DOCSLIB.ORG

Arundo Donax Distribution and Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arundo Donax Distribution and Impact Report Arundo donax Distribution and Impact Report March 2011 Agreement No. 06-374-559-0 State Water Resources Control Board Prepared by: California Invasive Plant Council Arundo donax (giant reed): Distribution and Impact Report March 2011 Agreement: No. 06-374-559-0 Submitted to: State Water Resources Control Board Submitted by: California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Authors: Jason Giessow, Dendra Inc. (Chapters 2, 4.2, 5.2, 6-10) Jason Casanova, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council (Chapters 3, 5.2) Rene Leclerc, Robert MacArthur, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (Chapter 5.1) Genie Fleming, Consultant (Chapter 4.1) Jesse Giessow (Else), Dendra Inc. (Chapter 1) With contributions by: Elizabeth Brusati, Cal-IPC John Tangenberg, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council Brad Roth, Consultant Doug Johnson, Cal-IPC This report and spatial data set (GIS geo-database) are available for download at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/research/arundo/index.php or http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/mapping/arundo/index.php The spatial data set is also viewable at the DFG BIOS web site: http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/ BIOS project data sets are named: Invasive Plants (Species) - Central_So. Cal Coastal Watersheds [ds645] Invasive Plants (Prct Cover) - Central_So. Cal Coastal Watersheds [ds646] TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 ARUNDO BIOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Physiology......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Genetic variation............................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Physical Structure ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Biomass and Cane Density ............................................................................................................. 21 2.5 Growth Rate.................................................................................................................................... 23 2.6 Reproduction and Spread................................................................................................................ 24 2.6.1 Within Stand Spread ................................................................................................................ 24 2.6.2 Spread Within A Watershed..................................................................................................... 25 2.6.3 Historic Air photo Analysis: Stand Growth Rates and Spread Within Watershed.................. 26 2.6.4 Spread Between Watersheds.................................................................................................... 26 2.7 Ecological Function: Abiotic and Biotic......................................................................................... 26 2.7.1 Abiotic..................................................................................................................................... 26 2.7.2 Biotic....................................................................................................................................... 27 2.7.2.1 Vegetation........................................................................................................................ 27 2.7.2.2 Arthropods ....................................................................................................................... 27 2.7.2.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 28 2.8 Arundo Biology: Conclusions......................................................................................................... 29 3.0 SPATIAL DATA SET: The Distribution and Abundance of Arundo from Monterey to Mexico......... 30 3.1 Methodology................................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.1. Step-by-Step Process............................................................................................................. 30 3.1.2. Data Quality.......................................................................................................................... 34 3.2 Results: Acreage by Watershed and Region................................................................................... 37 3.3 Conclusions: Distribution and Abundance ..................................................................................... 38 4.0 IMPACTS OF ARUNDO: Arundo Water Use and Stand Transpiration............................................ 40 4.1 Determining Arundo Water Use (Stand transpiration) ................................................................... 40 4.1.1 Background:............................................................................................................................. 40 4.1.2 Methods.................................................................................................................................... 40 4.1.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 46 4.2 Arundo Water Use Across Study Area ........................................................................................... 47 5.0 IMPACTS OF ARUNDO: Hydrology, Geomorphology and Flooding .............................................. 50 5.1 Hydraulics, Sediment Transport, Geomorphology ......................................................................... 50 5.1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 50 5.1.2 Arundo and River Morphology ................................................................................................ 51 5.1.2.1 Arundo in the River Environment..................................................................................... 51 Arundo donax Distribution and Impact Report i General Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 51 Dispersal & Establishment........................................................................................................ 