DOCSLIB.ORG

UFR Plan-Dec2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UFR Plan-Dec2008 Version 2.0 Cedar River Municipal Watershed Upland Forest Habitat Restoration Strategic Plan December 2008 Upland Forest Restoration Inter-Disciplinary Team Amy LaBarge (Team Leader - Forest Ecology) Rolf Gersonde (Forest Ecology) Sally Nickelson (Fish and Wildlife) Bill Richards (Fish and Wildlife) Duncan Munro (Information Technology) Clayton Antieau (Planning) Ecosystems Section Watershed Services Division Seattle Public Utilities Version 2.0 CRMW Upland Forest Habitat Restoration Strategic Plan REVISION TRACKING SHEET Primary Date File Name Author(s) Released Description of Version Reviewers UFR Amy LaBarge This version of plan is substantially Strategic revised from previous June 2004 draft Rolf Gersonde Plan (version 1.0). It is based on new outline Bill Richards developed with other restoration programs and incorporates the “measures of success Sally Nickelson framework” and the recently completed Duncan Munro Landscape Synthesis Plan. Clayton Antieau i Version 2.0 CRMW Upland Forest Habitat Restoration Strategic Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 STRATEGIC PLAN ORGANIZATION................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 HCP UPLAND FOREST RESTORATION PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................ 3 1.3.1 Adaptive Management – Conducting Restoration within a Learning Model.............................................4 1.3.2 Applying the Upland Forest Restoration Programs .......................................................................................4 1.3.3 Restoration Thinning Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................5 1.3.4 Ecological Thinning Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................6 1.3.5 Restoration Planting Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................6 1.3.6 Additional HCP Goals and Commitments ........................................................................................................6 1.4 LINKAGES TO OTHER PLANS AND DOCUMENTS.......................................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 Landscape Synthesis Plan....................................................................................................................................8 1.4.2 Restoration Philosophy........................................................................................................................................8 1.4.3 Riparian and Aquatic Restoration Strategic Plans.........................................................................................9 1.4.4 Monitoring and Watershed Characterization..................................................................................................9 1.5 ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................................. 9 1.5.1 Obtain the Greatest Ecological Benefits for the Financial Cost................................................................10 1.5.2 Service Levels ......................................................................................................................................................10 2.0 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR UPLAND FOREST ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION..........................................................................................................................................................................11 2.1 UPLAND FOREST ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION........................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Potential Natural Vegetation Model................................................................................................................12 2.1.2 Forest Ecosystem Types, Defining Conditions, and Processes...................................................................13 2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............................................................................... 16 2.3 ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS................................................................................................................................................ 19 2.3.1 Forest Ecosystem Structure and Wildlife Habitat .........................................................................................19 2.3.2 Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................................21 2.3.3 Water Cycle Regulation .....................................................................................................................................23 2.4 KEY ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES...................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1 States of Ecosystem Development ....................................................................................................................24 2.4.2 Disturbances........................................................................................................................................................28 2.4.3 Conceptual model of forest ecosystem process interaction .........................................................................30 2.5 HISTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE AND CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................... 31 2.5.1 History of Land Use in the CRMW..................................................................................................................32 2.5.2 A Brief Picture of Current Forest Conditions................................................................................................34 2.6 DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS, ATTRIBUTES AND RELEVANT DATASETS............................................................ 34 2.6.1 Benchmark Conditions and Attributes.............................................................................................................36 2.6.2 Data Sources to Describe Forest Conditions.................................................................................................37 2.6.3 Development of Benchmarks and Desired Future Conditions....................................................................40 2.6.4 Information Sources regarding Plant Diversity - Cryptogam and Botanical Surveys...........................41 2.7 RESTORATION TREATMENTS AND RATIONALE.......................................................................................................... 