DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary 6.1 San Diego Funding Area Boundary This section addresses the following Reviewer questions: • Does it appear that the IRWM region boundary was based solely on political boundaries? • Does the region boundary appear appropriate? • Does it appear that the IRWM region is structured to maximize opportunities to integrate water management activities related to natural and man-made water systems, including water supply reliability, water quality, environmental stewardship, and flood management? The San Diego Funding Area (SDFA) boundary mirrors that of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) boundary. It comprises approximately 3,900 square miles in the southwestern corner of California. The San Diego Funding Area encompasses most of San Diego County and parts of southwestern Riverside County and southern Orange County. The northern boundary lies in Orange County and is the hydrologic divide that extends from the ridge of the Elsinore Mountains to the coast north of Laguna Beach. The southern boundary is the United States – Mexico international border. The eastern boundary extends northerly along the hydrologic divide formed by the Laguna, Cuyamaca, Palomar, and Santa Ana Mountains located in the Cleveland National Forest. The western boundary parallels the coastline and extends north-south approximately 85 miles to the international border. The 85 miles of coastline include the Pacific Ocean and various bays, harbors, coastal lagoons, estuaries, and river mouths. The natural water resources in the San Diego Funding Area can be classified as inland surface waters, ground waters, and coastal waters. The San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of and water quality objectives for the waters in this region. The San Diego Funding Area is comprised of eleven hydrologic units that originate in the highlands and flow west to the coast. These hydrologic units are further broken down into watersheds or hydrologic areas. From north to south these hydrologic units are covered by three IRWM Plans, as shown in Table 6.0. Six of the hydrologic units extend from the coast all the way to the eastern boundary of the San Diego Funding Area, about 50 miles inland. The other five hydrologic units extend some 10 to 25 miles inland from the coast. As shown in Figure 6-1, and discussed in detail in question five, two Watershed Overlay Areas will be managed by a Tri-County FACC Overlay Subcommittee. The Overlay Subcommittee will identify cross-boundary projects and common programs for the San Mateo Creek and the Santa Margarita River watersheds. A 6-1 Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary Most of the streams in the San Diego Funding Area are interrupted in character, with both perennial and ephemeral components due to variable precipitation patterns and the construction of surface water impoundments. Many of the major surface water impoundments contain a blend of natural runoff and imported water, and may be supplemented by reclaimed water. The major hydrologic units in the San Diego Funding Area contain groundwater basins, developed mostly for municipal and agricultural supply purposes. The basins are relatively small in area and generally shallow. Because of the movement of groundwater to the surface and the movement of surface water into the ground, pollutants present in groundwater may be transported into surface waters and vice versa. Land uses in the lower portions of the watersheds often differ from those in the upper watersheds. This difference in land use can translate into differences in water quality and beneficial use problems. The Overlay Subcommittee will address this situation as part of its deliberations and project solutions. The San Diego Funding Area has formed the Tri-County FACC to balance the necessary autonomy of each planning region to plan for itself at the appropriate scale with the need to coordinate among ourselves to improve inter-regional cooperation and efficiency. In addition, the Tri-County FACC will allow for coordination of opportunities to integrate water management activities related to natural and man- made water systems, including water supply, reliability, water quality, environmental stewardship, and flood management. Table 6-1 San Diego Funding Area’s Hydrologic Units1 South Upper Santa Area Watersheds or Orange San Diego HU Name of HU Margarita (sq. miles) Hydrologic Areas County IRWMP IRWMP IRWMP Aliso Creek 9 San Juan Creek 9 901 San Juan 500 San Mateo Creek 9 9 San Onofre Creek 9 Santa Margarita 902 Santa Margarita River 750 9 9 River 903 San Luis Rey River 565 San Luis Rey River 9 Loma Alta Creek 9 Buena Vista Creek 9 Encinitas 9 904 Carlsbad 210 Aqua Hedionda 9 Creek San Marcos Creek 9 Escondido Creek 9 905 San Dieguito River 350 San Dieguito River 9 Los Peñasquitos 906 Peñasquitos 170 9 Creek A 6-2 Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary Table 6-1 San Diego Funding Area’s Hydrologic Units1 South Upper Santa Area Watersheds or Orange San Diego HU Name of HU Margarita (sq. miles) Hydrologic Areas County IRWMP IRWMP IRWMP Rose Creek 9 Tecolote Creek 9 907 San Diego River 440 San Diego River 9 908 Pueblo 60 Chollas Creek 9 909 Sweetwater River 230 Sweetwater River 9 910 Otay River 160 Otay River 9 911 Tijuana River 470 Tijuana River 9 Adapted from basin descriptions presented in Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Regional Board 1994). 