes to the proposed action on February 15, 2019, March 8, 2019, and March 25, 2019. This letter transmits the Service's biological opinion for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation's) proposed operation of the Klamath Project from April I, 2019, to March 31, 2024, which describes the Service's analysis of the effects of Reclamation's implementation of proposed action on endangered Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris). This biological opinion has been coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure compatibility with their biological opinion on the effects to species over which they have jurisdiction. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Service concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker and is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. However, the Service does anticipate incidental take of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker as well as adverse effects to their designated critical habitat as a result of implementation of the proposed action. The Service appreciates Reclamation's close coordination and collaboration throughout the development of the proposed action and consultation period to meet the needs of endangered species with the proposed action. We look forward to providing appropriate assistance to Reclamation during implementation of the proposed action. If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Daniel Blake, Field Supervisor of the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, at (541) 885-2512. Attachment cc: w/ attachment Jim Simondet, NMFS, Northern California Office Lisa Van Atta, NMFS, California Coastal Office Biological Opinion on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2024, on the Lost River Sucker and the Shortnose Sucker (TAILS # 08EKLA00-2019-F-0068) Prepared By: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office TABLE O F CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Background and Consultation History .................................................................................... 1 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 History of Consultation ................................................................................................... 2 3 Action area .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Element One.................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Annual Storage of Water ................................................................................................ 9 UKL Flood Prevention Threshold Elevations........................................................... 10 4.3 Element Two ................................................................................................................. 12 General Description .................................................................................................. 12 Operation and Delivery of Water from UKL and the Klamath River ...................... 13 Operation and Delivery of Water to the East Side of the Project ............................. 38 4.4 Element Three ............................................................................................................... 44 Dams and Reservoirs ................................................................................................ 45 4.5 Water Shortage Planning .............................................................................................. 49 4.6 Conservation Measures ................................................................................................. 50 Canal Salvage............................................................................................................ 50 Sucker Assisted Rearing Program ............................................................................ 51 Sucker Monitoring and Recovery Program Participation ......................................... 52 Coho Restoration Grant Program .............................................................................. 52 5 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ............................................................................... 53 6 Status and Environmental Baseline of the Lost River Sucker and the Shortnose Sucker .... 53 6.1 Legal status ................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Life History ................................................................................................................... 54 Migration................................................................................................................... 55 Spawning................................................................................................................... 55 Larvae ....................................................................................................................... 56 Juveniles .................................................................................................................... 57 Adults ........................................................................................................................ 57 6.3 Range and Distribution ................................................................................................. 58 Historical Distribution .............................................................................................. 58 Current Distribution .................................................................................................. 59 Population Abundance and Dynamics ...................................................................... 61 6.4 Reasons for listing and new threats .............................................................................. 67 New Threats Identified Since Listing ....................................................................... 68 Survival and Recovery Needs ................................................................................... 69 6.5 Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................ 71 Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 71 Water Quantity .......................................................................................................... 74 Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 79 Die Off Events .......................................................................................................... 81 Genetic Introgression ................................................................................................ 82 ii Harvest ...................................................................................................................... 83 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 84 Environmental Contaminants.................................................................................... 84 Predation ................................................................................................................... 85 Disease and Parasites ................................................................................................ 86 Consulted on Effects ................................................................................................. 87 Conservation Efforts ................................................................................................. 90 7 Effects of the action on the Lost River Sucker and the Shortnose Sucker ........................... 92 7.1 Analytical Approach ..................................................................................................... 92 Use of the Period of Record Hydrograph as a Tool to Analyze Project Effects ....... 92 Use of the KBPM Model as a Tool to Analyze Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TO: Jeff Nettleton, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365 Gene R. Souza
    TO: Jeff Nettleton, Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365 Gene R. Souza, Klamath Irrigation District 6640 KID Lane Klamath Falls, OR 97603 John Sample, PacifiCorp 823 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232 Cc: Michael Gheleta Nathan Reitmann FROM: Thomas M. Byler, Director Oregon Water Resources Department DATE: April 16, 2020 NOTIFICATION OF DISPUTE AND INVESTIGATION IN AID OF DISTRIBUTION You are hereby NOTIFIED of a petition by the Klamath Irrigation District (“KID”) for an order from the Oregon Water Resources Department (“Department” or “OWRD”) to immediately take exclusive charge of the Upper Klamath Lake (“UKL”) reservoir to “ensure that stored water is not released out of UKL reservoir through the Link River Dam except to meet the needs of secondary water right holders calling upon the source until the irrigation season ends on October 31, 2020.” You are hereby NOTIFIED that a dispute exists as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 540.210. Jeff Nettleton, USBOR Gene R. Souza, KID John, Sample, Pacificorp April 16, 2020 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, the Department commences this investigation in aid of distribution and division of water according to the relative and respective rights of the various users from the UKL. AUTHORITIES A. Distribution of Water from Irrigation Ditches and Reservoirs “Whenever any water users from any ditch or reservoir either among themselves or with the owner thereof, are unable to agree relative to the distribution or division of water through
