DOCSLIB.ORG

California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Score Analysis of Streams Sampled from 1998 to 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Score Analysis of Streams Sampled from 1998 to 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Region The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Fall 12-13-2019 California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Score Analysis of Streams Sampled from 1998 to 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Region Jenna Rais [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Rais, Jenna, "California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Score Analysis of Streams Sampled from 1998 to 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Region" (2019). Master's Projects and Capstones. 975. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/975 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Score Analysis of Streams Sampled from 1998 to 2017 in the San Francisco Bay Region By: Jenna Swan Rais MSEM Masters Project December 2019 1 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 7 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8 History of streams in California ............................................................................................................... 8 Stream habitat in California .................................................................................................................. 11 Shift in California’s stream landscape ................................................................................................... 12 Where water comes from in California ................................................................................................. 12 How water is currently used in California ............................................................................................. 13 Stream quality in the San Francisco Bay region .................................................................................... 14 California’s water regulators ................................................................................................................. 15 Tools for measuring stream quality ...................................................................................................... 16 California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) .............................................................................................. 17 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Data acquisition .................................................................................................................................... 19 Analyses of data .................................................................................................................................... 20 ArcGIS spatial analysis ....................................................................................................................... 20 Statistical analyses ............................................................................................................................ 24 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 CSCI, land use, and basic metrics .......................................................................................................... 25 Watershed analysis ............................................................................................................................... 27 Stream analyses .................................................................................................................................... 29 CSCI score variation by year .............................................................................................................. 29 Alameda Creek .................................................................................................................................. 29 Coyote Creek ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Kirker Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Las Trampas Creek ............................................................................................................................ 30 Pinole Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 30 San Lorenzo Creek............................................................................................................................. 30 San Mateo Creek ............................................................................................................................... 30 2 San Pablo Creek ................................................................................................................................ 30 Saratoga Creek .................................................................................................................................. 30 Stevens Creek.................................................................................................................................... 31 CSCI score variation by year and analyzed by land cover .................................................................. 35 Ten focus streams ............................................................................................................................. 39 Alameda Creek .................................................................................................................................. 40 Coyote Creek ..................................................................................................................................... 40 Kirker Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Las Trampas Creek ............................................................................................................................ 40 Pinole Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 40 San Lorenzo Creek............................................................................................................................. 41 San Mateo Creek ............................................................................................................................... 41 San Pablo Creek ................................................................................................................................ 41 Saratoga Creek .................................................................................................................................. 41 Stevens Creek.................................................................................................................................... 42 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Spatial analysis of all CSCI scores versus land cover, and basic metrics ................................................ 45 Watershed analysis of CSCI scores ........................................................................................................ 45 Stream analyses of CSCI scores over time ............................................................................................. 46 Stream analyses of CSCI scores categorized by land cover ................................................................... 46 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 47 CSCI scores have a trend based on land cover ...................................................................................... 47 Sample according to land cover ............................................................................................................ 48 Analyze CSCI data at a stream level scale ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan
