DOCSLIB.ORG

Sierra Nevada Network Lake Monitoring Protocol Protocol Narrative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sierra Nevada Network Lake Monitoring Protocol Protocol Narrative National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Sierra Nevada Network Lake Monitoring Protocol Protocol Narrative Natural Resource Report NPS/SIEN/NRR—2012/551 ON THE COVER Lake in the Upper Kern Watershed, Sequoia National Park. Photograph by: Bob Meadows Sierra Nevada Network Lake Monitoring Protocol Protocol Narrative Natural Resource Report NPS/SIEN/NRR—2012/XXX Andrea M. Heard1, Leigh Ann Harrod Starcevich2, James O. Sickman3, Meryl Goldin Rose1, and Donald W. Schweizer1 1National Park Service, Sierra Nevada Network Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271 2Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 3University of California, Riverside Department of Environmental Sciences Room 2324 Geology Riverside, CA 92521 March 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal, high-level peer review based on the importance of its content, or its potentially controversial or precedent-setting nature. Peer review was conducted by highly qualified individuals with subject area technical expertise and was overseen by a peer review manager. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Sierra Nevada Network (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sien) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm). Please cite this publication as: Heard, A. M., L. A. H. Starcevich, J. O. Sickman, M. Goldin Rose, and D. W. Schweizer. 2012. Sierra Nevada Network Lake Monitoring Protocol: Narrative report. Natural Resource Report NPS/SIEN/NRR—2012/XXX. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. ii Revision History Log Previous Revision Reason for New Version Author Changes Made Date Change Version # # iii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................ ix Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix Appendices .......................................................................................................................................x Standard Operating Procedures..................................................................................................... xii Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................xv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xvii 1. Background and Objectives ......................................................................................................1 1.1. Sierra Nevada Network Lakes ...................................................................................... 2 1.2. Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Rationale for Monitoring High-elevation Lakes .......................................................... 7 1.3.1. Importance and Value ........................................................................................... 7 1.3.2. Threats and Issues ............................................................................................... 10 1.3.3. Lake Ecosystems As Sensitive Indicators ............................................................ 12 1.4. Monitoring Questions and Measurable Objectives .................................................... 13 1.4.1. Monitoring Questions .......................................................................................... 13 1.4.2. Monitoring Objectives ......................................................................................... 13 1.4.3. Pilot Amphibian Monitoring ............................................................................... 14 1.5. Rationale for Selected Measures ................................................................................ 15 1.6. Management Decisions and Thresholds ..................................................................... 18 1.7. Important Data Sets and Monitoring Programs .......................................................... 19 2. Sample Design ........................................................................................................................21 2.1. Extensive Sites ............................................................................................................ 22 v Contents (continued) Page 2.1.1. Target Population and Sampling Frame ............................................................. 22 2.1.2. Membership Design............................................................................................. 26 2.1.3. Revisit Design ...................................................................................................... 27 2.1.4. Extensive Sampling Sites ..................................................................................... 28 2.2. Index Sites .................................................................................................................. 29 2.2.1. Target Population ............................................................................................... 29 2.2.2. Revisit Design ...................................................................................................... 30 2.2.3. Rationale Behind Index Site Selection ................................................................ 30 2.3. Sample Design Limitations ........................................................................................ 30 2.4. Sources of Nonsampling Error ................................................................................... 