DOCSLIB.ORG

Southwest LRT Technical Memorandum No. 9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southwest LRT Technical Memorandum No. 9 Southwest LRT Technical Memorandum No. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DRAFT PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLY September 9, 2009 Southwest Transitway Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 1 2.1 SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................ 2 2.1.1 Segment 1 ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Segment 3 ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Segment 4 ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.4 Segment A ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.5 Segments 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) and 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) .................................... 4 3.0 RESOURCE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 5 3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Context ............................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 8 3.1.4 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 13 3.1.5 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 17 3.1.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 17 3.2 NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 17 3.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context ............................................................................. 18 3.2.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 18 3.2.3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 19 3.2.4 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 22 3.2.5 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 22 3.2.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 23 3.3 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 23 3.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context ............................................................................. 23 3.3.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 27 3.3.3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 29 3.3.4 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 33 3.3.5 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 35 3.3.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 35 3.4 CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................. 36 3.4.1 Preliminary Site Identification .............................................................................. 37 3.4.2 Impact Assessment Methodology........................................................................ 37 3.4.3 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 39 3.4.4 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 39 i Technical Memorandum 9 September 2009 Southwest Transitway 3.4.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 41 3.5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 42 3.5.1 Background Information and Regulatory Requirements ...................................... 42 3.5.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 44 3.5.3 Properties Protected by Section 4(f).................................................................... 45 3.5.4 Summary by Alternative ...................................................................................... 49 3.5.5 Avoidance Alternatives ........................................................................................ 49 3.5.6 Measures to Minimize Harm ................................................................................ 50 3.5.7 Coordination ........................................................................................................ 50 3.6 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 50 3.6.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 51 3.6.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 53 3.6.3 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 54 3.6.4 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 54 3.6.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 58 3.7 NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 58 3.7.1 Human Perception Levels ................................................................................... 58 3.7.2 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................... 60 3.7.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 60 3.7.4 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 61 3.7.5 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 62 3.7.6 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 62 3.7.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 62 3.8 VIBRATION ..................................................................................................................... 62 3.8.1 Human Perception Levels ................................................................................... 62 3.8.2 Vibration Criteria .................................................................................................. 64 3.8.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 66 3.8.4 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 67 3.8.5 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................... 67 3.8.6 Short-Term Construction Effects ......................................................................... 68 3.8.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 68 4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX ..................................................................................... 69 ii September 2009 Technical Memorandum 9 Southwest Transitway List of Tables Table 1. Segments Associated with Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Existing Historic Property within the Recommended APE of Segment A ....................................... 9 Table 3: Existing Historic Property within the Recommended APE of Segments C-1 and C-2 ................. 10 Table 4: Previously Known Archaeological Property within the Recommended APE of Segment 3 ........ 12 Table 5: Existing Historic Property within the Recommended APE of Segment 4 ..................................... 13 Table 6. Known Historic Properties by Alternative ...................................................................................... 13 Table 7. State or Federally Listed Species or Native Plant Communities within 1 Mile of Alignment 1A ................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 8. State or Federally Listed Species or Native Plant Communities within 1 Mile of Alignment 3A ................................................................................................................................. 21 Table 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Refining Methods for Estimating the Effect of Bicycle Infrastructure on Use and Property Values
    GUIDELINES FOR BENEFIT- COST ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE FACILITIES: REFINING METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE EFFECT OF BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE ON USE AND PROPERTY VALUES Project 06-07 June 2007 Midwest Regional University Transportation Center College of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin, Madison Prepared by: Gavin Poindexter, with the assistance of Kevin J. Krizek, Gary Barnes, and Kristen Thompson; Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Principal Investigator: Kevin J. Krizek; Associate Professor, Urban and Regional Planning and Civil Engineering, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. MRUTC 06-07 CFDA 20.701 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2007 Optimization of Transportation Investment: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Refining methods for estimating the effect of bicycle infrastructure on use and property values 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author/s Gavin Poindexter, Kevin J. Krizek, Gary Barnes, Kristen Thompson 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Midwest Regional University Transportation Center University of Wisconsin-Madison 11. Contract or Grant No. 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 997B570 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report [7/1/05 – 6/30/07] Research and Innovative Technology Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Project completed for the Midwest Regional University Transportation Center. 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Parks and Trails Operations and Maintenance Reimbursement
