DOCSLIB.ORG

Santiago Hills II Planned Community and East Orange Planned Community Area 1 Runoff Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Santiago Hills II Planned Community and East Orange Planned Community Area 1 Runoff Management Plan DRAFT Santiago Hills II Planned Community And East Orange Planned Community Area 1 Runoff Management Plan Volume 2: Surface Water Quality Prepared for The Irvine Community Development Company Prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants Oakland, California Portland, Oregon May 02, 2005October 1, 2004 Prepared by The Irvine Company for Consideration by the City of Orange DRAFT Table of Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Physical Setting................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Study Area Vegetation, Soils and Land Uses ..................................................... 2 2.3 Receiving Waters and Natural Drainages........................................................... 3 2.3.1 Receiving Waters and Beneficial Uses........................................................4 2.3.2 Natural Drainages......................................................................................76 2.4 Existing Receiving Water Quality ................................................................ 1211 2.4.1 Irvine Lake.............................................................................................1211 2.4.2 Peters Canyon Reservoir........................................................................1413 2.4.3 Santiago Creek.......................................................................................2017 3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 2219 3.1 Clean Water Act............................................................................................ 2219 3.2 MS4 Permit ................................................................................................... 2320 3.2.1 Receiving Water Limitations .................................................................2320 3.2.2 Technology-based Standards.................................................................2321 3.2.3 Local Implementation Plan....................................................................2522 3.3 NPDES Construction General Permit........................................................... 2825 3.4 General Waste Discharge Requirements for Non-Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction ......................................................................................... 2826 3.5 Basin Plan..................................................................................................... 2926 3.6 California Toxics Rule.................................................................................. 2926 4 Pollutants of Concern, Hydrologic Conditions of Concern, and Significance Criteria3027 4.1 List of Pollutants of Concern ........................................................................ 3027 4.2 Other Pollutants............................................................................................ 3229 4.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern............................................................... 3331 4.4 Significance Criteria..................................................................................... 3431 4.5 Thresholds for Significance .......................................................................... 3532 5 Project Design Features ........................................................................................ 3633 5.1 Site Design BMPs......................................................................................... 3633 5.2 Source Control BMPs ................................................................................... 3835 5.2.1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs ...................................................3835 5.2.2 Structural Source Control BMPs ...........................................................4138 5.3 Treatment Control BMPs.............................................................................. 4138 5.3.1 Drainage 1..............................................................................................4340 5.3.2 Drainage 2..............................................................................................4441 5.3.3 Drainage 3..............................................................................................4441 5.3.4 Drainage 4..............................................................................................4542 5.3.5 Drainage 5..............................................................................................4642 5.3.6 Drainage 6 and 7 ....................................................................................4642 5.4 Hydrologic Impacts Control PDF ................................................................. 4945 6 Water Quality Modeling Approach ...................................................................... 5045 i Prepared by The Irvine Company for Consideration by the City of Orange DRAFT 6.1 Model Description........................................................................................ 5045 6.2 Area Modeled................................................................................................ 5247 6.3 Pollutants Modeled....................................................................................... 5348 6.4 Pollutants Addressed Without Modeling...................................................... 5449 7 Water Quality Impact Assessment........................................................................ 5450 7.1 Impact Assessment for Modeled Pollutants of Concern............................... 5550 7.1.1 Stormwater Runoff Volumes .................................................................5550 7.1.2 Total Suspended Solids..........................................................................5853 7.1.3 Nutrients.................................................................................................6357 7.1.4 Copper, Lead, & Zinc ............................................................................6964 7.1.5 Total Dissolved Solids ...........................................................................7872 7.2 Impact Assessment for Pollutants and Basin Plan Criteria Addressed Without Modeling ...................................................................................................... 