Land Cover Trends Project

Klamath Mountains Ecoregion

By Benjamin M. Sleeter and James P. Calzia 1

Click to see available downloads for this ecoregion

map of Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion

Figure 1. The Klamath Mountains Ecoregion sample blocks overlay the USGS 1992 National Land Cover Dataset.

Ecoregion Description

The Klamath Mountain Ecoregion covers 48,538 km2 (18,740 mi2) the Klamath and Siskiyou Mountains of northern California and southern Oregon (fig. 1). The Klamath is flanked by the Coast Range to the west, the Central and Southern California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands to the south, the Willamette Valley to the north, and the Cascades and Eastern Cascades, Slopes, and Foothills ecoregions to the east. The mild Mediterranean climate of the ecoregion is characterized by hot dry summers and wet winters; the amount of winter moisture varies, however, within the ecoregion decreasing from west to east. The Klamath-Siskiyou region is widely recognized as an important biodiversity hotspot (Whittaker, 1960; Kruckeberg, 1984; Wagner, 1997; DellaSala and others, 1999) containing more than 3,500 plant species, more than 200 of which are endemic (Sawyer, 2007). A biological assessment by DellaSala and others (1999) ranked the Klamath-Siskiyou region as the fifth richest coniferous forest in terms of species diversity and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers the region one of notable botanical importance (Wagner, 1997). Twenty-nine different species of conifers can be found in the Klamath (Sawyer, 1996).

This ecoregion is underlain by belts of Paleozoic to Mesozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks separated by linear belts of serpentinite. Most of these belts are intruded by Mesozoic granitic rocks and/or overlain by late Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. All of these rocks are overlain by gravel and alluvial deposits of Cenozoic age (Potter, 1966, Snoke and Barnes, 2006). Soils developed on serpentine are toxic and nutrient poor, and are characterized by high levels of magnesium, nickel, and chromium as well as low levels of calcium. Seventy endemic species of plants are associated only with serpentine extrusions in the Siskiyou Mountains, outnumbering those associated with any other serpentine outcrop in North America (Coleman and Kruckeberg, 1999; Sawyer, 2007).

Forests account for approximately three-quarters of the ecoregion’s areas, and are generally organized along elevation and longitudinal gradients, while grasslands and shrubs account for approximately 15 percent of the ecoregion area (Homer and others, 2007). Redwood forests dominate the coastal portions of the ecoregion giving way to Douglas-fir, tanoak, madrone, and canyon live oak further inland followed by Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine in the eastern portions of the ecoregion (Sawyer, 1996). White fir and Shasta fir can be found at higher elevations and Mountain hemlock is common at subalpine elevations (Sawyer, 1996). Oak woodlands are common in foothills of the Eel, Trinity, and Sacramento watersheds.

Agriculture and developed landscapes comprise much of the remainder of the ecoregion. The major land uses within the ecoregion include forestry, farming, grazing, tourism, and mining. Approximately 83 percent of the ecoregion is managed by the federal government, most of which is for public use (fig. 2). The Forest Service manages 12 wilderness areas and 8 national forests, accounting for the majority of public lands in the ecoregion. Other federal land holders include Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are also several Indian reservations located across the ecoregion. Protected lands (CBI, 2003) that limit permanent anthropogenic conversion and are managed for natural ecosystem values 2 comprise 17.3 percent of the ecoregion.

Farming is limited and generally confined to the larger alluvial valleys. One of the more productive agricultural locations in the ecoregion exists in a corridor between Ashland, Medford, and Grants Pass, Oregon. Developed land uses are sparse. Medford and Grants Pass in Oregon are the two largest urban areas with respective 2005 population estimates of 70,147 and 28,882 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Other urban areas include Roseburg and Ashland in Oregon, and Willits and Yreka in California.

