DOCSLIB.ORG

Extent of Fishing and Fish Consumption by Fishers in Ventura and Los Angeles County Watersheds in 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extent of Fishing and Fish Consumption by Fishers in Ventura and Los Angeles County Watersheds in 2005 EXTENT OF FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTON BY FISHERS IN VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERSHEDS IN 2005 M. James Allen Erica T. Jarvis Valerie Raco-Rands Greg Lyon Jesus A. Reyes Dawn M. Petschauer Technical Report 574 - September 2008 EXTENT OF FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTION BY FISHERS IN VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERSHEDS IN 2005 M. James Allen, Erica T. Jarvis, Valerie Raco-Rands, Greg Lyon, Jesus A. Reyes and Dawn M. Petschauer Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 3535 Harbor Blvd., Ste. 110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.sccwrp.org September 15, 2008 Cover Images (Clockwise from the Lower Left): San Gabriel River Estuary, Upper Calleguas Creek (Coastal Terrace Stream), Lake Casitas (Mountain Reservoir), Big Tujunga Creek (Mountain Stream), Peck Road Park Lake (Urban Lake), and Lower San Gabriel River (Coastal Terrace Stream). Technical Report 574 Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 3 Field Survey....................................................................................................................3 Overview of Study ...................................................................................................... 3 Data Needs.................................................................................................................. 3 Type of Survey............................................................................................................ 4 Study Area ......................................................................................................................6 Watersheds.................................................................................................................. 6 Generalized Fishing Areas.......................................................................................... 7 River Mouth and Estuaries.......................................................................................... 9 Coastal Terrace Rivers and Creeks........................................................................... 10 Urban Lakes.............................................................................................................. 11 Mountain Reservoirs................................................................................................. 12 Mountain Streams ..................................................................................................... 13 Sampling Methods ........................................................................................................ 14 Survey Design........................................................................................................... 14 Strata ......................................................................................................................... 15 Field Survey Preparation............................................................................................... 17 Composition of the Survey Team ............................................................................. 17 Survey Equipment..................................................................................................... 18 Notification of Authorities........................................................................................ 19 Safety Measures........................................................................................................ 19 Conduct of the Survey .................................................................................................. 19 Respondents .............................................................................................................. 19 Roving Census .......................................................................................................... 19 Fish Consumption Interviews ................................................................................... 20 Fish Identification ..................................................................................................... 21 Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 22 Database Development ............................................................................................. 22 Data Summarization and Analysis............................................................................ 22 Results............................................................................................................................... 23 Survey Success.............................................................................................................. 23 Number of Site Visits................................................................................................ 23 Observed Fishers....................................................................................................... 23 Consumers Interviewed ............................................................................................ 26 Survey Success by Sites within Watersheds............................................................. 28 Sites with Highest Mean Number of Consumers...................................................... 32 Characteristics of Fishers and Fish Consumers Interviewed ........................................ 33 Characteristics of Fishers.......................................................................................... 33 Characteristics of Fish Consumers............................................................................ 36 Fish Species Caught and Consumed............................................................................. 38 Consumption Rates ....................................................................................................... 41 i Overall and by Watersheds and Fishing Areas......................................................... 41 Consumption Rates by Ethnic Group ....................................................................... 42 Consumption Rates by Fish Species......................................................................... 43 Consumption Rates by Fish Species at Sampling Sites............................................ 44 Most Frequently Consumed Fish Species by Watershed and Fishing Area ............. 48 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 50 Overview and Objectives.............................................................................................. 50 Survey Instrument..................................................................................................... 50 Extent of Fishing and Fish Consumption in the Watersheds.................................... 52 Factors Affecting Survey Success ............................................................................ 52 Characteristics of Fishers.......................................................................................... 55 Fish Consumption Rates ........................................................................................... 56 Concluding Thoughts................................................................................................ 57 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 58 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 59 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX A: Census Forms and Questionnaires ....................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: Sampling Site Information and Maps................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: Fish Species in Study Area................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D: Information and Protocol for Survey Teams........................................ D-1 APPENDIX E: Database Data Entry Guidelines............................................................E-1 APPENDIX F: Survey Success ......................................................................................F-1 ii List of Tables Table 1. Information collected by field survey team on a census form (Appendix A-1) for each site visit during the 2005 freshwater fish consumption survey of Ventura and Los Angeles County watersheds................................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Information collected by a questionnaire (Appendix A-2) administered to fishers during the 2005 freshwater fish consumption survey of Ventura and Los Angeles County watersheds.............................................................................................................. 6 Table 3. Number of sites targeted by watershed and fishing area in the 2005 Fish Consumption Survey of Watersheds of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. .................. 14 Table 4. Number of site visits by watershed and fishing area in the 2005 Fish Consumption Survey of Watersheds of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. .................. 23 Table 5. Number of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Ana Speckled Dace