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions Why are we doing this project? The City of Klamath Falls is working to upgrade the Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) due to its aging infrastructure and the need to meet new, stricter treatment standards. The project is an important, long-term investment for the community. The City has operated the Spring Street STP since 1958, serving Klamath Falls for over 60 years. Many of the plant’s parts are original since their installation in the 1950s. As repairs are becoming necessary due to age, it is more cost-efficient to replace them entirely them than to repair them. A comprehensive upgrade is a smart investment in the plant, avoiding short-term, quick-fix solutions that add up in the long run. What benefits will this project provide to the City of Klamath Falls? The City’s Wastewater Division provides services to approximately 21,000 city residents and Klamath Basin area customers, cleaning an average 2.2 million gallons of wastewater per day from over 7,400 service connections. These upgrades will provide the following benefits to this process and to the community: • Improved health, safety, and welfare of the public. • Reliable, robust treatment with sufficient process and equipment redundancy (allowing the plant to stay operational while routine maintenance and repairs occur), and operator-friendly facilities. • Energy efficiency, which will result in additional funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon and reduced power bills. • Reduction in operation and maintenance costs due to the elimination of two existing processes: primary clarification and digestion. Along with being a smart long-term investment, the upgrades will help keep the City in compliance with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations and protect the area’s natural resources such as Lake Ewauna, the headwaters of the Klamath River where the treated wastewater is discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S
    Building The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D. Klamath Campaign Coordinator Karuk Tribe 12/12/03 Pacificorp, a subsidiary of the large multinational power corporation Scottish Power, is in the process of relicensing its Klamath River dams. Since hydropower dams are relicensed only once every 30-50 years, relicensing represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to change flow regimes or decommission dams. The Karuk Tribe believes that the removal of dams on the Klamath should be fully evaluated as dam removal appears to be key in the restoration of native fishes to the upper basin. Our position is supported by sound science and policy research. These dams contribute little to the energy supply1 The California Energy Commission (CEC) reviewed the energy affects of full or partial decommissioning. Their conclusions were that: “Because of the small capacity of the Klamath hydro units…removal of these units will not have a significant reliability impact on a larger regional scale.” The report went on to state: “…decommissioning is a feasible alternative from the perspective of impacts to statewide electricity resource adequacy and that replacement energy is available in the near term.” The National Academy of Science recommends a full evaluation of dam removal2 A recent report by the most prestigious scientific minds in America, the National Academy of Science, recommends that: “serious evaluation should be made of the benefits to coho salmon from the elimination of Dwinell Dam [on the Shasta River] and Iron Gate Dam on the grounds that these dams block substantial amounts of coho habitat…” The California State Water Resources Control Board calls for dam removal studies3 The California State Water Resources Control Board is one party involved in the relicensing of the Klamath Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Interim Measures Implementation Committee: Interim Measure 11 Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report July 5, 2017 Prepared for: Portland, Oregon Prepared by: CH2M 2020 SW 4th Ave, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conceptual Description of the Demonstration Project ....................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Demonstration Project Facilities and Operations ......................................................... 2 3 Assessment of Needed Permits and Regulatory Approvals................................................................. 4 3.1 Removal‐Fill Permit ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fish‐Related Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Other Regulatory Permits or Approvals ...................................................................................... 10 4 Assessment of Use and Disposal of Harvested Algae Material .......................................................... 10 5 Additional Considerations ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country Welcome To
    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run
    1 Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run Klamath River Technical Team 15 February 2021 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2020 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 9,077 0.17 3 37,820 0.69 4 7,579 0.14 5 8 0.00 Total 54,484 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 59,100 45,400 1.30 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 8,600 5,200 1.65 Recreational Harvest 1,300 5,100 0.25 Drop-off Mortality 800 600 1.33 10,700 10,900 0.98 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 12,200 8,300 1.47 Natural Area Spawners 36,200 26,200 1.38 48,400 34,500 1.40 2 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2020. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2021) and with the 2021 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2021). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2020 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State
    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
    [Show full text]
  • Here Were Also Three Unauthorized Releases of Water from Upper Klamath Lake
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420C Filed: December 21, 2016 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KLAMATH IRRIGATION, et al., and * JOHN ANDERSON FARMS, INC., * et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Water Rights; Physical vs. Regulatory UNITED STATES, * * Takings; Endangered Species Act; v. * Motions in Limine. * Defendant, * PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF * FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC for plaintiffs. With her was Roger G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC. Of counsel was William M. Ganong, Special Counsel, Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Falls, OR. Kristine S. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Concord, NH, for defendant. With her was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Stephen M. MacFarlane and Edward C. Thomas, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice. Todd D. True, Earthjustice, Seattle, WA for defendant-intervenor. O P I N I O N HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions in limine regarding the proper legal framework for analyzing plaintiffs’ takings claims in the above-captioned cases. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are individual landowners, irrigation districts and similar government agencies, and private corporations in Oregon and California who allege that the defendant, acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation, effected a taking of their alleged water rights in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Sucke
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications of the US Geological Survey US Geological Survey 2013 Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Barbara A. Martin U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] David A. Hewitt U.S. Geological Survey Craig M. Ellsworth U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs Part of the Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Other Earth Sciences Commons Martin, Barbara A.; Hewitt, David A.; and Ellsworth, Craig M., "Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon" (2013). Publications of the US Geological Survey. 117. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs/117 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications of the US Geological Survey by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Open-File Report 2013–1039 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon By Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Inset: Larval sucker from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Allison Estergard, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2011.) Top: Photograph taken from the air of the flooded Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Charles Erdman, Fisheries Technician, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2008.) Bottom left: Photograph of a pop net used by The Nature Conservancy to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Heather Hendrixson, Director, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2006.) Bottom middle: Photograph of a larval trawl used by Oregon State University to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by David Simon, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2010.) Bottom right: Photograph of a plankton net used by the U.S. Geological Survey to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photographer unknown, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2009.) Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 By Tamara M. Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, Heather A. Hendrixson, The Nature Conservancy, Douglas F. Markle, Oregon State University, Charles S. Erdman, The Nature Conservancy, Summer M. Burdick, U.S. Geological Survey, Craig M. Ellsworth, U.S. Geological Survey, and Norman L.
    [Show full text]