    Regional Parks and Trails Operations and Maintenance Reimbursement Washington County supports the state meeting its commitment to Support reimburse 40% of the Metropolitan Regional Parks system’s operations and Park agencies that make-up the maintenance costs. Metropolitan Regional Parks system. Issue At-A-Glance • It requires an investment of more than $114 million each year from the Previous Consideration agencies to operate and maintain the regional parks system. In past sessions, the park • The state provides reimbursement to the 10 implementation agencies implementation agencies have for the costs of operating and maintaining the Metropolitan Regional requested the state provide 40% Parks system. appropriation for regional parks • Minnesota Statute (473.351) authorizes “no less than” 40% of the operations and maintenance costs to be appropriated from state funding for the operation and reimbursement. maintenance of the Metropolitan Regional Parks system. • The average annual state funding since 1986 has been 9%. No Action Activities St. Minard FAWN LAKE DR NE DALE DR N Fish ILL N W AMBASSADOR BLVD NW Bethel AVE NE If state funding is not increased, far H Francis 237TH AVE NW 237TH Sugar Hills Regional E Trail N S Martin NIGHTINGALE NW ST E U 229TH AVE NW 229TH AVE NE R N G D A D K R E R E Linwood B N E U E S T S R I H S Twp. R C T R N E RD N O K N D LA W U IS Lake George P R 221ST AVE NE A R S N O Y W N R T Regional Park U D less than the statutorily required W East 215 Martin-Island- N TH LN D N V SIMS RD NW SIMS RD NE NedsBethel
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee Connecting
    connecting people to jobs, housing, shopping, and fun Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:30 - 3:00 pm St. Louis Park City Hall Meeting Attendees Steering Committee Members & Alternates Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Member Jan Callison, Hennepin County Member Anne Mavity, City of St. Louis Park Member Terry Schneider, City of Minnetonka Alternate Molly Cummings, City of Hopkins Member Dick Miller, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Member Jeff Casale, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Alternate Nancy Tyra-Lukens, SouthWest Transit Member Jim Hovland, City of Edina Member Jennifer Munt, Metropolitan Council Member Caren Dewar, Urban Land Institute (ULI) – Minnesota Member Don Samuels, City of Minneapolis Member Anita Tabb, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Member Bob Fine, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Alternate Other Attendees Katie Walker (Hennepin County), Adele Hall (Hennepin County), Lisa Middag (Hennepin County), Carol Lezotte Anderson (Hennepin County), Patrick Connoy (Hennepin County), Kerri Pearce Ruch (Hennepin County), Kevin Locke (City of St. Louis Park), Tom Harmening (City of St. Louis Park), Paul Mogush (City of Minneapolis), Julie Wischnack (City of Minnetonka), James Wisker (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), Jack Sullivan (City of St. Louis Park), Jackie Cherryhomes (Royalston Businesses), Kersten Elverum (City of Hopkins), Larry Blacksted (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), Mike Hayman (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), Chris Weyer (Metro Transit), Janet Jeremiah (City of Eden Prairie), Mark Ruff (Ehlers, Inc.), Kathie Doty (KLD Consulting), Cathy Bennett (ULI-MN), Karen Lyons (Metropolitan Council), Tim Johnson (Pro Source Technologies) I. Welcome & Introductions Chair Gail Dorfman (Hennepin County Member) opened the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing and Future Conditions
    Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 1 Purpose and Need Prepared for: Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Prepared by: PB Americas, Inc. (PB) January 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Southwest Transitway Planning Context..................................................................5 3. Demographics ..........................................................................................................7 4. Impact on the Transportation System ....................................................................10 6. Southwest Transitway Goals and Objectives.........................................................30 7. Supporting Documentation.....................................................................................33 Appendix .........................................................................................................................34 Transit Dependency in Southwest Transitway Communities .................................34 Land Use................................................................................................................35 Study Area Roadway Network ...............................................................................36 Study Area Transit Service ....................................................................................36 Metro Transit ..........................................................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Registry of Public Recreational Trail Mileages As of July 1, 1996
    96056 Minnesota Registry of Public Recreational Trail Mileages as of July 1, 1996 (pursuant to Minnesota Statute 85.017) This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Trails & Waterways Unit, Recreation Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 52, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4052 l....._ ________________ Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 85.017 To: Distribution List Date: November 20, 1996 From: Dan Collins, Supervisor Phone: (612) 296-6048 Recreation Services Trail Recreation Section Trails and Waterways Unit DNR Building - 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-4052 Subject: 1996 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Registry of Public Recreational Trail Mileage Enclosed you will find the latest edition of the Minnesota Registry ofPublic Recreational Trail Mileage, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 85.017. This is the only comprehensive listing of the state's 20,000 miles of public off-road trails. Although the Registry includes bicycle, cross-country ski, hike, horse, all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile trails, only the all-terrain vehicle, cross-country ski and snowmobile trails are systematically updated annually. It reflects, in part, the July 1, 1996 information contained within the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) recreational facility computer files. These files contain a great variety of information on trails shown in this Registry. The current report format does not have room to include all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trail information within the regular report.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Park Report, Mississippi National
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior State of the Park Report Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Minnesota April 2013 National Park Service. 2013. State of the Park Report for Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. State of the Park Series No. 4. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. On the cover: Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Photo by: Brian Peterson, Minneapolis StarTribune Disclaimer. This State of the Park report summarizes the current condition of park resources, visitor experience, and park infrastructure as assessed by a combination of available factual information and the expert opinion and professional judgment of park staff and subject matter experts. The internet version of this report provides the associated workshop summary report and additional details and sources of information about the findings summarized in the report, including references, accounts on the origin and quality of the data, and the methods and analytic approaches used in data collection and assessments of condition. This report provides evaluations of status and trends based on interpretation by NPS scientists and managers of both quantitative and non- quantitative assessments and observations. Future condition ratings may differ from findings in this report as new data and knowledge become available. The park superintendent approved the publication of this report. Executive Summary The river itself has no beginning or end. In its beginning, it is not yet the river; at the end it is no longer the river. What we call the headwaters is only a selection from among the innumerable sources which flow together to compose it. At what point in its course does the Mississippi become what the Mississippi means? (T.
