DOCSLIB.ORG

Reissuance of the Pesticide General Permit for Discharge of Pesticide Pollutants Into Waters of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reissuance of the Pesticide General Permit for Discharge of Pesticide Pollutants Into Waters of the United States NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION Title: Reissuance of the Pesticide General Permit for Discharge of Pesticide Pollutants into Waters of the United States Consultation Conducted By: Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division of the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service Action Agency: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Publisher: Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce Approved: Director, Office of Protected Resources Date: ________________ Consultation Tracking number: OPR-2021-00534 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.25923/6t26-q959 This page left blank intentionally Tracking No. OPR-2021-00534 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.1.1 The ESA Eligibility Requirement for Coverage Under an EPA General Permit 7 1.1.2 Prior ESA Section 7 Consultations ........................................................................... 8 1.1.3 NPDES Compliance................................................................................................ 10 1.1.4 Consultation History ............................................................................................... 10 2 The Assessment Framework .............................................................................................. 11 2.1 Information Used in this Assessment ............................................................................. 16 3 Description of the Action .................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Anticipated Number of Dischargers ............................................................................... 18 3.2 Conservation Measures to Avoid Exposure ................................................................... 18 4 Action Area .......................................................................................................................... 18 5 Species and Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat Considered in this Opinion ... 19 5.1 Recent Listings and Listing Updates, Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat ......... 23 5.1.1 Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s Whale............................................................................... 23 5.1.2 Chambered Nautilus................................................................................................ 24 5.1.3 Oceanic Whitetip Shark .......................................................................................... 25 5.1.4 Giant Manta Ray ..................................................................................................... 25 5.1.5 Updated Green Turtle Listing ................................................................................. 26 5.1.6 Critical Habitat Designated for the Atlantic Sturgeon ............................................ 27 5.1.7 Critical Habitat Proposed for Indo-Pacific and Caribbean ESA-Listed Corals 28 5.1.8 Revision to Critical Habitat Proposed for Southern Resident Killer Whale ........... 28 5.2 Updates to the 2016 PGP Status of Species ................................................................... 29 5.2.1 The 2017–2020 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event ................. 30 5.2.2 Southern Resident Killer Whale ............................................................................. 30 5.2.3 Pre-spawn Mortality of Coho Salmon .................................................................... 31 i Tracking No. OPR-2021-00534 5.2.4 Atlantic Salmon, Gulf of Maine DPS ..................................................................... 31 5.2.5 Loggerhead Turtle, North Pacific DPS ................................................................... 32 5.2.6 Disease and Hurricane Impacts on Caribbean Corals ............................................. 32 6 Updates to the Environmental Baseline ............................................................................ 34 6.1 East Coast ....................................................................................................................... 34 6.2 Puerto Rico ..................................................................................................................... 37 6.2.1 Hurricanes in 2017 .................................................................................................. 37 6.3 Texas .............................................................................................................................. 38 6.4 West Coast...................................................................................................................... 39 6.5 Pacific Territories ........................................................................................................... 40 6.6 Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 41 7 Effects of the Action ............................................................................................................ 42 7.1 Updates to Effects of the Action Under the 2021 PGP .................................................. 43 7.1.1 Effects Caused by Changes to the Action Area ...................................................... 43 7.1.2 Changes in Effects of the 2021 PGP Due to Recently Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat ...................................................................................................... 44 7.1.3 Influence of Recent Toxicity Data on the Effects of the 2021 PGP ....................... 44 7.1.4 Influence of Changes in Permit Implementation on the Effects of the 2021 PGP 44 7.2 Summary: Effects of the Action under the 2021 PGP ................................................... 45 8 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 46 8.1 United States Population Growth ................................................................................... 47 8.2 Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 49 9 Integration and Synthesis of Effects .................................................................................. 53 10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 57 11 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ................................................................................ 