8074 7.2.1 Turbidity ................................................................................................8074 7.2.2 Pathogens ...............................................................................................8175 7.2.3 Hydrocarbons.........................................................................................8477 7.2.4 Pesticides................................................................................................8579 7.2.5 Trash and Debris....................................................................................8680 7.3 Summary....................................................................................................... 8780 7.4 MS4 Permit Requirements for New Development as Defined in the DAMP8882 7.5 Dry Weather Impacts .................................................................................... 9386 7.5.1 Dry Weather Flow Quantity...................................................................9386 7.5.2 Dry Weather Flow Quality.....................................................................9487 7.5.3 Summary................................................................................................9588 7.6 Construction-Related Impacts....................................................................... 9588 7.7 Other Considerations.................................................................................... 9790 7.7.1 Operation and Maintenance...................................................................9790 7.7.2 Monitoring ...........................................................................................10696 7.7.3 Vector Control.....................................................................................10797 7.7.4 Pollutant Bioaccumulation...................................................................10797 7.7.5 Impacts to Irvine Lake as a Water Supply and Drinking Water Source10999 7.8 Hydrologic Impact Analysis..................................................................... 111101 7.8.1 SHII Drainages (The South Tributary, the North Tributary, ETC-6 Drainage and ETC-7 Drainage)................................................................................111101 7.8.2 Black Willow Forest Lacustrine Area................................................112102 7.8.3 Overland Flow Area within Irvine Regional Park .............................112102 7.8.4 ETC-9 Drainage.................................................................................113102 7.8.5 Woody’s Tributary.............................................................................113103 7.8.6 Santiago Creek Reach 1.....................................................................114103 7.9 Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................... 114103 7.9.1 Irvine Lake.........................................................................................114104 7.9.2 Peters Canyon Reservoir....................................................................115104 7.9.3 Santiago Creek and Villa Park Reservoir
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Master Plan of Trails, Adopted Oct
    P.O. BOX 8, SILVERADO, CA 92676 SMRPD Draft Master Plan of Trails, Adopted Oct. 14, 2004 The Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails Component is countywide in scope. It is a public trail system which traverses the entire county without regard for jurisdictional boundaries and, therefore, intergovernmental coordination is necessary for successful implementation. -from the Recreation Element of the Orange County General Plan The Silverado Modjeska Community Plan and EIR (DEIR 096), prepared by the Environmental Planning Agency and distributed on November 23, 1976, included a variety of non-paved multi-use riding and hiking trails which were in place and inventoried at the time of the DEIR’s adoption. The plan allowed for the addition of recreational trails as proposed by the community. In 2002, under the jurisdiction of the Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks District (a State sanctioned Independent Special District), the community and the SMRPD worked together to create an updated Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. As a conceptual plan, it is considered a general expression of community values and is abstract in nature. Purpose The purpose of the Silverado Modjeska Master Plan of Trails is to provide goals and objectives to direct the development and operation of a District-wide public trail system that serves the recreational needs of equestrians, pedestrians (walkers, hikers and joggers), and mountain bikers (non-motorized). Goals Goal 1: Provide a useful, enjoyable, safe, and efficient riding and hiking trail system for the District and to meet the needs and desires of the community. Goal 2: Create trail linkages between open space and recreation facilities, between community, municipal, state, and federal trail systems, and create connectivity to surrounding communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Releasing Treated Wastewater Stimulate Algal Blooms in Southern California No .~::Rt Estuaries?
    G402 XU2-7 Will Releasing Treated Wastewater Stimulate Algal Blooms in Southern California no .~::rt Estuaries? By Peggy Fong, Karleen Boyle, and Krista Kamer Department of Organismic Biology Ecology and Evolution University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095 TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT Project Number UCAL- WRC- W-871 November, 1998 University of California Water Resources Center WATER RESOURCES CENTER ARCHIVES DEC - - 1998 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY The research leading to this report was supported by the University of California Water Resources Center, as part of Water Resources Center Project UCAL- WRC- W-871. '\Il~- ~(~·:::;·t\ Will Releasing Treated Wastewater Stimulate Algal Blooms in Southern California J" Estuaries? By Peggy Fang, Karleen Boyle, and Krista Kamer Department of Organismic Biology Ecology and Evolution University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095 TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT Project Number UCAL-WRC-W-871 November, 1998 University of Calif ami a Water Resources Center WATER RESOURCES CENTER ARCHIVES DEC - _. '1998 I I UNIVERSITY OF C(.\LlFORNJA ! I BERKELEY i l~ .-.-~-.J The research leading to this report was supported by the University of California Water Resources Center, as part of Water Resources Center Project UCAL- WRC- W-871. ABSTRACT: Quarterly monitoring of Upper Newport Bay, a highly eutrophic southern California estuary, has provided conflicting indicators of nutrient limitation for the seasonal macroalgal blooms in this system. Water column N:P ratios were high, up to 370:1, suggesting phosphorous limitation, while sediment N:P ratios were low, «4:1), suggesting nitrogen limitation. A microcosm experiment was conducted to test whether macroalgal biomass was nitrogen or phosphorous limited in this system.