 

Contemporary Land Cover Change (1973 to 2000)

            The overall spatial change (i.e. the amount of area that changed at least one time) between 1973 and 2000 was 10.3 percent (4,929 km2) (table 1). Compared to other western ecoregions, the Klamath experienced a modest amount of change although the rate was substantially lower than other forested ecoregions in the Pacific Northwest (fig. 3). Of the 10.3 percent of the ecoregion that did change, 3.2 percent of the ecoregion experienced change in more than one time interval, indicating a cyclic pattern consistent with the changes associated with forestry. Change within the four individual temporal periods ranged from a low of 3.0 percent between 1980 and 1986 to a high of 4.2 percent in the 1986 to 1992 and 1992 to 2000 intervals (table 2). When the temporal intervals are normalized to an average annual rate to compensate for the uneven lengths between image classifications, the 1986 to 1992 period experienced the highest rate of change at 0.7 percent per year (fig. 4). The other three intervals were fairly stable at approximately 0.5 percent per year (table 2). Staus and others (2002) found similar rates of forest disturbance between 1972 and 1992 in the Klamath-Siskiyou region. Land cover change in the Klamath was substantially lower than that of the adjacent Coast Range ecoregion (Sohl, in press). In part, this is explained by the large percentage of public lands and areas of high protection that either minimize, or restrict, timber harvest.  Table 3 provides estimates of net forest change, public land ownership, and protected lands for forested-dominated western ecoregions. In the Pacific Northwest, with the exception of the Cascades ecoregion, the Klamath had the lowest net loss of forest cover over the 27-year study period (594 km2) (table 3 and 4) and ranked behind only the Sierra Nevada Mountains Ecoregion in terms of the proportion of public lands found within the ecoregion.           

Forests covered an estimated 76.6 percent of the ecoregion in 1973 and declined to 75.3 percent by 2000, a loss of 1.2 percent and approximately 593 km2. The only interval to experience a net increase in forest was between 1980 and 1986 with an increase of 0.2 percent (fig. 6). Grassland/shrubland, which accounted for an estimated 14.3 percent of the ecoregion in 1973, increased to 15.5 percent in 2000, a net increase of 1.3 percent over 27 years. Furthermore, we estimate that between 1973 and 1980 re-growth of forests, often captured as grassland/shrublands in the earliest stages of regeneration, outpaced logging by approximately 74 km2 per year. Logging accelerated in the 1980s and early 1990s (Daniels, 2005) resulting in a deficit of 43 km2 per year between 1986 and 1992. The 1990s saw a shift back to trends witnessed during the 1970s where re-growth outpaced cutting at a rate of approximately 26 km2 per year. These trends are consistent with findings from Cohen and others (2002) that investigated forest disturbance in western Oregon. Class changes over the five dates and four temporal periods can be found in Table 4.

Agriculture was the third most common land cover in the Klamath and was generally confined to the eastern and northern portions of the ecoregion. Farmland remained stable throughout the study period at approximately 4.5 percent of the ecoregion.

Changes associated with new development were relatively small in the Klamath Mountains. We estimate that developed land-cover increased by 0.4 percent over the entire 27-year study, an increase of approximately 190 km2. Developed lands were estimated to account for 1.8 percent of the ecoregion in 1973, increasing to 2.2 percent by 2000. New development could be found located around existing cities such as Roseburg, and along the Interstate 5 corridor between Grants Pass and Medford. The only major urban areas in California were Yreka, Weaverville, and Willits.

As expected, the leading land cover conversions were associated with timber harvesting (table 5). Changes associated with logging accounted for a majority of change in each temporal period, ranging from a high of nearly 95 percent between 1973 and 1980 to 72 percent between 1992 and 2000. Changes between forest, mechanical disturbance, and grassland/shrubland are closely linked and when combined represent the cyclical nature of logging. During the last two intervals fire (classified as nonmechanical disturbance) took on a larger role as an agent for land change, accounting for an estimated 189 km2 between 1986 and 1992 and 206 km2 between 1992 and 2000 (table 5).

Drivers of land cover change in the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion were numerous and diverse. Forest management policy was driving much of the change associated with logging, however, in later years, environmental policy has taken on increasing importance. The collapse of the Asian export market, listing of the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species List in 1990, and the Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 are likely drivers of land cover change in the region with the most direct result being a decrease of timber production to approximately 25 percent of 1980s levels (Daniels, 2005). Changes in global market demand for Pacific Northwest timber are also significant and were best characterized by the Asian economic recession of the 1990s that resulted in a substantial decrease in demand for regional timber products. Decades of fire suppression and climate change have likely contributed to the more recent emergence of fire as a major land-cover conversion typified by more frequent high-intensity stand replacing burns in Northern California (Westerling and others, 2006).