58 11.1 RPA Element One .......................................................................................................... 58 11.2 RPA Element Two ......................................................................................................... 59 11.3 RPA Element Three ....................................................................................................... 61 11.4 RPA Element Four ......................................................................................................... 63 ii Tracking No. OPR-2021-00534 12 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................. 64 12.1 Amount of Take ............................................................................................................. 65 12.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 67 12.2.1 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................. 67 13 Conservation Recommendations ....................................................................................... 69 14 Reinitiation Notice .............................................................................................................. 70 15 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 71 iii Tracking No. OPR-2021-00534 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. NMFS’ determinations for pesticide re-registrations consulted upon for West Coast species and the frequency those pesticides occurred in PGP annual reports over the 2016-2021 PGP permit term. ................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Endangered and threatened species evaluated in this opinion ........................................ 20 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Preparation, submittal, and approval sequence for documents required under the ESA Eligibility Certification process of the PGP ........................................................... 8 Figure 2. Map of Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale core distribution area as of June 2019............................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3. Distance from shore where ocean depths are greater than 150 meters (Bathymetry - TNC raster derived 50 meter contours medium resolution NAD83). ................... 25 Figure 4. Map depicting DPS boundaries for green turtles .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan Offbtiw-Maragement MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGY BRANCH STAPLE HERE
    United States Office Of Water EPA 832-B-95-002 Environmental Protection (4204) September 1995 Agency EPA Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance For Long-TermControl Plan EPA/832-B-95-002 August 1995 Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management Washington, DC 20460 Recycled/Recyclablel Printed with VegetableBased Inks on RecycledPaper (20% Postconsumer) NOTICE The statements in this document are intended solely as guidance. This document is not intended, nor can it be relied on, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA and State officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. This guidance may be revised without public notice to reflect changes in EPA’s strategy for implementation of the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, or to clarify and update the text, Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICEOF MEMORANDUM WATER SUBJECT: Guidance for Long Term Control Plan FROM: Michael B. Cook, Office of Wastewater Management (4201) TO: Interested Parties I am pleased to provide you with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA'S) guidance document on the development and implementation of a long-term control plan for combined sewer overflows (CSOs). This document is one of several being prepared to foster implementation of EPA's CSO Control Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Monitoring of Coho Salmon and Steelhead During Freshwater Life Stages in Coastal Marin County 2017Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Long-term Monitoring of Coho Salmon and Steelhead During Freshwater Life Stages in Coastal Marin County 2017Annual Report Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2020/2149 ON THIS PAGE Field staff transfer fish captured while performing electrofishing surveys to recovery buckets using nets for passing in Redwood Creek, Marin County, CA. Photo courtesy of Martha Ture ON THE COVER A male hatchery reared coho salmon moves upstream to spawn in Redwood Creek, Marin County CA. Photo courtesy of National Park Service Long-term Monitoring of Coho Salmon and Steelhead During Freshwater Life Stages in Coastal Marin County 2017Annual Report Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2020/2149 Michael Reichmuth,1 Brentley McNeill,2 Sarah Carlisle2 1National Park Service, San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Point Reyes National Seashore 1 Bear Valley Road Point Reyes Station, California 94956 2Point Reyes National Seashore Association, Coho and Steelhead Monitoring Program 1 Bear Valley Road Point Reyes Station, California 94956 June 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Eel River Delta Rctoru
    California State Fisheries Labomtory Lw kch, Callfor& ' P' NATURAL RESOURCES of the EEL RIVER DELTA RCTORU To: MARINE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 GMDEN SHORE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 State of California DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME November, 1974 State of California DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME NATURAL RESOURCES OF TKE EEL RIVER DELTA Prepared by: GARY W. MONROE, Associate Wildlife Manager and FOREST REYNOLDS, Associate Wildlife Manager Assisted by: BRUCE M. BROWNING, Associate Wildlife Biologist and JOHN W. SPETH, Coastal Wetlands Program Coordinator G. Ray ARNETT, Director October, 1974 COASTAL WETLANDS SERIES #9 Prepared under contract with the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission with funds granted by the National Ocean and Atmospheric A6ministration This report was prepared by personnel of the Department's Region I field office in Eureka and staff members of the Wildlife Management Branch in Sacramento. The Environmental Services, Anadromous Fish- eries, Inland Fisheries and Marine Resources branches, as well as the Marine Resources Region and Planning Unit, contributed essential data and editorial assistance. Dave Rogers, Inland Fisheries Region I; Ron Warner, Marine Resources Region and Larry Puckett, Contract Services Section, Environmental Services, were particularly helpful. Ruth Hurd, Coastal idetlands Project, typed the manuscript and Kenneth Gonzales, of the Department's Engineering Section, delineated the plates. Dr. Stanley Harris and Dr. Archie Mossman, both from California State University, Hunlboldt, supplied information for and reviewed the bird and mammal checklists. Preparation of this report was suppcrted in part by funds made avail- able under the Federal Aid ir Wildlife Restoration Act and Coastal Zone Management Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution in the Lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000–2005