    [Show full text]
  • Serrano Water District Notice of Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Rate Increases and Adjustments to the Rates for Water Service Charges
    SERRANO WATER DISTRICT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED RATE INCREASES AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RATES FOR WATER SERVICE CHARGES The Serrano Water District (SWD or District) will conduct a public hearing on June 15, 2021 at 8:30 AM, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the Board Room of the District's administrative office, located at 18021 Lincoln Street, Villa Park, California 92861, to consider adopting increases in and adjustments to the volumetric (usage) rates and service (fixed) charges for water service, including annual cost of living adjustments and pass-throughs of water supply costs imposed on the District. In response to the Governor’s Executive Orders regarding COVID-19, some Board Members may be participating in this meeting via teleconference from remote locations. The Public may participate in the board meeting, and this public hearing, in person at the Serrano Water District Board Room subject to social distancing requirements established in the Executive Order or by participating by teleconference by visiting www.serranowater.org for login or call information. Persons desiring to participate in the public hearing in person at the District are asked to notify SWD Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours prior to the public hearing on June 15 in order to ensure that all required social distancing requirements can be observed during the public hearing and the June 2021 SWD Regular Board meeting. I. INTRODUCTION AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE The principal reason for the proposed rate increases is the need to pay for costly improvements to aging water storage and supply facilities owned by SWD, which must be replaced or rehabilitated so the District can continue to supply safe and reliable potable water to its customers at a reasonable cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Irvine Ranch Water District / Serrano Water District Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 15, 2020
    AGENDA IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT / SERRANO WATER DISTRICT COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2020 Due to COVID-19, this meeting will be conducted as a teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspend certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Members of the public may not attend this meeting in person. Participation by members of the Committee will be from remote locations. Public access and participation will only be available telephonically/electronically. To virtually attend the meeting and to be able to view any presentations or additional materials provided at the meeting, please join online via Webex using the link and information below: Via WebEx: https://irwd.my.webex.com/irwd.my/j.php?MTID=mf620c7198cd10dc9081c133274776ff4 Meeting Number: 624 399 302 Password: frU7XHFi23U After joining the meeting, in order to ensure all persons can participate and observe the meeting, please select the “Call in” option and use a telephone to access the audio for the meeting by using the call-in information provided. As a courtesy to the other participants, please mute your phone when you are not speaking. PLEASE NOTE: Participants joining the meeting will be placed into the WebEx lobby when the Committee enters closed session. Participants who remain in the “lobby” will automatically be returned to the open session of the Committee once the closed session has concluded. Participants who join the meeting while the Committee is in closed session will receive a notice that the meeting has been locked. They will be able to join the meeting once the closed session has concluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Summaries
    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
    [Show full text]
  • (Shoreline Fishing) THIS IRVINE LAKE
    IRVINE LAKE ACCESS AND USE LICENSE (Shoreline Fishing) THIS IRVINE LAKE ACCESS AND USE LICENSE (“License”) is effective the 1st day of July, 2019 (“Effective Date”) and is among IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, a California water district organized under and existing pursuant to Sections 34000, et seq. of the California Water Code (“IRWD”), SERRANO WATER DISTRICT, a special governmental district formed under the Irrigation District Law, California Water Code Sections 20500, et seq. (“SWD”) and the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”). Each entity may be referred to herein individually as a “Party,” or collectively as the “Parties.” RECITALS 1. SWD and IRWD are the co-owners in fee title to that certain Reservoir facility historically known as “Santiago Reservoir” (“Santiago Reservoir” or “Reservoir”) and its waters (“Irvine Lake”). 