DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Assessment for Desert Stateline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Assessment for Desert Stateline REGIONAL ASSESSMENT STATELINE SOLAR FARM PROJECT BLM CASE FILE NUMBER CACA-48669 Prepared for: Prepared by: Desert Stateline, LLC NatureServe 525 Market Street 4600 North Fairfax Drive 15th Floor 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Date: 27 July 2012 Cover photo credit: Geoffrey Hammerson NatureServe Project Team Mary Harkness Patrick Crist Conservation Planner/Project Manager Director, Conservation Planning and Ecosystem Management Ian Varley Jacquie Bow Conservation Planner GIS Analyst Jon Hak Geoffrey Hammerson Ecologist/Senior GIS Analyst Research Zoologist Suzanne Young Conservation Biologist and Data Analyst Suggested citation: NatureServe. 2012. Regional assessment: Stateline solar farm project. Technical report prepared for Desert Stateline, LLC. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Regional Assessment: Stateline Solar Farm Project Page 2 of 94 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose and overview of assessment ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Assessment approach ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Assessment areas and context ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Ivanpah Valley Watershed .................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1.1 Land management and uses ........................................................................................... 13 1.3.2 Desert tortoise subpopulation cluster geography .............................................................. 16 1.3.3 Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion .................................................................................... 18 2 Desert Tortoise: Overview and Demographic Summary .................................................................... 20 2.1 Desert tortoise taxonomy and status ......................................................................................... 20 2.2 Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ 21 2.3 Threats ........................................................................................................................................ 22 2.4 Genetic population structure ...................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Range-wide population trends ................................................................................................... 23 2.6 Ivanpah Valley Watershed population........................................................................................ 24 2.6.1 Density estimates ................................................................................................................ 24 2.6.2 Other demographic estimates ............................................................................................ 28 3 Ecological Health Assessment ............................................................................................................. 31 3.1 Cumulative impacts assessment approach ................................................................................. 31 3.1.1 Landscape condition-based approach ................................................................................ 31 3.1.2 Categorical response approach........................................................................................... 32 3.2 Data and information inputs ....................................................................................................... 33 3.2.1 Data ..................................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Landscape condition index .................................................................................................. 33 3.2.3 Scenarios of current and future conditions ........................................................................ 39 3.2.4 Estimating ecological integrity ............................................................................................ 40 3.2.4.1 Estimating landscape condition of tortoise habitat ........................................................ 40 3.3 Current and projected status of tortoise habitat and other habitats ......................................... 41 3.3.1 Condition of tortoise habitat .............................................................................................. 41 3.3.1.1 Current tortoise habitat condition .................................................................................. 43 3.3.1.2 Tortoise habitat condition with projected infrastructure............................................... 43 3.3.1.3 Interpreting condition results ......................................................................................... 49 3.3.2 Compatibility of ecological systems .................................................................................... 51 4 Desert Tortoise Habitat Connectivity Assessment.............................................................................. 52 4.1 General approach........................................................................................................................ 52 4.1.1 Modeling scales: spatial and temporal ............................................................................... 52 4.1.2 Modeling tool and data inputs ............................................................................................ 52 4.2 Landscape-scale connectivity modeling ..................................................................................... 53 4.2.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................. 53 4.2.2 Data sources, model inputs and methods .......................................................................... 