           

 

 


References Cited

CBI (Conservation Biology Institute), 2003, Conservation Biology Institute protected areas GIS data layer, Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Oregon. Available from http:consbio.org (last accessed September, 2008)

 

Cohen, W. B., T. A. Spies, R. J. Alig, D. R. Oetter, T. K. Maiersperger, and M. Fiorella, 2002, Characterizing 23 years (1972-95) of stand replacement disturbance in Western Oregon forests with Landsat imagery, Ecosystems, Vol. 5, pp. 122-137

 

Coleman, R. G., and A. R. Kruckeberg, 1999, Geology and plant life of the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountain region, Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 320-340

 

Daniels, J. M., 2005, The rise and fall of the Pacific Northwest log export market, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-624.

 

DellaSala, D. A., S. B. Reid, T. J. Frest, J. R. Strittholt, and D. M. Olson, 1999, A global perspective on the biodiversity of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 300-319.

 

DellaSala, D. A., N. L. Staus, J. R. Strittholt, A. Hackman, and A. Iacobelli, 2001, An updated protected areas database for the United States and Canada, Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 124-135.

 

Homer, C., J. Dewitz, J. Fry, M. Coan, N. Hossain, C. Larson, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J. N. VanDriel and J. Wickham. 2007. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp 337-341.

 

Kruckeberg, A. R., 1984, California Serpentines: Flora, Vegetation, Geology, Soils and Management Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

 

Potter, Irwin, 1966, Geology of the Klamath Mountains province: in Bailey, E.H. (ed.), Geology of Northern California: California Division Mines and Geology Bulletin 190, p. 19-39.

 

Sawyer, J. O., 1996, Northern California, In: Kirk, R. (ed.), The Enduring Forests: Northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Southwest Alaska, The Mountaineers Press, Seattle, Washington, pp. 22-41.

 

Sawyer, J. O., 2007, Why are the Klamath Mountains and adjacent north coast floristically diverse? Fremontia, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 3-11

 

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, S. Caicco, G. Groves, J. Ulliman, H. Anderson, and R. G. Wright, 1993, Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity, Wildlife Monographs, Vol. 123, pp. 1-41

 

Snoke, A.W., and Barnes, C.G. (eds.), 2006, Geological studies in the Klamath Mountains province, California and Oregon: Geological Society of America Special Paper 410, 505 p.  

 

Sohl, T., 2008, Contemporary land cover change in the Coast Range Ecoregion, in Acevedo, W. eds., Status and Trends of Western United States Land Cover, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, in press.

 

Staus, N. L., J. R. Strittholt, D. A. DellaSala, and R. Robinson, 2002, Rate and pattern of forest disturbance in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, USA between 1972 and 1992, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 17, pp. 455-470.

 

Wagner, D. H., 1997, Klamath-Siskiyou region, California and Oregon, USA, In: Davis, S. D., V. H. Heywood, O. Herrera-MacBryde, J. Villa-Lobos, and A. C. Hamilton (eds), Centres of Plant Diversity, the Americas, Vol. 3, World Wildlife Fund for Nature and IUCN (World Conservation Union), New York, New York, USA, pp. 74-76.

 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, 2006, Warming and Earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity, Science, Vol. 313, pp. 940-943

 

Whittaker, R. H., 1960, Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California, Ecological Monographs, Vol. 30, pp. 279-338

 

U.S. Census Bureau, Administrative and Customer Services Division,
Statistical Compendia Branch, Last Revised: February 28, 2008 at 08:40:14 AM.


 

Table 1.  Percentage of the ecoregion that experienced change and associated error

[Most of the sample pixels remained unchanged (xx.x percent), whereas x.x percent changed at least once through the study period]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number

Percent

Margin

Lower

Upper

Standard

Relative

of

of

of error

bound

bound

error

error

changes

ecoregion

(+/- %)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

1

7.1

 

1.9

 

5.2

 

9.0

 

1.3

 

18.3

 

2

2.8

 

0.8

 

2.0

 

3.6

 

0.6

 

19.9

 

3

0.4

 

0.2

 

0.3

 

0.6

 

0.1

 

26.4

 

4

0.0

 

0.0

 

0.0

 

0.1

 

0.0

 

34.9

 

Overall spatial change

10.3

 

2.3

 

8.0

 

12.6

 

1.5

 

15.0

 

 

 

 

Table 2.  Raw estimates of percent change in the ecoregion computed for each of the four time periods and associated error at an 85-percent confidence level