2. The Irvine Company, a Delaware limited liability company and TIC Land Investment LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (collectively, “TIC”), and SWD jointly own the recreational rights to the waters of Irvine Lake, which, according to that certain settlement agreement dated April 19, 1929, include “fishing, hunting, boating and such other uses as will not pollute or interfere with the use of said waters by the parties…” (“Recreational Rights”). TIC owns 75% of the Recreational Rights and SWD owns 25%. Use of the Recreational Rights by the general public is not authorized without mutual agreement between TIC and SWD. County and TIC have executed a separate agreement by which TIC has permitted the County to utilize its Recreational Rights for the purposes set forth in this License.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Orange County, California
    San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Orange County, California Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Southern California Area Office Temecula, California August 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photo: San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, Irvine, California by R.L. Kenyon, courtesy of Sea and Sage Audubon Society http://www.seaandsageaudubon.org/ Environmental Assessment San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Project (SCH No. 2002021120) Irvine Ranch Water District, Orange County, California Prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C), 16 U.S.C. 470, 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 for the Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA Cooperating Agency) and the Bureau of Reclamation (NEPA Lead Agency) August 2009 Based on information provided by Bonterra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 The following people may be contacted for information concerning this document: Cheryl McGovern Doug McPherson Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Reclamation 75 Hawthorne Street, WTR-3 27708 Jefferson Ave.,
    [Show full text]
  • 5.4 Biological Resources
    5.4 Biological Resources The biological resources analysis was based on a biological survey and memorandum prepared for the subject site by Phil Brylski, Ph.D on May 9, 2011 and is provided in Appendix C. 5.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Local Setting Relationship to the Orange County NCCP/HCP The Natural Community Conservation Act (the Act), codified in Fish and Game Code Sections 2800-2840 and signed into law on October 1991, authorizes the preparation of Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plans (NCCP/HCPs). The Act is a State of California effort to protect critical vegetative communities and their dependent wildlife species. Under this program, the County of Orange, other participating agencies and special districts, and participating landowners, worked with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to prepare a coastal sage scrub NCCP/HCP called the Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. The NCCP/HCP was reviewed and approved by the CDFG and USFWS in 1996. It addressed protection and management of coastal sage scrub habitat and coastal sage scrub-obligate species, and other covered habitats and species, and mitigated anticipated impacts to those habitats and species, on a programmatic, subregional level, rather than on a project-by-project, single species basis. The NCCP/HCP identified development areas where impacts to species and habitats receiving regulatory coverage under the NCCP/HCP would be authorized. The HCCP/HCP was analyzed in a joint EIR/EIS prepared under the auspices of the County of Orange and the USFWS as lead agencies, while the CDFG and the City of San Juan Capistrano were responsible agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan
    PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan July 2019 Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Multi-UseTrail PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan APPROVED September 2019 Orange County Board of Supervisors Andrew Do Michelle Steel Donald P. Wagner First District Second District Third District Doug Chaffee Lisa A. Bartlett Fourth District Fifth District County of Orange OC Community Resources Dylan Wright Director OC Parks Stacy Blackwood Director Scott Thomas Tuan Richardson Planning & Design Project Manager Manager Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan July 2019 Prepared for OC Parks Headquarters Irvine Ranch Historic Park 13042 Old Myford Road Irvine, CA 92602 www.ocparks.com Prepared by Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Multi-Use Trail Acknowledgments OC Parks Commission David Hanson Joe Muller John Koos Duy Nguyen Warren Kusumoto Michael Posey Justin McCusker Project Team OC Parks Stacy Blackwood, Director Environmental Review and CEQA Documentation Bill Reiter, Park District Manager Chambers Group, Inc. Scott Thomas, Manager, Planning and Design Lisa Louie, Senior Project Manager / Biologist Tuan Richardson, Project Manager, Planning and Design Meghan Gibson, Senior Environmental Planner / Katrina Chase, Project Assistant, Planning and Design Project Manager Steve Jax, Senior Park Ranger Eunice Bagwan, Assistant Environmental Planner Jim Simkins, Supervising Park Ranger Greg Tonkovich, Air and Noise Analyst Jacky Cordero, Operations