52 Rates of Spread ......................................................................................................................... 52 Erosion of Arundo Stands by Floods ........................................................................................ 52 5.1.2.2 Observed Effects on Rivers .............................................................................................. 53 Introduction and Context .......................................................................................................... 53 Long-term Historical Studies.................................................................................................... 53 General Observations................................................................................................................ 53 Trends in Width and Planform.................................................................................................. 54 Vertical Adjustments of the Bed and Floodplain...................................................................... 54 Lateral Migration and Bank Erosion......................................................................................... 55 5.1.2.3 Observed Effects on Hydraulics and Sediment Transport................................................ 55 Response to Arundo Removal or Eradication........................................................................... 56 5.1.2.4 Summary of Understanding .............................................................................................. 56 5.1.3 Southern California Study Streams.......................................................................................... 57 5.1.3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 57 5.1.3.2 Study Streams ................................................................................................................... 57 5.1.3.3 CAL-IPC GIS Analysis..................................................................................................... 57 5.1.3.4 Study Stream Characteristics ............................................................................................ 58 General Morphology................................................................................................................. 58 Arundo Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 59 5.1.4. Santa Margarita River Case Study ......................................................................................... 63 5.1.4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 63 5.1.4.2 Santa Margarita Watershed..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SAN LUIS REY RIVER WATERSHED URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2007-08
    SSAANN LLUUIISS RREEYY RRIIVVEERR WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD Urban Runoff Management Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2007-08 Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region 9 By the City of Oceanside ● City of Vista ● County of San Diego January 2009 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SAN LUIS REY RIVER WATERSHED URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Annual report for Fiscal Year 2007-08 Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region 9 By the City of Oceanside City of Vista County of San Diego January 2009 Cover photo credit: Copyright © THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Luis Rey River Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program FY 2007-08 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This San Luis Rey (SLR) Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program (WURMP) Annual Report (AR) is the first annual report by the San Luis Rey Watershed Copermittees (SLR Copermittees) addressing Municipal Storm Water Permit Order Number R9-2007-0001 (Municipal Permit). The San Luis Rey Watershed Copermittees (SLR Copermittees) include the City of Oceanside, the City of Vista, and the County of San Diego. The City of Oceanside serves as the Lead Watershed Copermittee for the SLR Watershed Management Area (WMA). The SLR WURMP AR covers the time period July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 (FY 2007-08) and describes the SLR Copermittees collaborative plans and efforts to reduce the impacts of urban activity on receiving water quality within the SLR WMA to the maximum extent practicable. During this reporting period the SLR Copermittees continued to address the watershed’s high priority water quality pollutants identified in the 2008 San Luis Rey WURMP (2008 SLR WURMP) as bacteria and nutrients.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Acquisition
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation September 6, 2018 SANTA MARGARITA RIVER TRAIL PRESERVE ACQUISITION Project No. 18-015-01 Project Manager: Greg Gauthier RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $9,750,000 to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River for conservation and recreation purposes. LOCATION: Santa Margarita River, County of San Diego PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Protection EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location, Site Map, and APN Numbers Exhibit 2: Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Photographs Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Chapter 5.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed nine million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($9,750,000) to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River, as shown in Exhibit 1, for conservation and recreation purposes. This authorization is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to disbursement of any funds for acquisition of the property, The Wildlands Conservancy shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy: a) all relevant acquisition documents, including the appraisal, agreement of purchase and sale, escrow instructions, deeds, and documents of title; b) a baseline conditions report; c) a monitoring and reporting plan; and d) evidence that sufficient funds are available to complete the acquisition. 2. The Wildlands Conservancy shall not pay more than fair market value for the property acquired pursuant to this authorization, as established in an appraisal approved by the Executive Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year
    SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED ANNUAL WATERMASTER REPORT WATER YEAR 2013-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB CHARLES W. BINDER WATERMASTER P. 0. BOX 631 FALLBROOK, CA 92088 (760) 728-1028 FAX (760) 728-1990 August 2015 WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Authority .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Scope .................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 - SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ......................................... 7 3.1 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Surface Water Diversions .................................................................................. 13 3.3 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4- SUBSURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY ................................................. 19 4.1 General .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps Inc
    Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps Inc. 7407 La Jolla Boulevard www.raremaps.com (858) 551-8500 La Jolla, CA 92037 [email protected] Warner Ranch San Diego Co. Cal. Wm G. Henshaw Owner Stock#: 73759 Map Maker: Volcan Land & Water Co. Date: 1916 (July) Place: n.p. (San Diego) Color: Uncolored Condition: VG Size: 70 x 62 inches Price: SOLD Description: Harnessing the Mountain Waters of San Diego, County -- Creating What Was Then California's Second Largest Artificial Lake Colossal topographical map of Warner's Ranch, San Diego County, California, prepared in 1916, prepared in connection with the project to dam the San Luis Rey River and create Lake Henshaw. While the scale of the map is impressive, its purpose is well-hidden at the lower left, where the words "Warner Dam" appears at the narrowing of the valley, where the San Luis Rey River begins a northwesterly course through the mountains toward the Pacific Ocean. The map was prepared by Volcan Water & Land Company, as part of an attempt by William Griffith Henshaw and Colonel Edward Fletcher to impound the waters flowing through the ranch into the San Luis Rey River, a plan that was first hatched by Henry Huntington. At the time of the map's creation, the project to build a dam to create Lake Henshaw and harness a reliable water source to develop coastal the lands of North San Diego, which had begun in 1911 had stalled during World War I (1914-1918). The present map was prepared during the period shortly after Henshaw and Fletcher had contracted with John Eastwood to design what would become the Lake Henshaw dam in 1914.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Management Plan for San Luis Rey River Park San Diego County
    Resource Management Plan for San Luis Rey River Park San Diego County June 2012 San Luis Rey River Park RMP June 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Resource Management Plan ................................................ 1 1.1.1 Draft North County Plan ............................................................... 2 1.1.2 Draft North County Framework RMP and ASMDs ........................ 2 1.2 Implementation ........................................................................................ 3 1.2.1 Management Approach ................................................................ 3 1.2.2 Responsible Parties/Designation of Land Manager ...................... 4 1.2.3 Regulatory Context ....................................................................... 4 1.2.4 Funding Mechanism ..................................................................... 4 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 5 2.1 Property Location .................................................................................... 5 2.2 Geographical Setting ............................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Site Access ................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Draft North County Plan Context
    [Show full text]
  • California Coastal Commission Staff Report and Recommendation
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904- 5200 FAX (415) 904- 5400 W 8a STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Consistency Determination No. CD-043-07 Staff: LJS-SF File Date: 7/12/2007 60th Day: 9/10/2007 75th Day: 9/25/2007 Extended to: 2/8/2008 Commission Meeting: 2/6/2008 FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT LOCATION: San Luis Rey River, City of Oceanside, San Diego County (Exhibits 1-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Vegetation and sediment management within the seven-mile-long San Luis Rey River flood control project area SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: See Page 25 CD-043-07 (Corps of Engineers) Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has submitted a consistency determination to implement a vegetation and sediment management program for the San Luis Rey River flood control project area, located along the lower seven miles of the river between College Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County. The lower 1.3 miles of the flood control channel are located within the coastal zone. The current flood control project, constructed between 1988 and 2000, encompasses approximately 585 acres within a flood control channel approximately 400 feet wide and includes double- and single-levee reaches, a variable-width flow conveyance zone, in-channel and off-channel mitigation sites, and six detention ponds located outside of the flood control channel. However, since initiation of project construction, and especially since completion of the flood control levees, the growth of riparian vegetation within the 400-foot-wide flood control channel has been substantial and this environmentally sensitive habitat now supports populations of federal and state listed species, including the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, and southern California steelhead.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Summaries