31 2.5. Minimum Detectable Difference ................................................................................ 31 2.6. Power Analysis ........................................................................................................... 32 2.6.1. Pilot Data ............................................................................................................ 32 2.6.2. Methods ............................................................................................................... 33 2.6.3. Results ................................................................................................................. 33 3. Field and Laboratory Methods................................................................................................35 3.1. Data and Sample Collection ....................................................................................... 35 3.1.1. Field Season Preparation.................................................................................... 36 3.1.2. Field Work ........................................................................................................... 37 3.1.3. Sample Handling and Shipping ........................................................................... 38 3.1.4. Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............................................................. 38 3.1.5. End-of-Season Procedures .................................................................................. 39 3.2. Field and Laboratory Analyses ................................................................................... 39 vi Contents (continued) Page 3.2.1. Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............................................................. 42 3.2.2. Analytical Laboratories....................................................................................... 43 3.3. Method Comparability ................................................................................................ 43 4. Data Management ...................................................................................................................45 4.1. SIEN Water Database ................................................................................................. 47 4.2. Data Quality Assurance and Quality
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Terr–14 Mule Deer
    TERR–14 MULE DEER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2001 and 2002, the literature review, a camera feasibility study, the Mammoth Pool migration study (observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study), and a hunter access study were completed. A map of known mule deer summer and winter ranges, migration corridors, and holding areas was created based on the literature review. The camera feasibility study was conducted in the fall of 2001 to test the remote camera system for the spring 2002 remote camera study. The cameras were successful at capturing photographs of 82 animals, including photographs of six deer, during this testing period. The Mammoth Pool migration study consisted of an observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study. The study focused on documenting key migration routes across the reservoir and relative use, identifying potential migration barriers, and documenting any deer mortality in the reservoir. The observation study consisted of two observers positioned with binoculars at two observation points on Mammoth Pool at dusk and dawn in order to observe migrating deer. There were no observations of deer using the dam road. Two observations of deer were made out of a total of 51 observation periods. One observation consisted of a single deer that swam from the Windy Point Boat Launch area to the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch area. The other observation was of one group of five adult deer approaching the reservoir near the observation point by the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch, but turning back up the hill. There was no sign of difficulty in the deer swimming or exiting the reservoir and no obvious disturbance to the deer that turned back.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Vista Scenic Byway Sierra National Forest
    Sierra Vista Scenic Byway Sierra National Forest WELCOME pute. Travel six miles south on Italian Bar Road Located in the Sierra National Forest, the Sierra (Rd.225) to visit the marker. Vista Scenic Byway is a designated member of the National Scenic Byway System. The entire route REDINGER OVERLOOK (3320’) meanders along National Forest roads, from North Outstanding view can be seen of Redinger Lake, the Fork to the exit point on Highway 41 past Nelder San Joaquin River and the surrounding rugged Sierra Grove, and without stopping takes about five hours front country. This area of the San Joaquin River to drive. drainage provides a winter home for the San Joaquin deer herd. Deer move out of this area in the hot dry The Byway is a seasonal route as forest roads are summer months and mi grate to higher country to blocked by snow and roads are not plowed or main- find food and water. tained during winter months. The Byway is gener- ally open from June through October. Call ahead to ROSS CABIN (4000’) check road and weather conditions. The Ross Cabin was built in the late 1860s by Jessie Blakey Ross and is one of the oldest standing log Following are some features along the route start- cabins in the area. The log cabin displays various de- ing at the Ranger Station in North Fork, proceeding signs in foundation construction and log assembly up the Minarets road north to the Beasore Road, brought to the west, exemplifying the pioneer spirit then south to Cold Springs summit, west to Fresno and technology of the mid-nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation
    Draft Feasibility Report Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Executive Summary The Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage This Draft Feasibility Report documents the Investigation (Investigation) is a joint feasibility of alternative plans, including a range feasibility study by the U.S. Department of of operations and physical features, for the the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation potential Temperance Flat River Mile 274 (Reclamation), in cooperation with the Reservoir. California Department of Water Resources Key Findings to Date: (DWR). The purpose of the Investigation is • All alternative plans would provide benefits to determine the potential type and extent of for water supply reliability, enhancement of Federal, State of California (State), and the San Joaquin River ecosystem, and other resources. regional interest in a potential project to • All alternative plans are technically feasible, expand water storage capacity in the upper constructible, and can be operated and San Joaquin River watershed for improving maintained. water supply reliability and flexibility of the • Environmental analyses to date suggest that water management system for agricultural, all alternative plans would be urban, and environmental uses; and environmentally feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Ca-Sierra-Way.Pdf
    IN ANSWERING REFER TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON I ~ how ~ yw ~ &ari.ng yov brief vial'b to ~ aaa ~ tha'b - bMi nG ~- - 4180t1Sm 'tho lllgb • ..._ "84· ~p l ltMG NOel'IOCl 1'0W ~ relio- a'bivo '° l-9~ I em entsiNlr ia ~ fllVh ucnw ata~ idlat thaA) 1e 9 1.aok of UOObQl- ot tbfJ Bil.$ Slen& ve&d bl Wa tenlteeyff" 1 was uw.tous " ~ what mowo are belng mado by the ~ Se.Mee - e~ llft onl.111ble scotloa or bhG B!c.h 8:$ona 9'Y ~ .tbe cmbift> Pff39" flfC&. KeN D.t:vur iJo "*9G er ~. I '°I.I.eve 1*ab onr wo!l hlPraJ ou'btlng t~ougti 'the VGr/ ~ of tlhe OD'bt\n 81.ern. wl~i eountey la mt GBlV ~le Wis WOtllt.\ be o ~ AfllmdiW• Yem dll ~ .U tba-t. tltlGN wu e ftJeftlf!Eil~ bl ow l'latioiml P.eeou~ "'°" to ~ ~ tdlatt -- mp &ABR ~ PaWk be ~ etft wu1d ~ ~-- nmgta Uver ~ r._,!w ad '118 ~ moumt~ ~ abow ._.. msretal "'"""- lid.-. Whtie ouh a pnpnl1Jl&a b still on11 a 180mmtm,.,~ IWVG.»llhelen• tl'lld.- "'9 flOa8Bt ~'1 w&8'sw~l1lvlllmnsmdfi)'\iea~ lbe- 11.evo -= one ot the men ~- DBaDS d ~ t1h9 doVelop_.. of web a ,an wu1d be taa. ~ of iiho mp &l.Ol'N i1'0ati. av ~ ~. haB a VfAl'T NA1 in­ tend 1n ,_, nok propeuiidon• au&. vs.en,. ls tu~ wbloh I bad '"' mimi ·whH. l apn 1Jo veu a.bout tho pe1ai'ldlltr ot our diMUosing the '6ole '"'"'• Bea L Thompaon.
    [Show full text]
  • 11234700 Mammoth Pool Reservoir Near Big Creek, CA San Joaquin River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2013 11234700 Mammoth Pool Reservoir near Big Creek, CA San Joaquin River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 37°19′40″, long 119°19′38″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in SE ¼ SE ¼ sec.10, T.7 S., R.24 E., Madera County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18040006, in Sierra National Forest, in gatehouse of power tunnel intake, 0.7 mi northwest of dam on San Joaquin River, and 9.0 mi northwest of town of Big Creek. DRAINAGE AREA.--995 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1959 to current year. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Elevation of gage is 3,354.28 ft above NGVD of 1929 (levels by Southern California Edison Co.). COOPERATION.--Records were collected by Southern California Edison Co., under general supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project no. 2085. Records not rounded to U.S. Geological Survey standards. REMARKS.--Reservoir is formed by an earth-fill dam; storage began Oct. 8, 1959. Usable capacity, 119,940 acre-ft, between elevations 3,100.00 ft, invert of power tunnel, and 3,330.00 ft, crest of spillway. Additional storage of 2,780 acre-ft is not available for release. Water is diverted from Mammoth Pool through tunnel for power development and returned to river 8.5 mi downstream from dam. Records, excluding extremes, represent usable contents at 2400 hours. See schematic diagram of lower San Joaquin River Basin available from the California Water Science Center. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--Maximum contents, 128,944 acre-ft, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Description of Surface Storage Options
    UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE STORAGE OPTIONS The CALFED ROD recommended that the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation consider enlarging Friant Dam and Millerton Lake or development of an equivalent storage program that would increase available water supplies to support river restoration, improve river water quality, and increase water supply reliability. This paper presents preliminary descriptions of surface storage options being considered. A separate strategy is being developed to assess conjunctive use opportunities consistent with the CALFED Conjunctive Use Integrated Storage Investigation. D Many of the potential surface water storage sites described in this document were identified and evaluated by others over the past several years. Many of the preliminary descriptions were developed from information contained in previous reports and studies conducted for Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), California Department of Water Resources, local water agencies, and for the Coalition of the Friant Water Users Association (FWUA) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in support of their ongoing efforts to settle litigation. R Potential sites for additional surface water storage are listed by major watershed, from north to south. For each potential site, the location, configuration, water sources, and water delivery assumptions are presented. Preliminary engineering studies are under way for these sites to identify the size, cost, and effectiveness of the facilities. Results of engineering studies will be presented in future documentation. A F T July 15, 2002 1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Preliminary Description of Surface Storage Options MERCED RIVER WATERSHED Montgomery Dam and Reservoir (New Reservoir) • Location: Montgomery Dam would be located about 3½ miles north of the town of Snelling on Dry Creek, a tributary that enters the Merced River downstream of Exchequer Dam from the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Days of the Creek Fire - September 4Th - 6Th 2020
    Three Days of the Creek Fire - September 4th - 6th 2020 The purpose of this brochure is to inform travelers on the Sierra Vista Scenic Byway of how this landscape was forever changed by the Creek Fire during the first three days of the incident. Driving the byway is an excellent way to grasp the effects of the largest single wildfire in California history. Please note that this information is from eyewitness observations, fire maps, documentaries from Outside the Lens, Jeff Aiello, and Channel 30 news. None of this information was obtained from officials of the USFS. Starting your journey in the small town of North Fork travel on Road 225 which turns into Minarets Road, Mammoth Pool Road, and the Sierra Vista Scenic Byway 81. To help gain some perspective of the area, we recommend your first stop be Redinger Overlook. Here you can witness the first sight of the San Joaquin River and the Big Creek Hydroelectric project. This area is the entry to the dramatic landscape that the Sierra Vista Scenic Byway has to offer and the first of many scenic overlooks. Next stop, the turnout at Mammoth Pool Powerhouse/Powerhouse 8. From this location you can see the approximate area where the Creek Fire started around 4 pm on Friday September 4th 2020. The fire ignited somewhere up the canyon towards Big Creek, across the San Joaquin River above the penstocks but below Camp Sierra, cause unknown as of June 2021. The fire began in that area and traveled up the canyon towards Big Creek, from there it began to spread at a rapid rate and behave unpredictably.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Region 1 – Western US
    ^ = Partial Bathymetric Coverage ! = New to/updated in 2011 blue = Vision Coverage * = Detailed Shoreline Only Region 1 – Western US Lake Name State County French Meadows Reservoir CA Placer Alamo Lake AZ La Paz Goose Lake CA Modoc * Bartlett Reservoir AZ Maricopa Harry L Englebright Lake CA Yuba Blue Ridge Reservoir AZ Coconino Hell Hole Reservoir CA Placer Horseshoe Reservoir AZ Yavapai Hensley Lake CA Madera Lake Havasu AZ/CA Various * Huntington Lake CA Fresno Lake Mohave AZ/NV Various Ice House Reservoir CA El Dorado Lake Pleasant AZ Yavapai/Maricopa Indian Valley Reservoir CA Lake Lower Lake Mary AZ Coconino * Jackson Meadow Reservoir CA Sierra San Carlos Reservoir AZ Various * Jenkinson Lake CA El Dorado Sunrise Lake AZ Apache Lake Almanor CA Plumas * Theodore Roosevelt Lake AZ Gila Lake Berryessa CA Napa Upper Lake Mary AZ Coconino Lake Britton CA Shasta Antelop Valley Reservoir CA Plumas ^ Lake Cachuma CA Santa Barbara Barrett Lake CA San Deigo Lake Casitas CA Ventura Beardsley Lake CA Tuolumne Lake Del Valle CA Alameda Black Butte Lake CA Glenn Lake Isabella CA Kern Briones Reservoir CA Contra Costa Lake Jennings CA San Deigo Bullards Bar Reservoir CA Yuba Lake Kaweah CA Tulare Camanche Reservoir CA Various Lake McClure CA Mariposa Caples Lake CA Alpine Lake Natoma CA Sacramento Castaic Lake CA Los Angeles Lake of the Pines CA Nevada Castle Lake CA Siskiyou Lake Oroville CA Butte ^ Clear Lake CA Lake Lake Piru CA Ventura ^ Clear Lake Reservoir CA Modoc * Lake Shasta CA Shasta Cogswell Reservoir CA Los Angeles Lake Sonoma CA
    [Show full text]
  • The Dinkey Forest Landscape Restoration Project (2015)