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Property Survey Report
    State of California Transportation Agency Department of Transportation HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT 1. UNDERTAKING DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION District County Route Post Mile(s) EA E-FIS Project Number 12 ORA 133 8.5/M9.3 0N8900 1214000130 The studies for this undertaking were carried out in a manner consistent with Caltrans’ regulatory responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800) and pursuant to the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106 PA), as well as under Public Resources Code 5024 and pursuant to the January 2015 Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Department of Transportation and the California State Historic Preservation Office Regarding Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5024 and Governor’s Executive Order W-26-92 (5024 MOU) as applicable. Project Description: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes this project along the southbound stretch of State Route 133 (SR-133; Laguna Canyon Freeway) to add a lane from the southbound Interstate 5 (I-5) connector (Post Mile [PM] M9.3) to the northbound Interstate 405 (I-405) connector (PM 8.5). Project PM M9.3 is rounded up from the actual PM for project work (M9.23); as such, the bridge at Irvine Center Drive at PM M9.23 is not within the project limits. The proposed auxiliary lane will be the second lane on the northbound I-405 connector.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Commission Staff Report and Recommendation Regarding
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 W13a Filed: 04/16/14 49th Day: N/A Staff: M. Alvarado-LB Staff Report: 07/28/17 Hearing Date: 08/09/17 STAFF REPORT: APPEAL - DE NOVO Appeal Number: A-5-LGB-14-0019 Applicant: Louis Longi Local Government: City of Laguna Beach Local Decision: Approval with Conditions Appellants: Devora Hertz, Jackie Gallagher, Audrey Prosser, Clean Water Now (Roger Butow) Project Location: 20412 & 20432 Laguna Canyon Road, City of Laguna Beach, Orange County APNs 629-051-23 and 629-051-02 Project Description: Demolition of single-family residence and artist’s studio; construction of a 36-ft. high (31 ft. above base flood elevation), 28-unit artists’ work/live project with approximately 17,192 sq. ft. of interior work/live area, 10,262 sq. ft. of exterior communal work area, a 504 sq. ft. retail art gallery, and a 45-stall parking garage; and a lot merger to combine the two lots into one. Eight units are reserved for low- income artists, and one unit is reserved for moderate-income artists (for 55 years). Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions _________ SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Procedural Note: Subsequent to finding substantial issue, the Commission approved at a de-novo hearing a 30-unit Artist’s Live/Work project with ten (10) special conditions at the January 8, 2015 meeting. On March 16, 2015, Friends of the Canyon, an unincorporated association, sued the Coastal Commission on grounds of failure of several commissioners to properly disclose ex-parte communications, and the lack of substantial evidence to support the Commission’s findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Opening Irvine Lake a Win-Win for Taxpayers and Outdoor Enthusiasts
    Re-Opening Irvine Lake A Win-Win for Taxpayers and Outdoor Enthusiasts GRAND JURY 2018-2019 Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 3 REASON FOR THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 3 METHOD OF STUDY ................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND AND FACTS ................................................................................................... 5 Background History……………………………………………………………………….5 History of Water Recreation………………………………………..……………….…….5 Involvement of Orange County Parks Department (OC Parks)………………………..…6 Memorandum of Understanding - 2003………………………………………..…………7 Conditions Needed to Satisfy Irvine Company's IOD Transfer………..…………………8 Current Ownership and Control…………………………… ………….....……………...10 The Impact of Water Levels at Irvine Lake……………………………….……..……...10 Lack of Formal Planning for Irvine Lake………………………….…………………….12 Parameters of Negotiation………………………………………….…………………….13 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 18 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 19 RESPONSES………………………………………………………………………………..…..21 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………… ………23 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………….……………..…25
    [Show full text]