54 4.2.2.1 Tortoise habitat ............................................................................................................... 54 4.2.2.2 Conductance surfaces ..................................................................................................... 56 4.2.3 Circuitscape set-up and outputs ......................................................................................... 56 4.2.4 Results and discussion ........................................................................................................ 57 4.2.4.1 Current conditions: potential tortoise habitat connections ........................................... 58 4.2.4.1.1 Potential areas of viable connection ........................................................................ 58 4.2.4.1.2 Areas of questionable connection ............................................................................ 59 4.2.4.1.3 Areas of connection identified by the model that are unlikely to be viable tortoise habitat connections .................................................................................................................... 59 4.2.4.2 Stateline Alternatives B and D and other infrastructure: potential tortoise habitat connections ..................................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.4.2.1 Potential areas of viable connection ........................................................................ 60 4.2.4.2.2 Areas of questionable connection ............................................................................ 60 4.2.4.2.3 Areas of connection identified by the model that are unlikely to be viable tortoise habitat connections .................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.4.2.4 Impacts of Stateline alternatives on landscape-scale connectivity .......................... 61 4.2.4.3 LSTS and connectivity ...................................................................................................... 65 4.2.4.4 Interpreting the landscape-scale connectivity results: considerations, recommendations, and limitations ................................................................................................. 68 4.3 Local connectivity modeling ....................................................................................................... 69 4.3.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................. 69 4.3.2 Data sources, model inputs and methods .......................................................................... 69 4.3.2.1 Habitat patches and points ............................................................................................. 70 4.3.2.2 Conductance surfaces ..................................................................................................... 70 4.3.2.3 Short circuit layer ............................................................................................................ 70 Regional Assessment: Stateline Solar Farm Project Page 4 of 94 4.3.3 Circuitscape set-up and outputs ......................................................................................... 70 4.3.4 Areas of connectivity..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recruitment of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus Agassizii and G
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(2):583–591. Submitted: 29 September 2014; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Published: 31 August 2015. RECRUITMENT OF DESERT TORTOISES (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII AND G. MORAFKAI): A SYNTHESIS OF REPRODUCTION AND FIRST-YEAR SURVIVAL STEVEN P. CAMPBELL1,2,3, ROBERT J. STEIDL1, AND ERIN R. ZYLSTRA1 1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, Albany, New York 12205, USA 3Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Recruitment is integral to population persistence, therefore characterizing this process is essential for evaluating recovery actions for species in decline. We gathered all data available and used Bayesian analyses to quantify annual recruitment of Mojave Desert (Gopherus agassizii) and Sonoran Desert (G. morafkai) tortoises as the product of four components: proportion of females that reproduced, number of eggs produced per reproducing female, hatching success, and hatchling survival. For Mojave Desert Tortoises, the estimated proportion of females that reproduced (0.81 [95% Credible Interval: 0.52–0.99]) and number of eggs produced per year (6.90 [5.51–8.16]) were higher than for Sonoran Desert Tortoises (0.52 [0.07–0.94] and 5.17 [3.05–7.60], respectively). For Mojave Desert Tortoises, hatching success averaged 0.61 (0.25–0.90). Data on hatching success for Sonoran Desert Tortoises and hatchling survival for both species were sparse, therefore we represented these components with a range of plausible values. When we combined components, average recruitment for Mojave Desert Tortoises ranged from 0.51 females/female/y assuming that hatchling survival was 0.30 to 1.18 females/female/y with hatchling survival assumed to be 0.70.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Record Year for Energy Mergers and Acquisitions