    7 HAZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL A. OVERVIEW Environmental Hazards incorporates the state-mandated “Safety” and “Noise” elements of the General Plan. The Chapter addresses natural and man-made hazards in the City, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation accidents. It includes a summary of emergency preparedness in San Leandro, with policies that provide the foundation for disaster planning in the City. The Element also addresses noise issues, with the dual objective of mitigating existing noise problems and avoiding future disturbances and conflicts. The overall purpose of this Element is to minimize the potential for damage and injury resulting from environmental hazards. The State Government Code requires that the Element identify and evaluate the hazards that are present and establish appropriate goals, policies, and action programs to reduce those hazards to acceptable levels. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that must be reflected in how and where development takes place. Public education is critical to the successful implementation of this Element. Although San Leandrans are generally aware that the City is located in “earthquake country,” there is still much that can be done to improve readiness and response when disaster strikes. The Environmental Hazards Element takes a pro-active approach to emergency preparedness, emphasizing mitigation and reduced exposure to hazards as well as response and recovery. This Element is closely coordinated with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a federally mandated plan to reduce exposure to hazards and ensure eligibility for federal disaster preparedness and relief funds. 7-1 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S The Element also sets forth a pro-active strategy for addressing noise issues in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Regional Shoreline Marina
    CHANNEL ST. 2.25 miles along S.F. Bay Trail from San Lorenzo Creek bridge to San Leandro BOCKMAN Hayward Regional Shoreline Marina. .19 .19 ROAD San Lorenzo Creek/San Francisco Bay Trail and return To 880 SAN LORENZO CREEK GRANT AVE. Length: 6.1 miles Elevation Gain: 55 feet Hike Start/ Del Ray Sewage Park Location: Hayward .37 End Treatment BANDONI AV. VIA MELINA GPS Coordinates: 37.669742, -122.157782 Plant 26 parking spots VIA CARRETA S A N PARTIAL Intensity: Moderate USE L O R E N Z O BOCKMAN CHANNEL San Lorenzo Park and Community VIA BUENA VISTA Center – H.A.R.D .41 Park Features: Hayward Regional Shoreline contains over a thousand acres VIA SARITA of marshlands and seasonal wetlands. The park’s levees, originally built for salt evaporation ponds, now provide visitors with long, flat paths along the bay that Skywest Golf Course are perfect for biking, hiking, or jogging. Fishing is allowed at various points along ORO LOMA MARSH the trail, but only with a license. Although the park is unshaded, the cool bay air is HAYWARD REGIONAL refreshing and makes this park a wonderful spot at almost any time of year. .29 Please note: Dogs are not allowed on this route past Hayward Landing. SHORELINE Trail Highlights: This route follows the trail out and back, with a loop at the far SULPHUR CREEK end around the landfill and along the flood control channel. With marsh views to Featured Trail B I L the east and the Bay to the west, there is always plenty to marvel at.
    [Show full text]
  • Ongoing and Potential Wetland Habitat Projects Ongoing And
    6 OngoingOngoing andand PotentialPotential WetlandWetland HabitatHabitat ProjectsProjects JOHN STEERE he San Francisco Bay Joint Venture partners Ongoing and Pending T have been undertaking a wide array of wetland Habitat Projects projects throughout the region. The following listing of their habitat projects comprises 43,000 acres of ongoing and potential initiatives. It demonstrates The projects below are well distributed among both the great level of activity and the promise for acquisition, enhancement, or restoration. They can wetland and riparian restoration and enhancement be regarded as in process or partially completed, but throughout the geographic scope of the Joint generally in need of additional funding for comple- Venture. To underscore the reality and the potential tion. Together, these habitat projects constitute of the SFBJV’s efforts, this listing is divided between roughly 31,400 acres. “Ongoing and Pending Habitat Projects” and “Potential Projects for 2001 and Beyond.” These cat- egories serve to distinguish near-term initiatives North Bay Subregion (N) from long-term opportunities. The projects listed below are keyed to Figure N2. Triangle Marsh, Marin County. The 31-acre 6-1, “San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Triangle Marsh property, near Corte Madera, is a Projects: 2000.” These are partnership-based and remnant tidal area (with a tidal panne) along the are grouped by subregion, beginning with the North Marin Baylands. Marin Audubon initiated the proj- Bay, moving clockwise around the Bay. The project ect and it was recently purchased with grants from codes refer to these subregions, where “N” means the Coastal Conservancy and Marin Open Space North Bay, “CB” equals Central Bay, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California
    Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers UnderlyingHydrogeology the and San Geochemistry Lorenzo and San of Aquifers Leandro Areas ofUnderlying the East Bay the Plain,San Lorenzo Alameda and County, San Leandro California Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4259 U.S.Water-Resources DEPARTMENT Investigations OF THE INTERIOR Report 02-4259 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California By John A Izbicki, James W. Borchers, David A. Leighton, Justin Kulongoski, Latoya Fields, Devin L. Galloway, and Robert L. Michel U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4259 Prepared in cooperation with the EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT and ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3006-07 Sacramento, California 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin
    San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, East Bay Plain Subbasin • Groundwater Basin Number: 2-9.04 • County: Alameda, Contra Costa • Surface Area: 77,800 acres (122 square miles) Basin Boundaries & Hydrology The East Bay Plain Subbasin is a northwest trending alluvial plain bounded on the north by San Pablo Bay, on the east by the contact with Franciscan Basement rock, on the south by the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. The East Bay Plain Basin extends beneath San Francisco Bay to the west. Numerous creeks including San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek, San Leandro Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek flow from the western slope of the Coast Ranges westward across the plain and into the San Francisco and San Pablo bays (CRWQCB 1999). Average precipitation in the subbasin ranges from about 17 inches in the southeast to greater than 25 inches along the eastern boundary, most of which occurs between the months of November and March. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations The East Bay Plain subbasin aquifer system consists of unconsolidated sediments of Quaternary age. Deposits include the early Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation, the late Pleistocene Alameda Formation, the early Holocene Temescal Formation, and Artificial Fill. The cumulative thickness of the unconsolidated sediments is about 1,000 feet (CRWQCB 1999). The average specific yield of the basin was calculated to be about 6% (DWR 1994). Early Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation. The Santa Clara Formation consists of alluvial fan deposits inter-fingered with lake, swamp, river channel, and flood plain deposits.