    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Populations Are in Danger of Extinction Within the Next 25-50 Years, Due to Anthropogenic and Environmental Impacts That Threaten Recovery
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Southern steelhead populations are in danger of extinction within the next 25-50 years, due to anthropogenic and environmental impacts that threaten recovery. Since its listing as an Endangered Species in 1997, southern steelhead abundance remains precariously low. Description: Southern steelhead are similar to other steelhead and are distinguished primarily by genetic and physiological differences that reflect their evolutionary history. They also exhibit morphometric differences that distinguish them from other coastal steelhead in California such as longer, more streamlined bodies that facilitate passage more easily in Southern California’s characteristic low flow, flashy streams (Bajjaliya et al. 2014). Taxonomic Relationships: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) historically populated all coastal streams of Southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous trout, or both. Due to natural events such as fire and debris flows, and more recently due to anthropogenic forces such as urbanization and dam construction, many rainbow trout populations are isolated in remote headwaters of their native basins and exhibit a resident life history. In streams with access to the ocean, anadromous forms are present, which have a complex relationship with the resident forms (see Life History section). Southern California steelhead, or southern steelhead, is our informal name for the anadromous form of the formally designated Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Southern steelhead occurring below man-made or natural barriers were distinguished from resident trout in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, and are under different jurisdictions for purposes of fisheries management although the two forms typically constitute one interbreeding population.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz
    THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 75 MAY 2013 15 Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz By Kurt Zimmerman, Tim Frahm and Sam Davidson — California Trout, Trout Unlimited — Kurt Zimmerman is Southern Steelhead genetics evince unique documents, intended to help achieve California Regional Manager for characteristics region-by-region (and recovery goals by describing strate - California Trout. Tim Frahm and Sam even watershed-by-watershed), as the gies and recommended actions likely Davidson are California Central Coast fish adapted to the particular condi - required to restore viable wild popula - Steelhead Coordinator and California tions and climate factors of coastal tions. Communications Manager for Trout streams from the Baja Peninsula to In early 2012, after years of public Unlimited. Visit their web sites at: Alaska. Today, steelhead south of San and agency input, NMFS released the www.caltrout.org Mateo County in California are catego - Final Southern California Recovery www.tucalifornia.org rized by the National Marine Fisheries Plan for the SCC steelhead. Later that Service (NMFS) into two “Distinct year, the agency released for public any anglers consider Population Segments” (DPS): the comment a Review Draft of the the steelhead trout (O. “South Central California Coastal” Recovery Plan for the South Central mykiss) the “perfect Coastal steelhead. These two Recovery fish.” Steelhead are Plans identify area-wide threats as widely revered for well as threats specific to particular Mtheir power and grace in the water, and watersheds. Common threats are the Steelhead have for the high challenge of actually three “Ds”: Dams, Diversions and catching one. Sport fishing for steel - declined across much Diminished Aquatic and Riparian head is a major contributor to many Habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality
    Chapter 7: Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality Chapter 7 1 Groundwater Resources and 2 Groundwater Quality 3 7.1 Introduction 4 This chapter describes groundwater resources and groundwater quality in the 5 Study Area, and potential changes that could occur as a result of implementing the 6 alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 7 Implementation of the alternatives could affect groundwater resources through 8 potential changes in operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State 9 Water Project (SWP) and ecosystem restoration. 10 7.2 Regulatory Environment and Compliance 11 Requirements 12 Potential actions that could be implemented under the alternatives evaluated in 13 this EIS could affect groundwater resources in the areas along the rivers impacted 14 by changes in the operations of CVP or SWP reservoirs and in the vicinity of and 15 lands served by CVP and SWP water supplies. Groundwater basins that may be 16 affected by implementation of the alternatives are in the Trinity River Region, 17 Central Valley Region, San Francisco Bay Area Region, Central Coast Region, 18 and Southern California Region. 19 Actions located on public agency lands or implemented, funded, or approved by 20 Federal and state agencies would need to be compliant with appropriate Federal 21 and state agency policies and regulations, as summarized in Chapter 4, Approach 22 to Environmental Analyses. 23 Several of the state policies and regulations described in Chapter 4 have resulted 24 in specific institutional and operational conditions in California groundwater 25 basins, including the basin adjudication process, California Statewide 26 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM), California Sustainable 27 Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and local groundwater management 28 ordinances, as summarized below.
    [Show full text]