[Estimates of change per period normalized to an annual rate of change for each of the four time periods]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Period

Total change

Margin of error

Lower bound

Upper bound

Standard error

Relative error

Average rate

(% of ecoregion)

(+/- %)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(% per year)

1973-1980

3.3

 

1.1

 

2.1

 

4.4

 

0.8

 

23.2

 

0.5

 

1980-1986

3.0

 

1.0

 

2.1

 

4.0

 

0.6

 

21.4

 

0.5

 

1986-1992

4.2

 

1.2

 

3.0

 

5.4

 

0.8

 

19.9

 

0.7

 

1992-2000

4.2

 

1.3

 

2.9

 

5.5

 

0.9

 

21.1

 

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Period

Total change

Margin of error

Lower bound

Upper bound

Standard error

Relative error

Average rate

(km2 of ecoregion)

(+/- km2)

(km2)

(km2)

(km2)

(%)

(km2 per year)

1973-1980

1554

 

533

 

1022

 

2087

 

361

 

23.2

 

222

 

1980-1986

1449

 

457

 

992

 

1906

 

310

 

21.4

 

242

 

1986-1992

2011

 

592

 

1419

 

2603

 

401

 

19.9

 

335

 

1992-2000

2017

 

627

 

1390

 

2644

 

425

 

21.1

 

252

 

 

 

Table 3.Comparison of forest change, public lands, and protected lands in western forested ecoregions.

 

 

 

 

Forest change

Protected area

Public Ownership

Ecoregion

Ecoregion area (km2)

Percent forest (2000)

(km2)

%

(km2)

% ecoregion

(km2)

% ecoregion

% High Protection

Coast Range

53986

72.4

-2051

-5.2

6531

12.1

13359

24.7

48.9

Puget Lowlands

16454

48.4

-1662

-20.8

83

0.5

567

3.4

14.6

Willamette Valley

14883

33.5

-625

-12.5

156

1.0

561

3.8

27.8

Cascades

46416

82.3

232

0.6

13500

29.1

30952

66.7

43.6

Sierra Nevada

52872

70.1

-1851

-4.9

15143

28.6

42166

79.8

35.9

Klamath Mtns.

48537

75.3

-594

-1.6

8393

17.3

34678

71.4

24.2


 

Table 4.  Estimated area for each land cover class between 1973 and 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water

Developed

Mech dist

Mining

Barren

Forest

Grass/Shrub

Agriculture

Wetlands

Nonmech dist

 

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

%

+/-

1973

0.3

0.1

1.8

1.3

2.0

0.9

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

76.6

4.2

14.3

3.7

4.5

1.9

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1980

0.3

0.1

1.9

1.3

0.9

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

76.4

4.2

15.5

3.5

4.5

2.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

1986

0.3

0.1

1.9

1.4

1.1

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

76.5

4.3

15.2

3.6

4.5

2.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

1992

0.3

0.1

2.1

1.6

1.6

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

75.8

4.3

14.9

3.6

4.4

2.0

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.4

2000

0.3

0.1

2.2

1.6

1.2

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

75.3

4.3

15.5

3.5

4.4

2.0

0.1

0.1

0.6

0.5

Net Change

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.4

-0.9

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-1.2

1.0

1.3

0.9

-0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.5

Gross Change

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.4

4.3

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.4

1.1

4.3

1.3

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water

Developed

Mech dist

Mining

Barren

Forest

Grass/Shrub

Agriculture

Wetlands

Nonmech dist

 

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

km2

+/-

1973

132

61

851

608

962

413

39

35

112

38

36600

2030

6814

1786

2171

931

72

41

38

46

1980

128

57

892

639

449

164

42

37

112

38

36499

2009

7417

1691

2162

935

70

39

19

27

1986

127

57

926

670

504

187

43

37

112

38

36572

2032

7285

1710

2153

935

70

39

1

1

1992

133

61

1001

741

764

277

43

37

113

38

36229

2039

7131

1724

2115

933

69

38

193

211

2000

133

60

1056

786

551

211

47

38

113

38

36006

2065

7412

1685

2100

932

70

40

302

232

Net Change

2

4

205

193

-412

305

7

6

0

1

-594

489

598

410

-70

106

-1

2

264

238

Gross Change

17

16

205

193

2071

633

10

8

0

1

2111

543

2045

638

134

103

4

5

510

386

 


