DOCSLIB.ORG

Coastal Resources Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coastal Resources Technical Report South Station Expansion Project Appendix 6 – Coastal Resources Technical Report October 2014 Coastal Resources Technical Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank October 2014 South Station Expansion Massachusetts Department of Transportation Coastal Resources Technical Report Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 3. Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................... 3 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 3.2. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Review .................................... 4 3.3. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 ....................................................................................... 5 3.4. Municipal Harbor Planning ........................................................................................................... 5 3.5. Public Benefit Determination........................................................................................................ 6 4. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 6 5. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 7 5.1. South Station Site .......................................................................................................................... 8 5.2. Layover Facility Sites ................................................................................................................... 12 6. Potential Impacts to Filled Tidelands .................................................................................................. 14 6.1. No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 15 6.2. Alternative 1 - Transportation Improvements Only ................................................................... 16 6.3. Alternative 2 – Joint/Private Development Minimum Build ....................................................... 17 6.4. Alternative 3 – Joint/ Private Development Maximum Build ..................................................... 17 7. Consistency with Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Requirements .................................... 18 7.1. Water Quality Policies ................................................................................................................. 19 7.2. Habitat Policies ........................................................................................................................... 21 7.3. Protected Area Policies ............................................................................................................... 21 7.4. Coastal Hazards Policies .............................................................................................................. 22 7.5. Ports Policies ............................................................................................................................... 23 7.6. Public Access Policies .................................................................................................................. 24 7.7. Energy Policies ............................................................................................................................ 25 7.8. Ocean Resources Policies ............................................................................................................ 25 7.9. Growth Management Policies..................................................................................................... 26 8. Consistency with Chapter 91 Regulatory Requirements .................................................................... 26 South Station Expansion October 2014 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Page i Coastal Resources Technical Report 8.1. Basic Licensing Requirements ..................................................................................................... 27 8.2. Proper Public Purpose Requirements ......................................................................................... 33 8.3. Wind ............................................................................................................................................ 40 8.4. Shadow Impacts Assessment ...................................................................................................... 42 9. Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 47 9.1. No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 47 9.2. Alternative 1 – Transportation Improvements Only ................................................................... 48 9.3. Alternative 2 – Joint/Private Development Minimum Build ....................................................... 49 9.4. Alternative 3 – Joint/Private Development Maximum Build ...................................................... 50 10. Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 51 October 2014 South Station Expansion Page ii Massachusetts Department of Transportation Coastal Resources Technical Report List of Figures Figure 1—South Station Expansion Site Boundaries .................................................................................. 53 Figure 2—South Station and Widett Circle Layover Facility Site Boundaries ............................................. 54 Figure 3—Beacon Park Yard Layover Facility Site Boundary ...................................................................... 55 Figure 4—Readville - Yard 2 Layover Facility Site Boundary....................................................................... 56 Figure 5—South Station and Widett Circle Historic Shoreline and Massachusetts Coastal Zone .............. 57 Figure 6—Beacon Park Yard Historic Shoreline .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 7—John Hills Map of Boston, 1770 .................................................................................................. 59 Figure 8—United States Coast Survey, 1846 .............................................................................................. 60 Figure 9—E.S. Chesborough Map of Boston, 1852 ..................................................................................... 