6.2 Upper Santa Margarita Planning Area Boundary This section addresses the following Reviewer questions: • Is it clear what the basis and rationale for the IRWM region boundary is? The Upper Santa Margarita watershed is comprised of: Urban and suburban areas of moderate to lower density along the I-15 corridor including the cities of Murrieta and Temecula among others; rural residential and agricultural areas; and forest and open space. The majority of the population and water resources infrastructure has been developed in the urban-suburban and agricultural areas. Through coordination with the US Forest Service in cooperation with the Tri-County FACC, the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed “region” was expanded to the west to include forested open space to the west. This western area does not currently have developed water resources or identified water management needs, but completes coverage of the region—connecting the Upper Santa Margarita Planning Area. As redefined, the Upper Santa Margarita Planning Area fully covers the Upper Santa Margarita and Upper San Mateo watershed areas and related areas as shown in Section 2 and Figure 6-1 of this RAP Application. With the watershed overlay areas the boundaries cover the rest of the watersheds through the Tri-County FACC. The watershed overlay areas allow for integration of the boundaries while reducing governance disruptions between counties and without over expanding the size of the planning area beyond stakeholder’s capacity to participate. This combination leads to the optimum use of existing institutions and planning and integration of water related programs. The stakeholders, the RAC and the Tri-County FACC all agreed to the boundary and process in endorsing and recommending RWMG approve the Tri- County FACC MOU. For a more complete description of the MOU see Section 5.4.2, (page 5-10 of this RAP Application). For more detail on the evaluation of the A 6-3 Section 6 IRWM Region Boundary alternative methods of boundaries and governance, see Section 8.2 (page 8-4 of this RAP Application) and Appendix D of this RAP Application. 6.3 Upper Santa Margarita Planning Area Water Management This section addresses the following Reviewer questions: • Does the region boundary consider multiple water management boundaries? • Does the IRWM region encompass the service areas of multiple regions? The Upper Santa Margarita Planning Area is a significant area as previously described in Section 2 of this RAP Application, and covers a number of water management boundaries, Major service area and water management boundaries include the Eastern and Western Municipal Water District Service Area as well as retail service in the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and other water providers. Additionally Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District provides flood management and water conservation management service to the area. The County of Riverside manages the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan, County parks and Open space and County Public Health which do not directly manage potable water but does manage considerable water related habitat or health and safety concerns. All of these are directly represented by the RWMG participants. Planning Area stakeholders are described in Section 2-x (page 2-x of this RAP Application). Significant involvement from DAC stakeholders such as the Elsinore, Murrieta, Anza Resource Conservation District represented through SAC participation are integral to IRWMP planning, project selection, and implementation. Rancho California Water District (RCWD) took the lead with the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in development of an IRWMP for the upper portion of the Watershed (Figure 6-1). As shown on Figure 6-2, the IRWM boundary divides the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit along the county line and multiple individual hydrologic units are split between the upper and lower watershed. The Temecula Gorge and Santa Ana Mountains just south of the confluence of the Temecula and Murrieta Creeks in the upper watershed serve as a natural barrier between the lower and upper watersheds. Murrieta Creek and its tributaries drain approximately 222 square miles in the northwest portion of the upper watershed. Temecula Creek and its tributaries drain approximately 366 square miles with the upper portion of the watershed and almost all flows from the upper watershed pass through the Temecula Gorge. With respect to political and jurisdictional boundaries, the IRWM boundary encompasses the service areas of multiple federal, state, and local agencies (Figure 6-3).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007
    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Acquisition
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation September 6, 2018 SANTA MARGARITA RIVER TRAIL PRESERVE ACQUISITION Project No. 18-015-01 Project Manager: Greg Gauthier RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $9,750,000 to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River for conservation and recreation purposes. LOCATION: Santa Margarita River, County of San Diego PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Protection EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location, Site Map, and APN Numbers Exhibit 2: Santa Margarita River Trail Preserve Photographs Exhibit 3: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Chapter 5.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed nine million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($9,750,000) to The Wildlands Conservancy for acquisition of approximately 1,390 acres along the Santa Margarita River, as shown in Exhibit 1, for conservation and recreation purposes. This authorization is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to disbursement of any funds for acquisition of the property, The Wildlands Conservancy shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy: a) all relevant acquisition documents, including the appraisal, agreement of purchase and sale, escrow instructions, deeds, and documents of title; b) a baseline conditions report; c) a monitoring and reporting plan; and d) evidence that sufficient funds are available to complete the acquisition. 2. The Wildlands Conservancy shall not pay more than fair market value for the property acquired pursuant to this authorization, as established in an appraisal approved by the Executive Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year
    SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED ANNUAL WATERMASTER REPORT WATER YEAR 2013-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB CHARLES W. BINDER WATERMASTER P. 0. BOX 631 FALLBROOK, CA 92088 (760) 728-1028 FAX (760) 728-1990 August 2015 WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Authority .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Scope .................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 - SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ......................................... 7 3.1 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Surface Water Diversions .................................................................................. 13 3.3 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4- SUBSURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY ................................................. 19 4.1 General .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan
    County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Transportation and Land Management Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3634 Phone: (951) 955-3200, Fax: (951) 955-1811 October 2011 County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ........................................................................................................ 1 Location ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Features ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Unique Features ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Cleveland National Forest ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 OVERVIEW The Murrieta General Plan is a document required by California law that provides a foundation for City policies and actions. It guides both the physical development of Murrieta and the provision of public infrastructure and services. This General Plan places particular emphasis on economic development and keeps Murrieta in front of current policy topics, including sustainability and health. It is rooted in ten community priorities that were developed through an extensive community involvement process. 1.2 ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN TOPICS California law requires each city and county to have an adopted General Plan. State law specifies that each jurisdiction’s General Plan address seven “elements,” or topics: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Cities are also allowed to include additional elements on matters of particular importance within that community. The Murrieta General Plan includes the following chapters: Introduction: Purpose and contents of the General Plan, its relationship to California law, background on Murrieta, the planning process that was followed for the General Plan Update, and the community priorities that shaped the General Plan goals and policies. Vision: Context for the General Plan, including major policy initiatives behind the General Plan Update. Land Use Element: Growth, development, redevelopment, conservation, and preservation. Parameters and desired locations for land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, civic/institutional, parks, and open space are mapped and described. Economic Development Element: Strength and diversity of the economy, jobs, retail, and revenue for public services. 1-1 Circulation Element: Transportation systems within the City that provide for automobile, truck, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz
    THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 75 MAY 2013 15 Recovering California Steelhead South of Santa Cruz By Kurt Zimmerman, Tim Frahm and Sam Davidson — California Trout, Trout Unlimited — Kurt Zimmerman is Southern Steelhead genetics evince unique documents, intended to help achieve California Regional Manager for characteristics region-by-region (and recovery goals by describing strate - California Trout. Tim Frahm and Sam even watershed-by-watershed), as the gies and recommended actions likely Davidson are California Central Coast fish adapted to the particular condi - required to restore viable wild popula - Steelhead Coordinator and California tions and climate factors of coastal tions. Communications Manager for Trout streams from the Baja Peninsula to In early 2012, after years of public Unlimited. Visit their web sites at: Alaska. Today, steelhead south of San and agency input, NMFS released the www.caltrout.org Mateo County in California are catego - Final Southern California Recovery www.tucalifornia.org rized by the National Marine Fisheries Plan for the SCC steelhead. Later that Service (NMFS) into two “Distinct year, the agency released for public any anglers consider Population Segments” (DPS): the comment a Review Draft of the the steelhead trout (O. “South Central California Coastal” Recovery Plan for the South Central mykiss) the “perfect Coastal steelhead. These two Recovery fish.” Steelhead are Plans identify area-wide threats as widely revered for well as threats specific to particular Mtheir power and grace in the water, and watersheds. Common threats are the Steelhead have for the high challenge of actually three “Ds”: Dams, Diversions and catching one. Sport fishing for steel - declined across much Diminished Aquatic and Riparian head is a major contributor to many Habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality
    Chapter 7: Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality Chapter 7 1 Groundwater Resources and 2 Groundwater Quality 3 7.1 Introduction 4 This chapter describes groundwater resources and groundwater quality in the 5 Study Area, and potential changes that could occur as a result of implementing the 6 alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 7 Implementation of the alternatives could affect groundwater resources through 8 potential changes in operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State 9 Water Project (SWP) and ecosystem restoration. 10 7.2 Regulatory Environment and Compliance 11 Requirements 12 Potential actions that could be implemented under the alternatives evaluated in 13 this EIS could affect groundwater resources in the areas along the rivers impacted 14 by changes in the operations of CVP or SWP reservoirs and in the vicinity of and 15 lands served by CVP and SWP water supplies. Groundwater basins that may be 16 affected by implementation of the alternatives are in the Trinity River Region, 17 Central Valley Region, San Francisco Bay Area Region, Central Coast Region, 18 and Southern California Region. 19 Actions located on public agency lands or implemented, funded, or approved by 20 Federal and state agencies would need to be compliant with appropriate Federal 21 and state agency policies and regulations, as summarized in Chapter 4, Approach 22 to Environmental Analyses. 23 Several of the state policies and regulations described in Chapter 4 have resulted 24 in specific institutional and operational conditions in California groundwater 25 basins, including the basin adjudication process, California Statewide 26 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM), California Sustainable 27 Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and local groundwater management 28 ordinances, as summarized below.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT This Settlement And
    SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on October ___,26 2020 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Temecula and City of Temecula City Council (the “City”); Ambient Communities, LLC and Temecula West Village, LLC (together referred to as “TWV”); Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Mountain Lion Foundation, and The Cougar Connection (collectively referred to as “CBD”); and Endangered Habitats League (“EHL”) (all referred to collectively as the “Parties” and, individually, a “Party”). RECITALS This Agreement is made with reference to, and in consideration of, the following facts and representations, which the Parties agree are true and correct: A. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City certified a final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approved other project entitlements (the “Approvals”) for the Altair Specific Plan (the “Project”). A map depicting the Project as approved is attached for reference purposes as Exhibit A. B. On January 11, 2018, CBD filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief alleging that Respondent City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and California planning and zoning laws in approving the EIR and the Approvals for the Project (the “CBD Petition”) in the action styled Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. City of Temecula, et al. (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC1800858) (the “CBD Action”). On January 10, 2019, CBD filed a First Amended and Supplemental Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (the “Amended CBD Petition”), which added a claim alleging that the City had violated its duty to retain certain records.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program Rare Plant Survey Report 2011 08 June 2012 Rare Plant Survey Report 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................1 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................2 SURVEY SITE SELECTION...................................................................................................................2 SURVEY METHODS ............................................................................................................................4 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ...............................................................................................................5 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................7 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Arroyo Chub Survey Report 2010
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program Arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) Survey Report 2010 23 March 2011 Arroyo Chub Survey Report 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................2 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ..........................................................................................................2 STUDY SITE SELECTION .................................................................................................................3 ESTABLISHING SAMPLING UNITS ..................................................................................................5 SURVEY METHODS .......................................................................................................................5 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................................6 DISCUSSION .....................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]