    Socioeconomic Assessment and Stakeholder Analysis The Dinkey Forest Landscape Restoration Project Jonathan Kusel, Andrew Spaeth, Kyle Rodgers, and Zach Revene Acknowledgments The Sierra Institute for Community and Environment would like to thank the Dinkey Creek Collaborative and the Sierra National Forest for the opportunity to conduct this assessment. We particularly appreciate the efforts of those who participated on the monitoring team and offered suggestions that improved this report. Thanks also goes to members of the communities surrounding Sierra National Forest who were interviewed and who participated in workshops and gave freely of their time, ultimately helping to guide this report in a direction that better reflects and responds to local issues. Thank you to those who commented on the draft report and provided feedback and insight throughout its development. Sierra Institute for Community and Environment Socioeconomic Assessment and Stakeholder Analysis The Dinkey Forest Landscape Restoration Project Jonathan Kusel, Andrew Spaeth, Kyle Rodgers, and Zach Revene FINAL REPORT February 2015 Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....iv Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..…2 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….5 II. Stakeholder Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………….…8 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..8 Forest Management………………………………………………………………………………………..9 A Viable Wood Products
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Technical Appendix
    Hydropower Hydropower Technical Appendix UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE INVESTIGATION Initial Alternatives Information Report Hydropower Technical Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1-1 STUDY AREA.........................................................................................................................1-2 SURFACE WATER STORAGE MEASURES CONSIDERED IN THE IAIR ...........................1-3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................1-3 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS......... 2-1 HYDROPOWER BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2-1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................................2-1 EXISTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN....2-5 Friant Dam and Millerton Lake ............................................................................................2-9 Friant Power Project............................................................................................................2-9 PG&E Kerckhoff Hydroelectric Project ..............................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff No. 2 Powerhouse .........................................................................................2-10 Kerckhoff Dam and Lake................................................................................................2-11
    [Show full text]
  • Rec 20 Trails (Spring, Summer and Fall, Non-Snow Season) 1.0 Executive Summary
    REC 20 TRAILS (SPRING, SUMMER AND FALL, NON-SNOW SEASON) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study report evaluates the recreational trail use opportunities within the study area during the spring, summer, and fall seasons (winter recreation trails are addressed in the REC 21, Winter Recreation technical study). Data for this study was obtained from the results of the active and self-census recreation surveys that were conducted in 2002 as part of the REC 17, Dispersed Recreation Opportunities and Needs Assessment, study. The survey was designed to obtain information from survey respondents for five major activity/location groups including: camping, picnicking, trail use, boating, and recreation activities in stream or river corridors. Visitors to the Project area were asked to complete surveys on a variety of topics including: general background characteristics (e.g., group size, length of stay, approximate trip expenditures), areas visited, activities engaged in, and satisfaction with their recreational experience and the related facilities and conditions. Eighteen trailheads were identified by survey respondents, 14 of these are located near study area reservoirs or forebays. These trailheads provide access to a trail system which include trails that lead to a single destination, trails that are connected to an integrated network, and trails that pass through the study area. Two notable trails that pass through the study area are the California Riding and Hiking Trail and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Based on data obtained from trail users during the 2002 summer recreation user survey, user satisfaction with trail-related factors were rated by survey respondents from moderately acceptable to highly acceptable for all of the factors evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2015
    FEBRUARY 2015 Madera Integrated Regional Water Management Plan FEBRUARY 2015 Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Date Signed: 2-28-2015 Funded Partially by: A Grant from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) Madera Regional Water Management Group Memorandum of Understanding Signatories Chowchilla Red Top Resource Conservation District Chowchilla Water District City of Chowchilla City of Madera Coarsegold Resource Conservation District Fairmead Community and Friends Gravelly Ford Water District Madera County Madera County Special Districts Madera Irrigation District Madera Valley Water Company Madera Water District North Fork – Mono Rancheria Root Creek Water District Self Help Enterprises SEMCU - Southeast Madera County United - Madera Ranchos Yosemite/Sequoia Resource Conservation and Development Council Madera IRWMP Table of Contents Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 - Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 - Mission of the RWMG .................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 - Purpose, Need and Common Understanding for the IRWMP ......................................
    [Show full text]