    Petition to List the Santa Ana Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus subspecies) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 11, 2020 1 Notice of Petition Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 11, 2020: Aurelia Skipwith, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW, Room 3331 Washington, DC 20240-0001 [email protected] Carlsbad Fish & Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus subspecies) as an endangered or threatened Distinct Population Segment under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the USFWS determine that the Santa Ana speckled dace is a valid species, which should be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The Center requests that critical habitat for the Santa Ana speckled dace be designated concurrent with listing. This petition is filed under §553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA” - 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559), §1533(b)(3) of the ESA, and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b). This petition sets in motion a specific administrative process as defined by §1533(b)(3) and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b), placing mandatory response requirements on the USFWS. Because the Santa Ana speckled dace is exclusively a fresh water fish, the USFWS has jurisdiction over this petition. The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Tujunga-PD 102714
    CANYON PARK HOMES PROJECT 12400 North Big Tujunga Canyon Road INITIAL STUDY Case No. ENV-2014-3225-EIR Prepared for: THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Room 351 Van Nuys, CA 91401 Contact: Mr. Nick Hendricks, City Planner Prepared by: ENVICOM CORPORATION 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd. Westlake Village, California 91362 Contact: Mr. Charles Cohn (818) 879-4700 Applicant: Big Tujunga Villas, LLC November 5, 2014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Canyon Park Homes Project (Project), previously referred to as Big Tujunga Villas, would develop 242 single-family residences on a vacant 78.04-acre site at 12400 North Big Tujunga Canyon Road in the City of Los Angeles community of Tujunga. The Project would include associated infrastructure including streets and utilities to serve the proposed residences, which would be constructed on individual lots that range in size from ±9,000 square feet to ±19,277 square feet. Additionally, the Project would include three private parks with recreational amenities, to be created within the Project site. The proposed street layout within the Project site would include a bridge to allow internal access across an unnamed dry wash and associated riparian habitat area that crosses the site, as well as a paved route for emergency use only that would allow the proposed development area south of the dry wash to be accessed by emergency vehicles directly from Big Tujunga Canyon Road if needed. A component of the Project is a requested General Plan amendment to re-designate the site’s allowable land use from Minimum Residential to Low Residential and a Zoning change from an agricultural zone A1-1-H, to a residential zone RE9-1-H.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Ana Sucker Habitat, Santa Ana River
    Santa Ana succker (Catostomus santaanae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Santa Ana sucker habitat, Santa Ana River. Photo credit Christine Medak (USFWS). U.S. Fish and Wildliffee Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, CA March 10, 2011 2011 5-Year Review for Santa Ana sucker 5-YEAR REVIEW Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed. Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O
    FINAL Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O. E1907637) November 2017 Bureau of Engineering City of Los Angeles Environmental Management Group This Page Intentially Left Blank CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INITIAL STUDY (Article I - City CEQA Guidelines) Council District: 7 Draft date: July 2, 2015 Final date: November 2015 Lead City Agency: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Division (BOE/EMG) Project Title: Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O. E1907637) Project Sponsor: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of an Initial Study The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects; identifying means of avoiding environmental damage; and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval even if it leads to environmental damage. The Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group (BOE/EMG) has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply. Therefore, the preparation of an initial study is required. An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Los Angeles County Arroyo Sequit Arroyo Sequit consists of about 3.3 stream miles. The arroyo is formed by the confluence of the East and West forks, from where it flows south to enter the Pacific Ocean east of Sequit Point. As part of a survey of 32 southern coastal watersheds, Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1979. The O. mykiss sampled were between about two and 6.5 inches in length. The survey report states, “Historically, small steelhead runs have been reported in this area” (DFG 1980). It also recommends, “…future upstream water demands and construction should be reviewed to insure that riparian and aquatic habitats are maintained” (DFG 1980). Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1989-1990 as part of a study of six streams originating in the Santa Monta Mountains. The resulting report indicates the presence of steelhead and states, “Low streamflows are presently limiting fish habitat, particularly adult habitat, and potential fish passage problems exist…” (Keegan 1990a, p. 3-4). Staff from DFG surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 1993 and captured O. mykiss, taking scale and fin samples for analysis. The individuals ranged in length between about 7.7 and 11.6 inches (DFG 1993). As reported in a distribution study, a 15-17 inch trout was observed in March 2000 in Arroyo Sequit (Dagit 2005). Staff from NMFS surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 2002 as part of a study of steelhead distribution. An adult steelhead was observed during sampling (NMFS 2002a). Additional documentation of steelhead using the creek between 2000-2007 was provided by Dagit et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned Document