42 2.7.1 Species diversity and niche differentiation .....................................................................................................42 2.7.2 Resource competition and crown development..............................................................................................43 ii Version 2.0 CRMW Upland Forest Habitat Restoration Strategic Plan 2.7.3 Reducing migration barriers.............................................................................................................................44 2.7.4 Vertical diversification.......................................................................................................................................44 2.7.5 Horizontal diversification, patchiness, mosaic..............................................................................................45 2.7.6 Creating decadence............................................................................................................................................45 2.7.7 Enhancing carbon sequestration, productivity, and nutrient cycling ........................................................45 2.8 RISKS, UNCERTAINTIES, AND THREATS IN REACHING DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS....................................... 45 2.8.1 Variable developmental pathways and unpredictable disturbances..........................................................46 2.8.2 Forest restoration paradigm requires new tools to evaluate treatment effects........................................46 2.8.3 Effects of climate change...................................................................................................................................47 2.8.4 Invasive species...................................................................................................................................................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outreach Survey on Natural and Working Lands
    Responses to Outreach Survey This document lists all responses to the question below, from the outreach survey open from January 25, 2021 through May 3, 2021. The survey was made available on the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s webpage on Natural and Working Lands. For more information on the Commission’s work, see https://www.keeporegoncool.org/ Natural and Working Lands Outreach Survey Q1 What should we propose as a goal for reduced emissions and increased sequestration in natural and working lands? Answered: 114 Skipped: 8 # RESPONSES DATE 1 50% reduction in emissions in the first 10 years, followed by additional 50% decreases in 5/3/2021 4:16 PM subsequent 10 year periods. 25% increased sequestration in first 10 years, followed by additional 25% increases in subsequent 10 year periods. 2 We recommend both an emissions reduction goal and an activity-based goal. An emissions 5/3/2021 3:54 PM reduction goal is important for determining whether we are making progress toward the state’s emissions reduction goals. The Commission should consider whether to recommend both an emissions reduction and carbon sequestration goal separately, or at least clarify how sequestration is calculated into an emissions reduction goal if it is part of that goal. And an activity-based goal will provide an opportunity for natural and working lands stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, and foresters to engage. It can help to determine whether new programs, policies and practices have been effective and are resulting in measurable changes. An example of an activity-based goal is: Increase adoption of practices that have the potential to reduce emissions and/or sequester carbon in the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar River Watershed Tour and Wood Sourcing Workshop – Wednesday, September 11
    Cedar River Watershed Tour and Wood Sourcing Workshop – Wednesday, September 11 Why attend: The members of the US Green Building Council recently voted to approve a new version of LEED, the largest green building program in the world, which maintains a credit for use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood. And the Living Building Challenge, the most rigorous benchmark of sustainability in the built environment, requires all new wood to be FSC certified. Builders, architects, developers, and chain-of-custody managers should attend this tour to learn about green building opportunities with FSC products and what this sourcing means for forests and Puget Sound watersheds. Overview: Join this tour for a rare opportunity to visit the City of Seattle’s Cedar River Watershed, a 100,000 acre FSC certified forest that serves as the drinking water source for 1.4 million residents. Participants will explore the woods with trained experts to get a firsthand experience of responsible forest management, habitat restoration, and connectivity from forest to market. Forest cover and sustainable management are key forces in protecting watershed dynamics and the biological and economic health of Puget Sound. Following the interactive tour, a lunchtime presentation and Q&A about the timber supply chain will provide a distinct perspective on production, distribution, and sourcing opportunities. Participants will then engage in a hands-on workshop to improve the flow of FSC certified timber and grow the FSC market in the Northwest. This tour has
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTH EAST FOREST RESCUE PO BOX 899 Moruya, NSW, 2537 [email protected]
    SOUTH EAST FOREST RESCUE PO BOX 899 Moruya, NSW, 2537 [email protected] Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 By Email: [email protected] Dear Committee, Re: Senate Committee Inquiry into The Effectiveness of Threatened Species and Ecological Communities’ Protection in Australia The situation in NSW is critical in a native forestry context. There is clear evidence of systematic significant damage to native forests in southern NSW as a result of government- supervised logging. The logging of mapped old-growth, rocky outcrops, gazetted Aboriginal Place, National Park, FMZs, of Special Protection Zones, inaccurate surveys and damage to threatened and endangered species habitat has occurred in direct breach with legislative instruments and has significantly impacted on matters of national environmental significance, marine water quality and EPBC listed species. These state regulations have been in place for 14 years, they are simple to follow and yet they are being broken regularly. Citizens cannot take FNSW to court. The NSW EPA is reluctant, even though there is significant environmental damage. The EPA are not capable of robustly regulating and have audited a mere 3% of logging operations over a 5 year period. As FNSW is state run, state owned and state regulated there is no possibility of halting this destruction. If the Commonwealth hands over regulation to the States there will be nothing to stand in the way of States who are conflicted. The EPBC Act is far from perfect but it represents hard won gains and is at least some measure of protection in non-IFOA areas.