    [Show full text]
  • Steelhead San Lorenzo Creek
    ASSESSMENT OF STEELHEAD PRESENCE AND HABITAT IN SAN LORENZO CREEK WATERSHED A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Hayward In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Riparian Wildlife Ecology By Lawrence Patrick Kobernus December, 1998 Abstract Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), a federally listed threatened species, were once common in San Lorenzo Creek, a highly modified urban stream in the east San Francisco Bay Area. Since the 1940's, increased urbanization of the watershed has degraded stream habitat, and construction of dams and flood control channels have eliminated most of the upstream habitat from steelhead access. Despite these extensive impacts, there have been occasional reports of steelhead in the creek during wet years, such as 1982-83. Downstream migrant trapping in the spring of 1997, visual surveys for parr in the fall of 1997, and isolated electroshocking surveys in 1997-98 failed to find any young steelhead in the stream system. During adult steelhead surveys in the winter and spring of 1997-98, persistent turbidity inhibited the ability to survey the stream, especially deeper pools, using either visual or electroshocking methods. Exotic fishes were found to be present in San Lorenzo Creek, but two native fishes; California roach and Sacramento sucker were found to be the dominant species throughout the stream system. Evaluation of San Lorenzo Creek for steelhead habitat found limitations for the species at every life stage. Upstream migrant access was evaluated at a 4.6- mile concrete channel on San Lorenzo Creek and a 1670-foot concrete box culvert on Crow Creek in the winter of 1997-98.
    [Show full text]
  • Ca-Ala-566: the Role of a Limited Use Campsite in East Bay Settlement Patterns
    CA-ALA-566: THE ROLE OF A LIMITED USE CAMPSITE IN EAST BAY SETTLEMENT PATTERNS JENNIFER L. BLAKE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHRIS KIMSEY CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS Recent excavations at CA-ALA-566 revealed an intermittently used campsite consisting of a late Holocene occupation and one of the few mid-Holocene components known in the San Francisco Bay Area thus far. This study focuses upon the late Holocene occupation and the role of ephemeral campsites in settlement patterns in the San Francisco East Bay. Examination of seasonality patterns at ALA-566 as compared to bayshore mounds in a framework of localized environmental shifts guide the analysis of settlement distribution throughout the East Bay and the changes thereof observed at the onset of the Late period. The archaeological record of the San Francisco Bay Area is rich with densely settled village sites that have facilitated a better understanding of prehistoric California. These larger sites have been the focus of archaeological investigations for more than a century and consequently have had a large impact on understandings of past settlement systems. The important role played by small sites, such campsite or processing locales, has also been recognized by archaeologists for many years. However, these sites are more difficult to identify, and are rarely the subject of large scale of data recovery excavations. Recent data recovery excavations at CA-ALA-566 (hereafter referred to as ALA-566), obtained macrobotanical samples from a short-term campsite, which provides an opportunity to examine the role such sites played in the regional settlement system through time. A notable variation in settlement pattern started from the latter phases of the Middle period (200 B.C.–A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo Creekway FAQ's