61 Figure 10—United States Coast Survey, 1860 ............................................................................................ 62 Figure 11—Fort Point Channel Historic Waterways Licenses ..................................................................... 63 Figure 12—Beacon Park Yard – Metropolitan Parks Commission Map, 1894 ............................................ 64 Figure 13—No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 14—Alternative 1 – Transportation Improvements Only ................................................................ 66 Figure 15—Alternative 2 – Joint/Private Development Minimum Build .................................................... 67 Figure 16—Alternative 3 – Joint/Private Development Maximum Build ................................................... 68 Figure 17—Shadow Study – October 23 at 9 a.m. ...................................................................................... 69 Figure 18—Shadow Study – October 23 at 10 a.m. .................................................................................... 70 Figure 19—Shadow Study – October 23 at 11 a.m. .................................................................................... 71 Figure 20—Shadow Study – October 23 at 12 p.m. .................................................................................... 72 Figure 21—Shadow Study – October 23 at 1 p.m. ...................................................................................... 73 Figure 22—Shadow Study – October 23 at 2 p.m. ...................................................................................... 74 Figure 23—Shadow Study – October 23 at 3 p.m. ...................................................................................... 75 Figure 24—Shadow Study – October 23 at 4 p.m. ...................................................................................... 76 Figure 25—Shadow Study – October 23 at 5 p.m. ...................................................................................... 77 Figure 26—Shadow Study – October 23 at 6 p.m. .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fort Point Channel Watersheet Activation Plan
    Fort Point Channel Watersheet Activation Plan APPENDICES Appendix F: Interim Presentation Slides Goody, Clancy & Associates 1 Fort Point Channel Watersheet Activation Plan Introductiiion to the Plllanniiing Process Presentation: Boston Publlliiic Liiibrary, Copllley Square GC March 31, 2001 &A 1 2 3 4 5 • Complete the vision • Strengthen the working partnership • Provide a strong planning framework and tools 6 7 Fort Point Channel Watersheet Activation Plan Preliminary Findings and Analysis May 3, 2001 Boston Redevelopment Authority Fort Point Channel Working Group Fort Point Channel Abutters Group Goody, Clancy & Associates Goals for This Meeting • Review of Progress to Date • Presentation of Preliminary Findings •Recommendations for Next Steps 1 Review of Progress to Date • Baseline Plan • Interviews/Working Group Meetings • Waterfront Center Presentation at Boston Public Library • Public Charrette at Federal Reserve Bank Baseline Plan – Basic Facts • Channel is approximately 1 mile long • Approximately 1000 linear feet of public access now • 3500 linear feet of additional public access within 2-3 years; substantial opportunities for further major increases in access • Link of Harborwalk to future South Bay Harbor Trail creates promise of linking the water to inland neighborhoods 2 Baseline Plan --2 • Potential uses of basins shaped by public accessibility, water depths, bridge constraints (varying from 4-16 feet at MHW) • Uses of water linked to water quality—MWRA CSO project will improve Channel water quality with initial benefits
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report
    Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report June 30, 2004 Prepared for: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Prepared by: Neponset River Watershed Association University of Massachusetts, Urban Harbors Institute Boston Harbor Association Fore River Watershed Association Weir River Watershed Association Contents How rapidly is open space being lost?.......................................................35 Introduction ix What % of the shoreline is publicly accessible?........................................35 References for Boston Inner Harbor Watershed........................................37 Common Assessment for All Watersheds 1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreation? ...................................1 Neponset River Watershed 41 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life? ..................................1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreational use? ......................46 Do dissolved oxygen levels support aquatic life?........................................5 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life or other uses?...........48 Are there other water quality problems? ....................................................6 Do dissolved oxygen (DO) levels support aquatic life? ..........................51 Do water supply or wastewater management impact instream flows?........7 Are there other indicators that limit use of the watershed? .....................53 Roughly what percentage of the watersheds is impervious? .....................8 Do water supply,
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
    Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan Volume 2 Baseline Assessment and Science Framework December 2009 Introduction Volume 2 of the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan focuses on the data and scientific aspects of the plan and its implementation. It includes these two separate documents: • Baseline Assessment of the Massachusetts Ocean Planning Area - This Oceans Act-mandated product includes information cataloging the current state of knowledge regarding human uses, natural resources, and other ecosystem factors in Massachusetts ocean waters. • Science Framework - This document provides a blueprint for ocean management- related science and research needs in Massachusetts, including priorities for the next five years. i Baseline Assessment of the Massachusetts Ocean Management Planning Area Acknowledgements The authors thank Emily Chambliss and Dan Sampson for their help in preparing Geographic Information System (GIS) data for presentation in the figures. We also thank Anne Donovan and Arden Miller, who helped with the editing and layout of this document. Special thanks go to Walter Barnhardt, Ed Bell, Michael Bothner, Erin Burke, Tay Evans, Deb Hadden, Dave Janik, Matt Liebman, Victor Mastone, Adrienne Pappal, Mark Rousseau, Tom Shields, Jan Smith, Page Valentine, John Weber, and Brad Wellock, who helped us write specific sections of this assessment. We are grateful to Wendy Leo, Peter Ralston, and Andrea Rex of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for data and assistance writing the water quality subchapter. Robert Buchsbaum, Becky Harris, Simon Perkins, and Wayne Petersen from Massachusetts Audubon provided expert advice on the avifauna subchapter. Kevin Brander, David Burns, and Kathleen Keohane from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Robin Pearlman from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocm17241103-1896.Pdf (5.445Mb)
    rH*« »oo«i->t>fa •« A »iri or ok. w Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries littp://www.arcliive.org/details/annualreportofbo1896boar : PUBLIC DOCUMENT .... .... No. 11. ANNUAL REPORT Board of Harboe and Land Commissioners Foe the Yeab 1896. BOSTON WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 18 Post Office Square. 1897. ,: ,: /\ I'l C0mm0ixixr^aIt{? of P^assar^s^tts* REPORT To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. The Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners, pursuant to the provisions of law, respectfully submits its annual re- port for the year 1896, covering a period of twelve months, from Nov. 30, 1895. Hearings. The Board has held one hundred and sixty-six formal ses- sions during the year, at which one hundred and eighty-three hearings were given. One hundred and twenty-one petitions were received for licenses to build and maintain structures, and for privileges in tide waters, great ponds and the Con- necticut River ; of these, one hundred and fifteen were granted, four withdrawn and two denied. On June 5, 1896, a hearing was given at Buzzards Bay on the petition of the town of Wareham that the boundary line on tide water between the towns of Wareham and Bourne at the highway bridge across Cohasset Narrows, as defined by the Board under chapter 196 of the Acts of 1881, be marked on said bridge. On June 20, 1896, a hearing was given in Nantucket on the petition of the local board of health for license to fill a dock.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All Hazardous Cargo (HC) and Cargo Tankers General Information Throughout Boston and Surrounding Towns
    WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS! CONTACT INFORMATION REGIONAL TOURISM COUNCILS STATE ROAD LAWS NONRESIDENT PRIVILEGES Massachusetts grants the same privileges EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE Fire, Police, Ambulance: 911 16 to nonresidents as to Massachusetts residents. On behalf of the Commonwealth, MBTA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 2 welcome to Massachusetts. In our MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 SPEED LAW Observe posted speed limits. The runs daily service on buses, trains, trolleys and ferries 14 3 great state, you can enjoy the rolling Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All hazardous cargo (HC) and cargo tankers General Information throughout Boston and surrounding towns. Stations can be identified 13 hills of the west and in under three by a black on a white, circular sign. Pay your fare with a 9 1 are prohibited from the Boston Tunnels. hours travel east to visit our pristine MassDOT Headquarters 857-368-4636 11 reusable, rechargeable CharlieCard (plastic) or CharlieTicket 12 DRUNK DRIVING LAWS Massachusetts enforces these laws rigorously. beaches. You will find a state full (toll free) 877-623-6846 (paper) that can be purchased at over 500 fare-vending machines 1. Greater Boston 9. MetroWest 4 MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE LAWS Operators cannot use any of history and rich in diversity that (TTY) 857-368-0655 located at all subway stations and Logan airport terminals. At street- 2. North of Boston 10. Johnny Appleseed Trail 5 3. Greater Merrimack Valley 11. Central Massachusetts mobile electronic device to write, send, or read an electronic opens its doors to millions of visitors www.mass.gov/massdot level stations and local bus stops you pay on board.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard, DHS § 110.30
    Coast Guard, DHS § 110.30 § 110.26 Marblehead Harbor, Marble- from a point on the Tobin Bridge at head, Mass. latitude 42°23′08.5″ N. 071°02′48.2″ W. to a ° ′ ″ The area comprises that portion of point at latitude 42 23 06.4 N. ° ′ ″ the harbor lying between the extreme 071 02 43.7 W.; thence northwest to a ° ′ ″ low water line and southwestward of a point at latitude 42 23 09.1 N. ° ′ ″ line bearing 336° from Marblehead Neck 071 02 43.2 W. along the shoreline to Light to a point on Peach Point at lati- the western side of Tobin Bridge, tude 42°31′03″, longitude 70°50′30″. thence to the point of origin. (c) Mystic River, west side of Tobin NOTE: The area is principally for use by Bridge. Beginning at a line running yachts and other recreational craft. Tem- from a point on the Tobin Bridge at porary floats or buoys for marking anchors ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ are allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes latitude 42 23 08.8 N. 071 02 48.6 W. to a are prohibited. All moorings shall be so that point at latitude 42°23′10.5″ N. 071°05′52″ no vessel, when anchored, shall at any time W.; thence northwest to the southeast- extend beyond the limits of the area. The an- erly corner of the pier at latitude choring of vessels and the placing of tem- 42°23′13.4″ N. 071°02′57.1″ W. along the porary moorings are under the jurisdiction pier to the shoreline to the eastern side and at the direction of the local of Tobin Bridge, thence to the point of harbormaster.