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to MANAGING Box Gum Grassy Woodlands
    A GUIDE TO MANAGING Box Gum Grassy Woodlands KIMBERLIE RAWLINGS | DAVID FREUDENBERGER | DAVID CARR II A Guide to Managing Box Gum Grassy Woodlands A GUIDE TO MANAGING Box Gum Grassy Woodlands KIMBERLIE RAWLINGS | DAVID FREUDENBERGER | DAVID CARR III © Commonwealth of Australia 2010 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at www.ag.gov.au/cca This publication was funded by Caring for our Country – Environmental Stewardship Rawlings, Kimberlie A guide to managing box gum grassy woodlands/Kimberlie Rawlings, David Freudenberger and David Carr. Canberra, A.C.T.: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2010. ISBN: 978-0-9807427-8-7 1. Forest regeneration – Australia 2. Forest management – Australia 3. Remnant vegetation management – Australia I. Freudenberger, David II. Carr, David III. Greening Australia 333.750994 Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water or the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Burning in Box-Ironbark Forests: Phase 1 - Literature Review
    DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT Ecological Burning in Box-Ironbark Forests: Phase 1 - Literature Review Report to North Central Catchment Management Authority Arn Tolsma, David Cheal and Geoff Brown Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Ecological Burning in Box-Ironbark Forests Phase 1 – Literature Review Report to North Central Catchment Management Authority August 2007 © State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2007 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. General disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Report prepared by Arn Tolsma, David Cheal and Geoff Brown Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment 123 Brown St (PO Box 137) Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084 Phone 9450 8600 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: Obe Carter (now at Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania) and Claire Moxham (Arthur Rylah Institute) made valuable contributions to the introductory section. Alan Yen (Department of Primary Industry) contributed substantially to the invertebrate section. Andrew Bennett (Deakin University) and Greg Horrocks (Monash University) provided expert advice on fauna effects. Nick Clemann (Arthur Rylah Institute) and Evelyn Nicholson (Department of Sustainability and Environment) provided feedback on reptiles and frogs. Matt Gibson (University of Ballarat) provided on-ground litter data.
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Chief Scientist and President at Geos Institute, a Climate-Based Non- Lara J
    SCIENCE ADVISORY January 14, 2020 BOARD Scott Hoffman Black Chair: Senator Jeff Golden Xerces Society Senate Interim Committee on Wildfire Prevention and Recovery January 14, 2020 hearing and public testimony Robert E. Gresswell, Ph.D. US Geological Survey Dear Chairman Golden and members of the Interim Committee: Healy Hamilton, Ph.D. NatureServe I am Chief Scientist and President at Geos Institute, a climate-based non- Lara J. Hansen, Ph.D. profit organization, in Ashland Oregon (www.geosinstitute.org). I am EcoAdapt submitting this testimony for the public record as substantive backup to Thomas Hardy, Ph.D. my 5-minute slide show (with graphics and charts) presented at the open Texas State University public session during the hearing. Mark Harmon, Ph.D. Oregon State University I am an Oregon resident of 22 years, a post-doctoral fellow and Adjunct Richard Hutto, Ph.D. Professor (previously) of Oregon State and Southern Oregon University of Montana universities, and a global biodiversity scientist. I have published over Steve Jessup, Ph.D. 200 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals and several books Southern Oregon University covering forest ecology and management, conservation biology and climate change, wildfire ecology and management, and endangered Wayne Minshall, Ph.D. Idaho State University species conservation. My two recent books most germane to this hearing – “Disturbance Ecology and Biological Diversity” (CRC Press 2019, Reed Noss, Ph.D. University of Central Florida coeditor) and “The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix (Elsevier 2015, coeditor) – represent much of the latest Dennis Odion, Ph.D. University of California, science on wildfire that you may not have heard from other witnesses or Santa Barbara presenters on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Red Gum Floodplain Ecosystems