    San Lorenzo Creekway FAQ’s Updated as of June 17, 2020 Who is leading this effort to make the San Lorenzo Creekway? The Hayward Area Recreation & Park District (HARD), the Alameda County Public Works Agency, and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCD) are working together on developing the San Lorenzo Creekway vision, recognizing the opportunity to create walking and biking infrastructure using existing right-of-way along the creek. Who will be responsible for maintaining and monitoring the San Lorenzo Creekway? ACFCD will continue to own and maintain the creek floodway, access roads and access points. ACFCD and HARD are currently working to develop a license agreement that will ensure effective maintenance, operations and public safety for the Creekway. My house is next to the proposed creekway and I’m concerned about privacy and safety. How will this be addressed? Community members often express valid concerns about privacy and safety as they relate to trails. Regarding privacy, it will be important to include design features to limit visibility from the trail onto adjacent properties—with a specific understanding of unique trail conditions along each segment. Visibility is also a critical issue for safety. Maintaining good visibility from streets into the trail corridor will be an important aspect of a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach to trail design. Visibility from public streets and good visibility along the trail will reduce opportunities for illicit activity. Second, safety will be further ensured by trail use. When more people use the trail, the trail becomes safe for everyone to use.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Bay Trail
    nte Agua Calie oll Lynch Arnold Dr Oak Kn Bay Trail (off street) Shared-use paved or gravel paths Big Ranch Hwy Hardin 12 Bay Trail (on street) Bike lanes and sidewalks Orchard Boyes Hwy Sonoma Mountain 29 Unimproved Bay Trail (off street) Narrow path and/or rough surface Salvador Unimproved Bay Trail (on street) Adobe No bike lanes and/or no sidewalks Atlas Peak P Maxwell e t m Planned Bay Trail a r Farms l o o Dry Creek u Regional b m n r Future route – not developed a o Hardman a Park M Verano N B h l c v n Grove El Centro Other Trail d a Washington Olive r Orange Redwood N B Paved or gravel paths connecting Sonoma o t r s State t W Spain to Bay Trail e M h a Historical Hwy gn Hwy W Petaluma W Napa o Sutter Park Trower 121 lia 101 Planned Other Trail Future connection to Bay Trail – Turning Sonoma Basin not developed Sonoma- Payran Petaluma Marin Ely Blvd SouthPetaluma Manor 5th St Boating/Marina MadisonEdith Fairgrounds Adobe W MacArthur3rd St State Patten McGregor 2nd St Trancas Crinella Historic 1st St France Partrick Arnold E Napa Bod 7th St E ega Park Chase P Parking Foundry McDowell Western Fishing Pier City Lakeville Broadway E MacArthur Pueblo Hall Pe Leveroni California California 5th St ta Casa Grande Hagen luma So B St Denmark 0 .5 mile 1 mile D St N Visitors Frates History ut Lakeville Adob 0 1 km Connolly Museum h Program l El Ranch i 2011 R e a o Soscol Ave r se Petaluma Hwy Br Lincoln T D P r o Marina 12 wns o M n a d a c m Val r D h e ley e o u v v P w Vineburg P il Watmaugh B A S e E Watmaugh 5th St E n Cader ll o
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout in California
    ! "#$%&'(!")**$+*#,(!#',!-.&/)! 0'!1#$02&.'0#! !"#"$%&'(&#)&*+,-.+#"/0&1#$)#& !"#$%&#'"(&))*++*&,$-"./"012*3&#,*1"4#&5'6"7889" PETER B. MOYLE, JOSHUA A. ISRAEL, AND SABRA E. PURDY CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS DAVIS, CA 95616 -#3$*!&2!1&')*')4! !0:;<=>?@AB?;4C"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"E" F;4G<@H04F<;"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"I" :>!B!4J"B<H;4!F;C"KG<LF;0?"=F;4?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"7E" :>!B!4J"B<H;4!F;C"KG<LF;0?"CHBB?G"C4??>J?!@"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"E7" ;<G4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4!>"=F;4?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"IE" ;<G4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4!>"CHBB?G"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"NO" 0?;4G!>"L!>>?P"C4??>J?!@"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"OI" 0?;4G!>"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"Q7" C<H4JR0?;4G!>"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"QS" C<H4J?G;"0!>FM<G;F!"0<!C4"C4??>J?!@""DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"9O" G?CF@?;4"0<!C4!>"G!F;T<="4G<H4"DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD"SQ"
    [Show full text]