    [Show full text]
  • ENF Northern Avenue Bridge Replacement Project BOSTON
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office Environmental Notification Form For Office Use Only EEA#: MEPA Analyst: The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. Project Name: Northern Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Northern Avenue Bridge Municipality: Boston Watershed: Boston Harbor Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42.354484° N 331212.55 E 4691169.61 N, Zone 19T Longitude: -71.049435° W Estimated commencement date: 01/2020 Estimated completion date: 2022 Project Type: Bridge Replacement Status of project design: 25 %complete Proponent: City of Boston Public Works Department Street Address: Boston City Hall, One City Hall Square, Room 710 Municipality: Boston State: MA Zip Code: 02110 Name of Contact Person: Para Jayasinghe Firm/Agency: Boston Public Works Department Street Address:1 City Hall Square, Room 710 Municipality: Boston State: MA Zip Code: 02110 Phone: (617) 635-4968 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? Yes No If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting: a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) Yes No a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) Yes No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 177/Wednesday, September 12
    Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56115 must be transferred to the other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the National Harbor Access Channel at petitioners, not the party filing the Northern Avenue Bridge, across the Fort Oxon Hill in Prince Georges County, petition; although, in his or her Point Channel, mile 0.1, has a vertical Maryland. This safety zone is intended discretion, the ruling official may use clearance in the closed position of 7 feet to protect the maritime public in a the actual petitioner as an intermediary at mean high water and 17 feet at mean portion of the Potomac River. for transferring the amounts authorized low water. The existing drawbridge DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 as a remission to the other petitioners. operation regulations are listed at 33 p.m. on September 12, 2012, through 11 Dated: August 23, 2012. CFR 117.599. p.m. on September 13, 2012. The waterway has seasonal Eric H. Holder, Jr., ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in recreational vessels of various sizes. Attorney General. this preamble are part of docket USCG– The owner of the bridge, the City of 2012–0818. To view documents [FR Doc. 2012–21943 Filed 9–11–12; 8:45 am] Boston, requested a temporary deviation BILLING CODE 4410–09– 4410–02; 4410–FY; 4410–14; P mentioned in this preamble as being to facilitate the replacement of deck available in the docket, go to http:// support. The bridge cannot open while www.regulations.gov, type the docket the stringers are unsecured.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Point Channel Infographic HB EDITS
    THE FORT POINT CHANNEL THEN AND NOW Colonial Times Modern Times The Fort Point Channel is a Today, the channel is natural feature that home to both the separated the Shawmut Boston Tea Party and Peninsula (Boston) from Children's Museums. the Dorchester Neck. The Many office buildings channel was surrounded by mudflats and salt now tower over Fort marshes.1 Point Channel. The Channel was named after the Fort that protected Boston Harbor. Ships would often be found sailing through the channel. These ships could have been schooners, like The Roseway, which is currently docked in the channel, on their way to fish In 1836, development of the 2 coastal waters. channel began to create more space for industry. This required filling in tidal areas, creating the "artificial" land that now surrounds the channel. 1 Currently, Atlantic sturgeon When settlers arrived in are endangered or Boston, Atlantic sturgeon, threatened in all of their river herring, and cod were range. River herring plentiful. populations are low due to habitat disruptions, such as dams4. , 5 These fish were culturally and economically important — Cod stocks in the Gulf of Especially cod, which was the Maine are heavily overfished, focus of America's first industry, commercial ground fishing. 3, 4, 5 merely a shadow of their past glory.3 Many accounts from the Despite what has been lost due to Massachusetts Bay Colony development, work is being done to describe there being so improve the habitat in Boston Harbor. The many fish, one could "walk Boston Harbor clean-up made the water on their backs" without healthy for marine life.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF of This Report
    Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Board of Directors The MWRA Board of Directors has a proven track record SEATED, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: of balancing the critical need to protect the public health Joseph A. MacRitchie (Secretary), City of Quincy and the health of the environment with the ever-pressing Marie T. Turner, Town of Winthrop need to minimize the financial burden to our ratepayers. In addition to completing projects to modernize the Ian A. Bowles (Chairman), Secretary of Energy water and sewer systems, the Board has challenged staff and Environmental Affairs to find renewable and sustainable ways to operate John J. Carroll (Vice-Chairman), Town of Norwood power-intensive facilities, saving both energy and money. Andrew M. Pappastergion, Town of Brookline This report highlights the success of those efforts. I would like to thank my fellow Board members for their STANDING, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: unwavering commitment to providing these services to Kevin L. Cotter, City of Boston the 2.5 million people in the 61 cities and towns we serve. Vincent G. Mannering, City of Boston Michael S. Gove, Connecticut River Valley Joel A. Barrera, Merrimack River Valley James W. Hunt III, City of Boston Ian A. Bowles Joseph C. Foti, City of Chelsea Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Frederick A. Laskey, MWRA Executive Director A Message from the Executive Director Sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without com- promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Although it may seem like a new buzzword, the concept of sustainability has been deeply ingrained in every facet of the MWRA since its inception: • Watershed protection to maintain water “MWRA has been superlative in its efforts to use clean, quality and ensure safety renewable energy in its operations.