    Chapter 11 Managing red gum floodplain ecosystems 11.1 Overview 252 11.2 Goal for red gum floodplain ecosystem management 252 11.3 Management principles for resilient river red gum forests 252 11.4 Silvicultural systems, management practices and principles 263 11.5 Performance review 271 252 Riverina Bioregion Regional Forest Assessment: River red gum and woodland forests 11.1 Overview • AGS remains an appropriate silvicultural system for river red gum forests managed for production, as well as for The river red gum floodplain ecosystems of the Riverina other values as long as management prescriptions are bioregion are under high stress, and in some cases are improved. These include prescriptions for adequate watering transitioning to alternative states. They will require various regimes, the provision and maintenance of ecological levels of direct intervention to maintain their resilience, and values (principally the retention of habitat trees and coarse to continue to provide ecosystem services that the woody debris), and the intensity of its implementation. community values. 11.2 Goal for red gum floodplain ecosystem management We need to rethink our current approach to forest management. The NRC considers that management approaches for the river The NSW Government has adopted a long-term, red gum forests of the Riverina bioregion should be based aspirational goal to achieve: on recognition of ongoing water scarcity, clear management objectives, and build upon past forest conditions and resilient, ecologically sustainable landscapes functioning management activities (rather than attempting to replicate effectively at all scales and supporting the environmental, them). In particular, we need to learn as we go by trialling and economic, social and cultural values of communities testing different approaches for these ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Sept./Oct 2003 WF-24 Pgs
    SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS Western Forester January/February/March 2019 Oregon • Washington State • Alaska Societies Volume 64 • Number 1 Collaboration and Partnerships Engage Forest Stakeholders versation. BY EMILY JANE DAVIS Collaborative groups typically Increasingly, we meet regularly, hear terms like review informa- “collaboration,” tion from the “collaborative,” and Forest Service “partnerships” about planned applied to forest actions, take management. What field tours, and do these mean? review relevant Broadly speaking, they refer to how scientific infor- multiple landowners, agencies, and mation. They other partners are working together to may develop achieve shared goals. Why and how written or ver- this happens depends on the place bal “zones of PHOTO COURTESY OF EMILY JANE DAVIS and the people. This issue of the Stakeholders participate in a coring exercise to compare agreement” that Western Forester examines several assumed versus actual tree age and growth rate over articulate the forms of collaboration in forestry, and time. kinds of future the value that foresters can bring to management activities that the group aries. Adjacent landowners may plan these efforts. supports. Collaboratives do not have together to decide where, when, and Common types of collaboration any formal decision-making authority how to manage the forest. These If you live or work near national for- or jurisdiction on federal lands, so it is landowners might be state or federal est land, you may have heard about ultimately the Forest Service’s choice agencies, private industrial, private “forest collaborative” groups. These how to utilize this input. These groups nonindustrial, Tribal, or other inter- voluntary stakeholder bodies host dia- may also engage in other activities such ests.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfire Resilience Insurance
    WILDFIRE RESILIENCE INSURANCE: Quantifying the Risk Reduction of Ecological Forestry with Insurance WILDFIRE RESILIENCE INSURANCE: Quantifying the Risk Reduction of Ecological Forestry with Insurance Authors Willis Towers Watson The Nature Conservancy Nidia Martínez Dave Jones Simon Young Sarah Heard Desmond Carroll Bradley Franklin David Williams Ed Smith Jamie Pollard Dan Porter Martin Christopher Felicity Carus This project and paper were funded in part through an Innovative Finance in National Forests Grant (IFNF) from the United States Endowment for Forestry and Communities, with funding from the United States Forest Service (USFS). The United States Endowment for Forestry and Communities, Inc. (the “Endowment”) is a not-for-profit corporation that works collaboratively with partners in the public and private sectors to advance systemic, transformative and sustainable change for the health and vitality of the nation’s working forests and forest-reliant communities. We want to thank and acknowledge Placer County and the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) for their leadership and partnership with The Nature Conservancy and the US Forest Service on the French Meadows ecological forest project and their assistance with the Wildfire Resilience Insurance Project and this paper. We would like in particular to acknowledge the assistance of Peter Cheney, Risk and Safety Manager, PCWA and Marie L.E. Davis, PG, Consultant to PCWA. Cover photo: Increasing severity of wildfires in California results in more deaths, injuries, and destruction of
    [Show full text]
  • Soil at the Nature Conservancy a Shared Science Agenda: Activities and Priorities Soil Is Intrinsically Connected to the Wellbeing of People and the Environment