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: California Department of Wildlife; Attention: Timothy Chorey Project Name: Regional General Permit No. 78 Reauthorization for the California Department of the Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Permit Number: SPL-2019-00120-CLH Issuing Office: Los Angeles District Note: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: To reauthorize the implementation of salmonid habitat enhancement and restoration projects conducted under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant. Program (FRGP) in various coastal streams within Los Angeles District from San Luis Obispo County to San Diego County, California, implemented through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP). Projects would be identified on an annual basis and would apply one or more of the habitat restoration treatments described in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFW Manual). Projects may include • In-stream habitat improvements, including cover structures (divide logs, digger logs, spider logs, and log/root wad/boulder combinations), boulder structures (boulder weirs, vortex boulder weirs, boulder clusters, and single- and opposing-boulder wing- deflectors), log structures (log weirs, upsurge weirs, single- and opposing-log wing- deflectors, and Hewitt ramps) and placement of imported spawning gravel may be utilized in certain locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California
    Becker Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Resources South of the Golden Gate, California October 2008 Gordon S. Becker #ENTERFOR%COSYSTEM-ANAGEMENT2ESTORATION Isabelle J. Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cartography by David A. Asbury Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy and The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Resources South of the Golden Gate, California The mission of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration is to make effective use of scientific information to promote the restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems. The Center is a not-for-profit corporation, and contributions in support of its programs are tax-deductible. Center for Ecosystem Management & Restoration 4179 Piedmont Ave, Suite 325, Oakland, CA 94611 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 510.420.4565 http://www.cemar.org CEMAR The cover image is a map of the watershed area of streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean south of the Golden Gate, California, by CEMAR. The image above is a 1934 Gazos Creek stream survey report published by the California Division of Fish and Game. Book design by Audrey Kallander. Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining Cartography by David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S. and I.J. Reining. 2008. Steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources south of the Golden Gate, California. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreward pg. 3 Introduction pg.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Biological Resources
    Draft EIR CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2012 SECTION 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on biological resources from implementation of the proposed Granada Hills–Knollwood Community Plan and implementing ordinances and the proposed Sylmar Community Plan and implementing ordinances (proposed plans). Comments in response to the Notices of Preparation (NOP) were received on both proposed plans from the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). Data for this section were taken from The City of Los Angeles General Plan, Citywide General Plan Framework, Los Angeles Municipal Code, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Native Plant Society. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.3.5 (References). This section of the EIR provides a description of the existing biological resources within the Granada Hills–Knollwood and Sylmar Community Plan Areas (CPAs) and analyzes the potential physical environmental impacts related to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed plans. The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts related to biological resources using information from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species, as well a variety of other environmental resources. A regulatory framework is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to biological resources. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), the following Environmental Setting discussion describes the physical environmental conditions in the CPAs at the time the environmental analysis commenced.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Two Low-Flow Releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003
    Evaluation of Two Low-Flow Releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003 By Gregory O. Mendez In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Mendez, G.O., 2005, Evaluation of two low-flow releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5003, 15 p. iii Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………………… 2 Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………… 2 Study Design ………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Description of Sampling Sites …………………………………………………………… 4 Methods ………………………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Monte Arido Highlands Biogeographic Population Group
    National Marine Fisheries Service Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan Monte Arido Highlands Biogeographic Population Group o Cuy ama ta Ma San ria Santa Maria Sis quoc San ta Ynez P Sespe i Lompoc r u V a Clara e Sant Santa Barbara n t u r a O. mykiss Populations City Ventura Santa Maria Dam Oxnard Santa Ynez Major Rivers Los Angeles Ventura County Boundary 020Pacific Santa Clara Lakes Ocean Miles Recovery Foundation Populations (Core 1 Populations) • Santa Maria River • Ventura River • Santa Ynez River • Santa Clara River Threats • Dams and surface water diversions (including groundwater extraction) driven by agricultural and urban development on the major rivers of the Monte Arido Highlands BPG region (Santa Maria River, Santa Ynez River, Ventura River, and Santa Clara River). • Agricultural and urban development has severely constrained floodplain connectivity on sections of the floodplains of the Santa Maria River, lower Sisquoc River, Santa Ynez River, Ventura River, Coyote Creek, San Antonio Creek, Santa Clara River, and lower Sespe Creek. • The Santa Ynez River, Sespe Creek, and Piru Creek watersheds are threatened by mass wasting of slopes and loss of riparian canopy cover due to fires that occurred in 2006 and 2007. Santa Maria River Santa Clara River Steelhead – 28 inches Matilija Dam Critical Recovery Actions • Implement operating criteria to ensure the pattern and magnitude of water releases from Bradbury, Gibraltar, Juncal, Twitchell, Casitas, Matilija, Robles Diversion, Vern Freeman Diversion, Santa Felicia, Pyramid, and Castaic dams comport with the natural or pre-dam pattern and magnitude of stream flow in downstream reaches. Physically modify these dams to allow unimpeded volitional migration of steelhead to upstream spawning and rearing habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Draft
    RECREATION OUTGRANT AT LOPEZ DEBRIS BASIN FOR LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGE ATHLETIC FIELDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT State Clearinghouse No. 2002091071 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Applicant: Los Angeles Community College District 770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 September 2009 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213.996.2200 Fax: 213.996.2290 URS Project No. 29405396 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Description of the Project and Proposed Action................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Proposed Action and Federal Scope of Analysis .................................................. 1-2 1.1.2 Description of the Project ........................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.3 Habitat Protection and Enhancements................................................................... 1-9 1.1.4 Construction .............................................................................................................1-10 1.1.5 Operations.................................................................................................................1-13 1.1.6 Relationship with other LAMC Projects ..............................................................1-13 1.1.7 Source of Funding....................................................................................................1-13
    [Show full text]