    [Show full text]
  • SWLRT Final EIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered
    SOUTHWEST LRT (METRO GREEN LINE EXTENSION) 2 Alternatives Considered This chapter describes the alternatives evaluated in the Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Southwest LRT (METRO Green Line Extension) is approximately 14.5-miles of new double-track proposed as an extension of the METRO Green Line (Central Corridor LRT), which will operate from downtown Minneapolis through the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing in close proximity to Edina (see Exhibit 2.1-1). The No Build Alternative includes all transportation projects included in the financially constrained Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), except for the Southwest LRT Project (the Project). EXHIBIT 2.1-1 Proposed Southwest LRT Alignment This chapter includes the following sections: 2.1 Definition of Alternatives 2.2 Alternatives Previously Considered 2.3 Capital Cost Estimates 2.4 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates This chapter first defines the alternatives that are evaluated within this Final EIS, focusing on the alternatives’ proposed capital improvements and transit operating plans. This definition of alternatives (including Appendix E) forms the basis of the environmental and related analyses included in the remaining chapters of this Final EIS. Second, this chapter describes the steps that were used to identify the alternatives evaluated within this Final EIS, ranging from the Project’s initial Alternatives Analysis, through selection of Alternatives Considered 2-1 May 2016 SOUTHWEST LRT (METRO GREEN LINE EXTENSION) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT the Locally Preferred Alternative, Scoping, and publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, concluding with design adjustments made by the Council in July 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to Supplemental Draft EIS Comments
    Attachment 3: Master Responses to Comments Received on the Supplemental Draft EIS OUTHWEST LRT (METRO GREEN LINE EXTENSION) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Master Responses to Comments Received on the Supplemental Draft EIS MR Topic Master Response Original Comment IDa Number 1 Invalid NEPA/MEPA The Southwest Transitway Scoping Process did not initially include the analysis of freight rail 1, 42, 47, 66, 74, Scoping Process changes (either relocation of freight rail to the MN&S Spur or co-location of freight rail and light rail 83, 112, 131, 133, because original in the Kenilworth Corridor), because at that time potential freight rail modifications were not 205 scoping report did not considered part of the Project. Prior to 2011, freight rail relocation out of the Kenilworth Corridor include freight rail co- was the subject of separate action being undertaken by Hennepin County and MnDOT. location The Project’s Scoping Process began with a notice published on August 23, 2008, and publication of a notice of intent in the EQB Monitor on September 8, 2008, and the Federal Register in September 23, 2008. The Scoping comment period ended on November 7, 2008. The Project conducted three formal public hearings and one agency meeting where written comments were received and where verbal comments were recorded. A Scoping Booklet was published that explained the EIS process (including the Scoping Process, how to comment, which agencies were involved, and how to stay involved after the Scoping Process). Exhibits at the scoping meetings explained the Scoping Process in more detail, the alternatives that were under consideration, and the upcoming EIS process.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary The Southwest Rail Transit Study was a joint effort of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. The purpose of the Study was to determine if rail transit is a feasible part of the overall transportation solution for the southwestern metro area. In July 2003, the Study concluded with a recommendation to continue further study of a Southwest light rail transitway (LRT). THE PROBLEM FACING THE REGION GROWTH According to the US Census, the Twin Cities region added 430,000 new residents and 290,000 new jobs between 1990 and 2000, which equates to a 17% increase in population and a 23% increase in jobs. During this same period, study area cities added 34,000 new residents and 37,000 new jobs. By 2030, this region will add 635,000 people, 320,000 households and 312,000 jobs. Study area cities will add 63,000 residents and 79,000 jobs and will then account for 17% of all residents and 25% of all regional employment. CONGESTION At the same time that the region is growing, congestion is projected to worsen at a faster rate than in the past due to increases in the amount of travel per person. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is expected to increase faster (+38%) than population growth (+28%) over the next 25 years. The Texas Transportation Institute found that the Twin Cities region area is tied with Atlanta in the growth of congestion. Currently, 65% of freeway travel in the Twin Cities region occurs under congested conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Rail Transit Study