    Prepared in cooperation with the Clackamas Watershed Management Group (Clackamas River Water Providers and Clackamas County Water Environment Services) and the National Water-Quality Assessment Program Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution in the Lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000–2005 Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5027 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Top left: Pesticides are sometimes used on urban landscaping (Rock Creek basin) (Photograph taken January 2, 2003.) Top right: Arborvitae ornamental trees are grown at many of the Clackamas River basin nurseries (North Fork Deep Creek basin) (Photograph taken March 13, 2004.) Bottom Noyer Creek, a tributary of lower Deep Creek, is highly turbid after stormwater runoff, September 2005. (Photograph taken September 30, 2005. All cover photographs taken by Kurt D. Carpenter, U.S. Geological Survey.) Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution in the Lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000–2005 By Kurt D. Carpenter, Steven Sobieszczyk, Andrew J. Arnsberg, and Frank A. Rinella Prepared in cooperation with the Clackamas Watershed Management Group (Clackamas River Water Providers and Clackamas County Water Environment Services) and the National Water-Quality Assessment Program Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5027 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Land Use History, Existing Conditions, and Field Investigations
    CHAPTER 4 Russian River Watershed Land Use History, Existing Conditions, and Field Investigations This chapter is divided into four main sections with each addressing key issues. Section 4.1 describes historical and current land uses that have resulted in the existing conditions, and the mining and reclamation history of the Hanson gravel ponds. Section 4.2 describes existing conditions and physical processes affecting aquatic habitat. The results of the feasibility study field investigations detailed in Chapter 3 are presented and discussed in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 describes the results of fish assemblage sampling. 4.1 Watershed land use history 4.1.1 Watershed description The 110-mile long Russian River mainstem contains five major alluvial valleys. From the northern headwaters in Mendocino County to the estuary in Sonoma County, the valleys are Ukiah, Hopland, Alexander, Middle Reach, and Santa Rosa Plain/Laguna de Santa Rosa (Figure 4.1.1). The geology of the Russian River catchment is predominated by accreted sea floor sediment and uplifted volcanic deposits that are highly faulted and thermally altered (Bailey et al. 1964; Hart et al. 1983). According to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (1972), the watershed has relatively high erosion rates. The regional Mediterranean climate of generally wet winters and very dry summers is punctuated by the El Niño storm cycle, often producing flood events during the wet season on approximately a 4- to 5-year frequency. Numerous parallel faults across the region result in patterns of valleys and ranges that are overlain by the natural drainage network. Each of the alluvial valleys has a geologic constriction at their southern downstream outlet that produces backwater hydraulic conditions during flood events that, over geologic time have left the valleys filled with alluvium (river-derived deposits of silt to gravel) ranging from 30 to 100 feet deep.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Coho and Steelhead Production in the San Geronimo Valley Headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed, 2006-2008
    Evaluation of Coho and Steelhead Production in the San Geronimo Valley Headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed, 2006-2008 Prepared by Christopher Pincetich, Ph.D., SPAWN Watershed Biologist Todd Steiner, M.S., SPAWN Executive Director Paola Bouley, M.S., SPAWN Conservation Program Director Ssssssssssssssssss Salmon Protection Salmon Protection And Watershed Network And Watershed PO Box 370 • Forest Knolls, CA 94933 Network Ph. 415.663.8590 • Fax 415.663.9534 PO Box 400 • Forest www.SpawnUSA.org Knolls, CA 94933 i Salmon Protection and Watershed Network (SPAWN) Evaluation of Coho and Steelhead Production in the San Geronimo Valley Headwaters of the Lagunitas Creek Watershed, 2006-2008 Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………...…1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….…………………….…………...1 Lagunitas Coho………………………………………….…………………………..……...…...1 Lagunitas Steelhead………………………………………….…………………….….…….....2 San Geronimo Valley Headwaters………………………………………….….………….....2 Salmon Protection and Watershed Network (SPAWN)………………...…..…………....2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………..…...…4 Smolt Trap Design and Location ………………………………………………...……...….4 Daily Monitoring………………………………………………………………………..…..……5 Data Analyses………………………………………………………………………………...…6 Fulton Condition Factor……………………………………………………………..……..…..6 Results……………………………………………………………………………………..……...….….…6 Coho Salmon………………………………………………………………………..…..…….…7 Steelhead……………………………………..……………………………………..…..………10 Other Aquatic Organisms ……………………………………..……………………..…...…14 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….……...…15
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides
    Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides A Center for Biological Diversity Report February 2006 Writing: Jeff Miller Editing: Julie Miller Photo Editing & Design: T. DeLene Beeland Maps: Curtis Bradley CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BECAUSE LIFE IS GOOD 1095 Market Street Suite 511 San Francisco CA 94103 415.436.9682 www.biologicaldiversity.org Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 3 Background on Pesticide Impacts.................................................................................. 5 Contaminated Waterways................................................................................... 5 Contaminated Sediments................................................................................... 5 Pesticide Drift...................................................................................................... 6 Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife.......................................................................... 6 Birds........................................................................................................ 6 Amphibians............................................................................................. 7 Fishes..................................................................................................... 7 Insects..................................................................................................... 7 Plants.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review of Eel River Anadromous Salmonids, 2010
    HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD UC DAVIS, CENTER FOR WATERSHED SCIENCES WORKING PAPER A Report Commissioned by California Trout, 2010 Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 February 1, 2010 Yoshiyama & Moyle Page - 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible by the many people—past and present—who have held an interest in the Eel River system and its salmonid fishes. We greatly appreciate the support we received from numerous individuals and organizations in conducting our review. Our colleagues in the public agencies, academic institutions and private sector generously gave their time and information that contributed to this report. They are acknowledged in the text as personal communications. We especially thank S. Downie, B. Jong, M. Gilroy, S. Harris, S. Cannata, P. Higgins and B. Kier who collectively provided volumes of data and documents. In addition, we thank Scott Feierabend and the staff of California Trout for their constant support, high enthusiasm and enduring patience in seeing this project to its end. California Trout enabled funding of this project from the Friends of the Eel and anonymous donors. Yoshiyama & Moyle Page - 3 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF EEL RIVER ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON CHINOOK SALMON, COHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD Ronald M. Yoshiyama and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Eel River basin once possessed significant populations of at least five distinct kinds of anadromous salmonids, including fall-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, winter and summer steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern California Coast Southern Focus Area
    15.1 Description of Area 15.1.1 The Land The Northern California Coast-Southern Fours Area is composed of Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin counties, excluding watersheds that drain into San Francisco Bay (Figure 14). This region of the northern California coast contains three areas with substantial wetland habitats: the coastal wetlands, the interior valleys of the Eel River system, and the interior valleys of the Russian River system. Securement and enhancement of these wetlands will provide nesting, staging, and winter habitat for a variety of waterfowl and many wetland-dependent species. Threatened and endangered species are also present in each of the 15.0 three areas. Limited state and federal protection exists in the form of managed wildlife areas, pants, national seashores or refuges. Wetland enhancement and, in some cases, restoration activities implemented after acquisition will improve NORTHERN and. expand existing wetland habitats. The northern part of the focus area is bounded on the CALIFORNIA east approximately by the dividing ridge between the Eel River and the Sacramento River watersheds. Further south it follows the divide between the water COAST─ sheds of the Russian and Sacramento rivers. Two almost parallel ranges of the Coast Mountain Ranges extend through most of this focus area. The range on SOUTHERN the east is a continuation of the Mayacamas Mountains. In this range, near Potter Valley, rise the two largest rivers of this area: the Eel and Russian rivers. The Eel River flows northward and enters the Pacific Ocean FOCUS AREA just south of Humboldt Bay. The Russian River flows south and then west to empty into the ocean north of Bodega Head.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Water Quality
    Water quality “Like swift water, an active mind never stagnates.” 8 — Author unknown efining water quality depends on its Sediments intended use. A particular body of water Sediments are small soil particles carried by D might be clean enough for farm irriga- surface runoff from logging, forestry, construc- tion and yet too polluted for drinking water. tion, mining, or agricultural sites. Sediments can Water could be clean enough for drinking water, carry nutrients and pesticides that degrade water and yet still be too warm for some aquatic organ- quality. Sediments may settle to the bottom of isms to live in it. streams, smothering aquatic life and fish spawn- Natural conditions sometimes make water ing areas. unsuitable for use. High levels of some inerals and salts are common in some areas, making water unfit for drinking. In other places the Toxics natural quality of the water has been degraded. Toxics can include pesticides, heavy metals, We call this water polluted. Guidelines from the petroleum products from leaking underground Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for storage tanks, solvents, and water runoff from surface waters often refer to a goal of being hazardous waste disposal sites and landfills. The “fishable and swimmable.” While this does not greatest sources of toxics are sewage and indus- provide precise values for various pollutants it trial wastewater. Toxics are also found in runoff does give a general goal. Water must be clean from forests, farms and urban areas. enough to allow aquatic life to live and not be a hazard to public health. Several types of water pollutants are discussed below.
    [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]