    [Show full text]
  • ! Historic American Engineering Record Fort Point Channel Haer No. Ma-130
    -----------------------------------------~-------- I I I I HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD FORT POINT CHANNEL I. I 1 HAER NO. MA-130 m f~ I fIOUTIt':~- 194C098l REQUEST A ,~ CC IHT MTE ~ RE ME. (IE IIOE !UE< ! FE: 1011 [JO§L_ •Xh U. PE , ~ cc INn ~ , ",,-fJII. See. Oetk IIHd ~REQ. "tES NO I'U: _t CN-9.IJ983. fl.£: .1 CN-9.~3. ----------------------------------------------------------,----------------- , " HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD FORT POINT CHANNEL HAER NO. MA-130 Location: Between South Boston and Boston Proper, beginning at Boston Harbor immediately north of the Northern A venue Bridge and heading approximately 1.25 miles south to the West Fourth Street Bridge. Suffolk County, Boston, MA. UTM: 19.330150.4689640; 19.331100.4691000; 19.331250.4690910; 19.330170.4689630 (Fort Point Channel) 19.330280.4689930; 19.330640.4690140; 19.330650.4689980; 19.330320.4689890 (Area of Impact) Quad: Boston South, MA. Dates: From 1804 through 1960. Engineer and Builder: City of Boston; Boston Wharf Company; Boston Terminal Company. Owner: City of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Amtrack, Massachusetts Bay Transit Corporation, Gillette Company Present Use: Partially navigable water channel. Significance: Fort Point Channel is a nineteenth-century waterway which represents Boston's maritime and industrial history. It was constructed in response to the space crisis in Boston Harbor during the early and mid-nineteenth century. The channel was the only water access to South Boston and South Cove, home to a variety of industries, including sugar refining, heavy machine construction and the storage of lumber and other building supplies. Fort Point Channel is a contributing structure in the proposed Fort Point Channel Historic District.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines
    Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines DRAFT — September 2019 Project Team Richard McGuinness, Deputy Director for Climate Change and Environmental Planning, BPDA Chris Busch, Assistant Deputy Director for Climate Change and Environmental Planning, BPDA Joe Christo, Senior Resilience and Waterfront Planner, BPDA Alison Brizius, Director of Climate and Environmental Planning, Boston Environment Department Alisha Pegan, Climate Ready Boston Coordinator, Boston Environment Department Consultant team Utile, Inc. Matthew Littell, Principal in Charge Nupoor Monani, Senior Urban Designer and Project Manager Jeff Geisinger, Director of Sustainability Drew Kane, Senior Planner Jessy Yang, Urban Designer Noble, Wickersham & Heart LLP Jay Wickersham Barbara Landau Kleinfelder Nathalie Beauvais, Principal Planner Nasser Brahim, Senior Planner Kyle Johnson, Staff Engineer HDR Pam Yonkin, Director of Sustainability & Resiliency for Transportation Jeremy Cook, Senior Economist Offshoots Kate Kennan Cover photo: Landslides Aerial Photography / Alex MacLean DRAFT — September 2019 Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the time and input from the following departments, staff, and community stakeholders. Boston Planning & City of Boston Development Agency Mayor Martin J. Walsh BPDA Board Disabilities Commission Timothy J. Burke, Chairman Kristen McCosh, Commissioner Carol Downs, Treasurer Sara Leung, Project Coordinator Michael P. Monahan Patricia Mendez, Architectural Access Specialist Theodore C. Landsmark Priscilla Rojas,
    [Show full text]