    Soil at The Nature Conservancy A shared science agenda: activities and priorities Soil is intrinsically connected to the wellbeing of people and the environment. 2 Soil at The Nature Conservancy Contents Introduction 4 Importance of soil for conservation 5 Types of soil management practices 6 Biophysical management practices 6 Implementation and outcomes 7 Priorities and practices related to soil 7 Regional distribution of TNC soil projects 9 Ground level: TNC soil projects 12 reThink Soil Roadmap 12 Northern Rangelands Trust partnership 13 Water Funds projects 13 A first soil science agenda for TNC 14 Priority areas for soil science 16 Emerging topics 17 Soil science agenda: impacts 18 This document was prepared by Deborah Bossio and Stephen Wood in collaboration with staff at The Nature Conservancy. Acknowledgements A large part of the value in this document was the process of preparing it and the conversations focused on soil that it instigated across the Conservancy. We want to acknowledge the contributions of the more than 100 staff who participated in phone calls, surveys and virtual meetings. We also want to thank the Craig and Susan McCaw Foundation for generously supporting soil science at The Nature Conservancy. October 2018 Soil at The Nature Conservancy 3 Introduction Centuries of research and direct OVER THE PAST DECADE, soil has gained greater attention in research, experience show that soil is practice and policy arenas. In 2012 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization launched the Global Soil Partnership, and then celebrated intrinsically connected to the the International Year of Soil in 2015. At the 2015 UN Climate Change wellbeing of people and the Conference in Paris we saw national governments engage with soil, as environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Conservation Trust Guidelines for Ecological Thinning
    Biodiversity Conservation Trust Guidelines for Ecological Thinning For BCT agreements | August 2020 Contents Glossary 3 Objective 5 Introduction 6 Is ecological thinning appropriate for the conservation area? 9 Principles for ecological thinning 13 BCT ecological thinning framework 14 Minimising negative impacts of ecological thinning 26 Literature cited and further reading 28 BCT Guidelines for Ecological Thinning | August 2020 2 Glossary Term Definition Accredited An individual accredited to apply the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) assessor and assess impacts on biodiversity at development sites and biodiversity stewardship sites. Benchmark A quantitative measure that represents the ‘best-attainable’ condition. Benchmarks are defined for specified variables for Plant Community Types, Vegetation Classes and Vegetation Formations in the NSW BioNet Vegetation Classification. Tree stem density is the primary benchmark relevant to thinning. Biodiversity The BAM is a scientific document that outlines how an accredited person Assessment assesses impacts on biodiversity at development sites and stewardship Method (BAM) sites. (See OEH 2017). DBH Diameter of a tree trunk at breast height (approx. 1.3 m) Ecological The selective removal of individual native trees to improve or maintain the thinning ecological value of an area. Plant Community A classification system for plant community types in the NSW BioNet Type (PCT) Vegetation Classification. Private land A joint agreement between the landholder and the Biodiversity Conservation conservation Trust to conserve and manage biodiversity on an area of land. Includes agreement Conservation Agreements and Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements. Stem Density Number of trees expressed as the number of individuals per hectare. BCT Guidelines for Ecological Thinning | August 2020 3 Term Definition Vegetation Class A classification of the type of vegetation structure against which the thinning benchmarks are applied.
    [Show full text]
  • BEAM Mitchell Environment Group Inc.1.55 MB
    LC EPC Inquiry into Ecosystem Decline in Victoria Submission 690 Web: www.beam.org.au Email: • a thriving community, locally active and globally aware Submission to the Inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria Prepared by Dr Peter Mitchell, BEAM Mitchell Environment Group Inc 31st August 2020 In memory of David Wakefield and Laurie McMillan who enriched the ecosystems and the people and community of the Strath Creek valley and the wider Goulburn catchment with their knowledge, wisdom, involvement and support for conservation of our environment. This submission has been written by me on behalf of BEAM Mitchell Environment Group. The submission is primarily based on my observations, experiences, interpretations and knowledge of the environment of central Victoria and the Goulburn River catchment, and Mitchell Shire in particular. It includes ideas that I have shared and materials that I have developed with wide range of great people in various agencies and community groups I have been involved with (Appendix A). The submission generally refers to the large and obvious changes that have occurred, and are still occurring, in the structure, abundance, diversity and productivity of the soils and vegetation in these areas. Implied in these changes in vegetation are the parallel changes in the diversity of all species, changes in the almost infinite number of interactions between species, and changes in the ecological functions of biodiversity that maintain our ecosystems. And also implied in the losses of soil and vegetation is the loss of species (many little known or completely unknown) leading to the present “extinction crisis”, and the huge losses in ecosystem processes and functions leading to the present decline in ecosystem health and the ecosystem services that we rely on for our survival.
    [Show full text]