Table 5.  Leading land cover conversions during each of four time periods

 

Period

From class

To class

Area changed

Margin of error

Standard error

Percent of ecoregion

Percent of all changes

(km2)

(+/- km2)*

(km2)

 

 

1973-1980

Mechanically disturbed

Grassland/Shrubland

631

 

267

 

181

 

1.3

 

40.6

 

 

Forest

Mechanically disturbed

434

 

164

 

111

 

0.9

 

27.9

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Forest

323

 

240

 

162

 

0.7

 

20.8

 

 

Grassland/Shrubland

Forest

30

 

25

 

17

 

0.1

 

1.9

 

 

Agriculture

Developed

24

 

24

 

16

 

0.1

 

1.6

 

 

Other

Other

113

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

0.2

 

7.3

 

 

 

 

1554

 

 

 

 

 

3.3

 

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980-1986

Forest

Mechanically disturbed

487

 

184

 

125

 

1.0

 

33.6

 

 

Grassland/Shrubland

Forest

446

 

207

 

140

 

0.9

 

30.8

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Grassland/Shrubland

325

 

159

 

108

 

0.7

 

22.4

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Forest

115

 

49

 

33

 

0.2

 

7.9

 

 

Agriculture

Developed

16

 

20

 

13

 

0.0

 

1.1

 

 

Other

Other

61

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

0.1

 

4.2

 

 

 

 

1449

 

 

 

 

 

3.0

 

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1986-1992

Forest

Mechanically disturbed

753

 

276

 

187

 

1.6

 

37.4

 

 

Grassland/Shrubland

Forest

449

 

220

 

149

 

0.9

 

22.3

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Grassland/Shrubland

306

 

156

 

105

 

0.6

 

15.2

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Forest

190

 

102

 

69

 

0.4

 

9.5

 

 

Forest

Nonmechanically disturbed

189

 

208

 

141

 

0.4

 

9.4

 

 

Other

Other

124

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

0.3

 

6.2

 

 

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

4.2

 

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1992-2000

Forest

Mechanically disturbed

549

 

211

 

143

 

1.1

 

27.2

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Grassland/Shrubland

442

 

235

 

159

 

0.9

 

21.9

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Forest

313

 

157

 

107

 

0.7

 

15.5

 

 

Forest

Nonmechanically disturbed

206

 

164

 

111

 

0.4

 

10.2

 

 

Grassland/Shrubland

Forest

166

 

75

 

51

 

0.3

 

8.2

 

 

Other

Other

341

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

0.7

 

16.9

 

 

 

 

2017

 

 

 

 

 

4.2

 

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1973-2000

Forest

Mechanically disturbed

2222

 

687

 

466

 

4.6

 

31.6

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Grassland/Shrubland

1704

 

656

 

444

 

3.6

 

24.2

 

 

Grassland/Shrubland

Forest

1091

 

430

 

291

 

2.3

 

15.5

 

 

Mechanically disturbed

Forest

941

 

452

 

306

 

2.0

 

13.4

 

 

Forest

Nonmechanically disturbed

415

 

373

 

253

 

0.9

 

5.9

 

 

Other

Other

659

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

1.4

 

9.4

 

 

 

 

7032

 

 

 

 

 

14.7

 

100.0

 

 

 


map of Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion

 

Figure 1. The Klamath Mountains Ecoregion sample bocks overlay the USGS 1992 National Land Cover Dataset.
See caption

 

Figure 2. Federal lands in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion. Federal land ownership data from the National Atlas (http://nationalatlas.gov).
See caption

Figure 3. The overall spatial change in western U.S. ecoregions. Each bar shows the proportion of the ecoregion that experienced change on 1, 2, 3, or 4 dates.

 

 

See caption

Figure 4. Change by time interval normalized to annual rates. Red bar is the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion and gray bars are other western ecoregions.

 

See caption

Figure 5. Estimated net percentage change by land cover class by temporal interval..

 

See caption

Figure 6. Gains and losses by land cover type by temporal interval.

 

[1] U.S. Geological Survey, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025

[2] GAP protection code 1 or 2 (Scott and others, 1993; DellaSala and others, 2001)

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

Take Pride in America logo USA.gov logo U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/west/eco78Report.html
Page Contact Information: WRG Web Team
Page Last Modified: Monday, 28-Jul-2014 15:05:25 EDT (mg)