    Southwest Rail Transit Study Final Report Conducted for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority in cooperation with the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. October 2003 Southwest Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner (Chairperson) Mary Tambornino, Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Johnson, City of Minneapolis Jim Brimeyer St. Louis Park City Council Susan Sanger, St. Louis Park City Council (alternate) Bruce Rowan, Hopkins City Council Diane Johnson, Hopkins City Council (alternate) Janis Callison, Minnetonka City Council LuAnn Toliver, Minnetonka City Council (alternate) Bruce Moyer, City of Eden Prairie Lynn Hempe, City of Eden Prairie (alternate) Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Southwest Metro Transit (Mayor of Eden Prairie) Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council Michael Setzer, Metro Transit General Manager Arlene McCarthy, Metro Transit (alternate) George Watson, Three Rivers Park District Commissioner Daniel Duffy, Twin West Chamber of Commerce Jim Benshoof, Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Southwest Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Katie Walker, Hennepin County (Study Manager) Derek Crider, Hennepin County Warren Porter, Hennepin County Don Pflaum, City of Minneapolis Jon Wertjes, City of Minneapolis Judie Erickson, City of St. Louis Park Steve Stahmer, City of Hopkins Ron Rankin, City of Minnetonka Elise Souders, City of Minnetonka Randy Newton, City of Eden Prairie Len Simich, Southwest Metro Transit John Kragness, Southwest Metro Transit Randy Rosvold, Metropolitan Council Jason Podany, Metro Transit Steve Mahowald, Metro Transit Aaron Isaacs, Metro Transit Boe Carlson, Three Rivers Park District Mark Nordling, Twin City Western Railroad Dan Rickel, Twin City Western Railroad Consultants URS RichardsonRichter & Associates Manual Padron 1. INTRODUCTION The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA), in partnership with the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Hennepin County Explores Train Museum Concept on the Greenway
    Volume 2, Issue Three December 2002 Laying the tracks Hennepin County explores Train Museum concept on the Greenway The Train Museum n its former life, the would reconnect the Midtown Greenway was a Sears site to the Ibustling railroad corridor Greenway and its that connected south railroad history, creating Minneapolis to regional com- a renewed relationship merce. For a hundred years, between neighborhood the trains were the main mode residents, trains, and for commercial transporta- regional commerce. tion. Conflict between the trains and neighboring resi- dents led to the excavation of the railroad trench in the early 20th century, but the trains continued to serve commercial and industrial shipping cus- Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd.’s rendering of the proposed tomers for decades thereafter. Hennepin County Train Museum. One of the largest commercial the County recently commis- borhoods along the shippers in the corridor was sioned a feasibility study from Greenway.” says McLaughlin. Sears Roebuck. Kodet Architectural Group on “And a future Metro Transit Sears closed its Chicago the idea. As Hennepin County hub at Chicago and Lake will and Lake location in Commissioner Peter be just steps away from the December 1994, and as local McLaughlin points out, the proposed train museum site.” officials work to redevelop the location stands at the junction McLaughlin also believes that INSIDE giant complex, reconnecting of past and future transporta- a train museum could serve the site to the Greenway and Inebretsen’s Scandinavian tion use, which helped to other important purposes. Food & Gifts its railroad history has sur- inspire the idea of building a “The museum would create a Page 2 faced as a means of creating a train museum there.
    [Show full text]
  • Region Needs More Affordable Housing
    By defi nition, an annual report takes stock of an organization’s activities over the previous year. This year’s annual report is a little different. It not only summarizes the Metropolitan Council’s accomplishments in 2006, but also refl ects on the progress that has been made since the Council was created four decades ago. Over the last year, the Council: From the Chair • Worked closely with metro area communities as they prepared to update their local comprehensive plans, providing new tools and training to assist in that important work. Peter Bell • Made signifi cant strides in growing our transit system and easing traffic congestion, achieving the highest Metro Transit ridership in 22 years. • Prepared to begin construction of the region’s second rail transit line in the Northstar Corridor, and received approval from the Federal Transit Administration to begin preliminary engineering for light rail transit in the Central Corridor. • Launched a “Go Greener” initiative at Metro Transit that includes the purchase of 150 new hybrid electric buses, as well as the use of clean, renewable fuels for our diesel buses. • Completed the first phase of work on a master plan for the development, protection and efficient use of our region’s drinking water supply. • Held our property tax levy fl at for the fourth consecutive year and moved into a newly renovated offi ce building that will save the taxpayers $14 million over the life of the building. Many of these accomplishments are discussed in greater detail in the pages that follow. As we prepare to observe our 40th anniversary, this report also touches on some of the problems that led to the Council’s creation and the progress that has been made in the last four decades.
    [Show full text]