    February 15, 2016 TO: CLIENTS AND OTHER FRIENDS OF THE FIRM 2015 – Another Record Year for Energy Mergers and Acquisitions Each year around this time we take the opportunity to review the transactions and other significant industry developments over the past year and offer our views on what they may mean for the coming year. Mergers and acquisitions activity in the energy industry during 2015 was, to Contributors: say the least, robust. The low interest rate environment and favorable James H. Barkley economic conditions that contributed to record deal volume in 2014 persisted Brooksany Barrowes into 2015. With the tailwind of economic conditions and interest rates, total Emil Barth transaction volume exceeded the all-time high watermark of $184 billion established in 2014 by almost $20 billion.1 By the end of 2015, approximately Megan Berge $202 billion of transactions had been announced. 2016 also is off to a fast start William M. Bumpers with roughly $20 billion of transactions announced in the first 6 weeks of the Michael Didriksen year. Jessica Fore More than half the 2015 activity involved pipelines, midstream companies and Jerrod Harrison MLPs. In that sector, deal volume maintained its robust activity, increasing Hillary H. Holmes slightly in 2015 to $133.3 billion as compared to 130.8 billion for 2014. Transactions among regulated electric utilities notched a similarly modest William S. Lamb increase, from roughly $30 billion in 2014 to almost $34 billion in 2015. Luckey McDowell Among LDCs, volume shot up from $3.4 billion to over $18 billion, driven by Steven R. Miles transactions involving AGL Resources and Piedmont Natural Gas Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley
    - _ . - . - - . .. -_. - .. - - - * . March 19, 1996 NOTE T0: X. Stablein J. Austin ; C. Paperiello M. Bell ' J. Greeves J. Holonich M. Federline B. Reamer M. Weber C. Cameron P. Lohaus J. Kennedy P. Sobel FROM: Nelson,[[[ SUBJECT: DOE STAFF POSITION ON DOI REQUEST FOR LLNL TRITIUM TESTS AT WARD ! VALLEY ! The attached staff position paper was provided to us by Terry Plummer, ! DOE, last week and is forwarded FYI. ; Attachment: As stated | | l, i l ! ! 1 ! t l' 970 g;g,60pe, - 1 - , - - . - - - - - - 4 , ' . I 1 * , . i. > !. 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REQUEST FOR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORA'IORY i 70 i PERFORM TRTITUM TF.STS AT WARD VALLEY, CALIFORNIA | f FACTS / BACKGROUND , i - On February 23,1996, John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Depiu unent of the Interior, requested the participation of the De,partment of Energy in contracting with the Lawrence i Livermore National Laboratory to perform tntium tests at the State licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Ward Valley, Califomia. * On Demhn 15,1995, Secretary O' leary denied a similar request dated June 8,1995, : from Senator Boxer, (D-CA). 'Ihe Secretary stated that,"We believe the State of California, in its ! licensing role as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should determine how to implement the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. If the State Mermines that further testing is needed based on analytical services unique to the Departmw of Energy, we will consider such a request." l ! + In response to an earlier request of Senator Boxer, Secretary Babbitt asked the National ! Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine several key safety related issues of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Rice Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-4 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 189,000 acres (295 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Rice Valley in northeast Riverside and southeast San Bernardino Counties. Elevation of the valley floor ranges from about 675 feet above sea level near the center of the valley to about 1,000 feet along the outer margins. The basin is bounded by nonwater- bearing rocks of the Turtle Mountains on the north, the Little Maria and Big Maria Mountains on the south, the Arica Mountains on the west, and by the West Riverside and Riverside Mountains on the east. Low-lying alluvial drainage divides form a portion of the basin boundaries on the northwest and northeast, and the Colorado River bounds a portion of the basin on the east. Maximum elevations of the surrounding mountains range to about 2,000 feet in the Arica Mountains, about 3,000 feet in the Big Maria Mountains, and 5,866 feet at Horn Peak in the Turtle Mountains (Bishop 1963; Jennings 1967; USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Annual average precipitation ranges from about 3 to 5 inches. Surface runoff from the mountains drains towards the center of the valley, except in the eastern part of the valley, where Big Wash drains to the Colorado River (USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Alluvium is the water-bearing material that forms the basin and includes unconsolidated Holocene age deposits and underlying unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Pleistocene deposits (DWR 1954, 1963).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 20, Number 3, 1989 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BENDIRE'S THRASHER IN CALIFORNIA A. SIDNEY ENGLAND, Departmentof Wildlifeand FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis. California 95616 WILLIAM E LAUDENSLAYER,JR., U.S. D. A. ForestService, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,2081 E. SierraAvenue, Fresno, California 93710 The ecology and distribution of Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostorna bendirei)have been little studiedand are poorlyunderstood. Garrett and Dunn (1981:280) classifiedthe speciesas a "fairlycommon but very local summer resident on the Mojave Desert" in southern California. Californiabreeding populations are known primarily from the eastern Mojave Desert and scattered locations in and around Joshua Tree NationalMonument in the southernMojave Desert (Johnson et al. 1948, Miller and Stebbins1964, Garrett and Dunn 1981), areas frequently visitedby bird watchersand naturalists. However, recordsfrom other parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts suggest that breeding populationsof Bendire'sThrasher may be more widely distributedthan currentlyrecognized. Also, the preferredbreeding habitat in Californiais relativelywidespread. This habitatis typicallydescribed as Mojavedesert scrubwith either JoshuaTrees (Yucca brevifolia), SpanishBayonet (Y. baccata), Mojave Yucca (Y. schidigera), cholla cactus (Opuntia acanthocarpa,O. echinocarpa,or O. rarnosissirna),or other succulents (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Bent 1948, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Remsen(1978) consideredthe total Californiabreeding population of Bendire'sThrasher to be under 200 pairs, and the specieshas been placedon the list of Bird Speciesof SpecialConcern by the California Departmentof Fishand Game (Remsen1978). It was placedon this list becausepopulations are smalland locallydistributed and believedto be threatenedby off-roadvehicle use, overgrazing,and harvestingof Joshua Treesand other speciesof yucca. In this paper, we report the resultsof a 2-year studyof the breeding- season distributionand movement patterns of Bendire's Thrasher in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Boom in Renewables
    Volume 4 • Issue 2 Project Finance Boom in renewables Phillip Fletcher and Aled Davies lead the global interview panel The Americas • Asia-Pacific • Europe • Africa • Middle East Activity levels • Keynote deals • Industry sectors • PPP • 2017 outlook © Law Business Research 2017 Publisher: Gideon Roberton Senior business development manager: Adam Sargent [email protected] Business Development Manager: Dan Brennan [email protected] Readership Development Manager: Rosie Oliver [email protected] Product marketing manager: Kieran Hansen [email protected] Welcome to GTDT: Market Intelligence. Head of production: Adam Myers This is the third annual issue focusing on global project finance markets. Editorial coordinator: Iain Wilson Subeditor: Anna Andreoli Getting the Deal Through invites leading practitioners to reflect on evolving legal and Designer/Production editor: Robbie Kelly regulatory landscapes. Through engaging and analytical interviews, featuring a uniform set of questions to aid in jurisdictional comparison, Market Intelligence offers readers a Cover: iStock.com/chinaface highly accessible take on the crucial issues of the day and an opportunity to discover more about the people behind the most interesting cases and deals. No photocopying. CLA and other agency licensing systems do not apply. For an Market Intelligence is available in print and online at authorised copy contact Adam Sargent, www.gettingthedealthrough.com/intelligence tel: +44 20 3780 4104 This publication is intended to provide Getting the Deal Through general information on law and policy. The London information and opinions which it contains April 2017 are not intended to provide legal advice, and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning particular situations (where appropriate, from local advisers).
    [Show full text]
  • Basin and Range Watch Defending the Desert
    Action Alert View this email in your browser Basin and Range Watch Defending the Desert Contact: Kevin Emmerich 775-553-2806 [email protected] Oppose the Palen Solar Project! Ask for the No Action Alternative Copy letter at the end of this newsletter and send to BLM November wildflowers blooming on the proposed site of the Palen Solar Project The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Riverside County, CA are seeking comments by December 11th, 2017 on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Review for the proposed Palen Solar Project - a 4,200 acre (6.5 square mile) photovoltaic solar project. Map of proposed Palen Solar Project EDF Renewable Energy has applied for a Right-of-Way (ROW) from the BLM to construct a 500 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic facility and 6.7-mile single circuit 230 kilovolt generation interconnection (gen-tie) transmission line on public lands near Desert Center, Riverside County, California. The project site has a long history of attempts to develop large scale solar energy in its boundaries. It started out in 2009 as a concentrated solar thermal parabolic trough project and later in 2013 as two solar power towers. In both cases, the developers withdrew their proposals. The project would destroy a large tract of desert sand dune habitat in the California Desert. The habitat is home to many sand dwelling species of plants and animals. The area has cultural significance to Native American Tribes. The project would have significant visual impacts to the landscape and will be visible from many adjacent conservation areas. Dust and desertification from the construction of the Stateline Solar Project, San Bernardino, California (photo, BLM 2014) The BLM is deciding on the proposed plan and 3 alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment
    Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment Prepared by Philip Lowe, P.E. February 2018 Palen Solar Project APPENDIX G. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Location and Description ...................................................................................... 1 3. SB 610 Overview and Applicability .................................................................................... 3 4. Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin .............................................................................. 4 4.1 Basin Overview and Storage ......................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Trends ...................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................................................. 7 Subsurface Inflow ......................................................................................................................... 7 Recharge from Precipitation .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment / Final Environmental Impact Statement for Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System
    CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT / FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM FEIS-10-31 JULY 2010 BLM/CA/ES-2010-010+1793 In Reply Refer To: In reply refer to: 1610-5.G.1.4 2800lCACA-48668 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the proposed California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS) for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) project. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS for the ISEGS project in consultation with cooperating agencies and California State agencies, taking into account public comments received during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The proposed plan amendment adds the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project site to those identified in the current California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended, for solar energy production. The decision on the ISEGS project will be to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of the rights-of-way grants applied for by Solar Partners I, 11, IV, and VIII. This CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS for the ISEGS project has been developed in accordance with NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The CDCA Plan Amendment is based on the Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative which was identified as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for ISEGS, which was released on April 16,2010. The CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS contains the proposed plan amendment, a summary of changes made between the DEIS, SDEIS and FEIS for ISEGS, an analysis of the impacts of the proposed decisions, and a summary of the written and oral comments received during the public review periods for the DEIS and for the SDEIS, and responses to comments.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior RECORD OF
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RECORD OF DECISION for CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT and RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT/TEMPORARY USE PERMIT for the CADIZ GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND DRY-YEAR SUPPLY PROGRAM San Bernardino County, California Lead Agency: Bureau of Land Management Cooperating Agencies: National Park Service US Geological Survey BLM Case File No. CA-40467 OEPC DES 01-32 OEPC SES 01-32 OEPC FES 01-32 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 3 I. DECISIONS .................................................................................................................. 7 II. AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................ 10 III. RATIONALE ........................................................................................................... 10 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 17 V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................... 20 FIGURES Figure 1: Approved Alignment and Generalized Location Figure 2: Cadiz Project Alternatives APPENDICES Appendix A: Terms and Conditions Appendix B: Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Appendix C: Final Clean Air Act Conformity Determination Appendix D: Findings and Determinations for Historic Properties Appendix E: Response to Public Comments on FEIS/EIR
    [Show full text]
  • By Express Mail, Email, and Facsimile August 27, 2012 BLM Director (210) Attention: Brenda Williams 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM
    Michael J. Connor, Ph.D. California Director P.O. Box 2364, Reseda, CA 91337-2364 Tel: (818) 345-0425 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.westernwatersheds.org Working to protect and restore Western Watersheds By Express Mail, Email, and Facsimile August 27, 2012 BLM Director (210) Attention: Brenda Williams 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM Washington, DC 20003 Email: [email protected] Fax: (202) 452-5112 PROTEST OF THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES Dear Ms. Hudgens-Williams: Pursuant to the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, Western Watersheds Project hereby protests the Proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Solar Energy Development In Six Southwestern States “Solar PEIS”). This protest is filed on behalf of the staff and members of Western Watersheds Project in accordance with 43 C.F.R. §1610.5-2 and contains: a description of the interests of the protesting party; a statement of the issues being protested; a statement of the parts of the Proposed RMP being protested; and, a concise statement explaining the various ways that the BLM acted unlawfully or in error. Western Watersheds Project submitted extensive comments during the scoping and various comment periods, proposed alternatives that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts, and repeatedly raised issues and concerns that remain unaddressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). This protest is being submitted on behalf of Western Watersheds Project and its staff and members by Michael J. Connor, Ph.D., California Director for Western Watersheds Project.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Groundwater Update 2013
    California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION Table of Contents Contents Chapter 12. Colorado River Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ................................................. i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions ........................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ...................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management ............................................................... 4 Data Gaps .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]