FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FINAL REPORT Transition to Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Mitigation and Other Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Adapting the New Rules over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Conversion to Operational Form of the Plan Selected by the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Institutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Agency Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Information Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Related Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Peaking and Ponding in the Upper St. Lawrence River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Possible Changes in the St. Lawrence River Seaway Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Additional Control Structures – Lower St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Water Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Water Quality Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 People and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Reference List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Words Before All Else… (The Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 List of Figures 1: Basic rule curves used in Plan 1958-D weekly outflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2: The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3: Location of the Control Structures in the St. Lawrence River and other features, to Montreal, Quebec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4: Study Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5: Structure of the Shared Vision Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6: Plan releases versus Lake Ontario water levels for the Pre-project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7: Plan releases versus Lake Ontario water levels for Plan 1958-DD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8: Comparison of Lake Ontario water levels for the Pre-project Plan versus Plan 1958-DD over the past 40 years of supplies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9: Comparison of Lake Ontario water levels for Plan E vs. Plan 1958-DD for the past 40 years of the historical simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 10: Plan E – Levels on Lake Ontario over the 50,000-year stochastic supply sequence . . . . . . . . 35 11: Comparison of Montreal Harbour water levels for Plan E vs. Plan 1958-DD for the past 40 years of the historical simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 12: Plan E – Levels at Montreal Harbour over the 50,000-year stochastic supply sequence. . . . . 36 13: Lake Ontario annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan 1958-DD . . 44 14: Lake Ontario annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan A + . . . . . 44 15: Lake Ontario annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan B + . . . . . 44 16: Lake Ontario annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan D + . . . . . 44 17: Long Sault annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan 1958-DD. . 45 18: Long Sault annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan A + . . . . . . . 45 19: Long Sault annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan B + . . . . . . . 45 20: Long Sault annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan D + . . . . . . . 45 x Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows
21: Lac St. Louis annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan 1958-DD. . 46 22: Lac St. Louis annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan A + . . . . . 46 23: Lac St. Louis annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan B + . . . . . 46 24: Lac St. Louis annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan D + . . . . . 46 25: Montreal Harbour annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan 1958-DD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 26: Montreal Harbour annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan A + . . 47 27: Montreal Harbour annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan B + . . 47 28: Montreal Harbour annual water levels for the 50,000-year stochastic sequence for Plan D + . . 47 29: Lake Ontario water levels: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on the 50,000-year year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 30: Long Sault water levels: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on the 50,000-year year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 31: Lake Ontario outflows: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on the 50,000-year year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 32: Lac St. Louis water levels: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on the 50,000-year year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 33: Montreal Harbour water levels: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on the 50,000-year year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 34: Economic benefits by region based on stochastic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 35: Environmental benefit ratios by sector based on historical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 36: Net economic benefits over the 101 year historical sequence for Plan D + at Lac St. Louis. . . 64 37: Downstream flood damages under Plan A + relative to 1958-DD based on stochastic analysis . 65 38: Cumulative erosion (m) after 25 years for all plans, based on stochastic analysis, for a sample property in a high erosive area in Monroe County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 39: Wetland plant community zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 40: Lake Ontario meadow marsh frequency distribution for the 50,000-year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 41: Lake Ontario emergent marsh frequency distribution for the 50,000-year stochastic simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 42: Five-year moving average of the net total supply (NTS) for the four stochastic centuries (S1-S4) and the historical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 43: Lake Ontario levels under Plan A + (blue) versus 1958-DD (red) for the 101-year extremely dry stochastic sequence (S1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 44: Lake Ontario levels under Plan B + (blue) versus 1958-DD (red) for the 101-year stochastic sequence with the longest drought (S4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 45: Lake Ontario levels under Plan D + (blue) versus 1958-DD (red) for the 101-year stochastic sequence with the wettest supplies and biggest range (S2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 46: Five-year moving average of the net total supply (NTS) sequences for the four climate change scenarios (C1-C4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 47: Schematic of Information Management Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 List of Tables 1: Key Environmental Performance Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2: Economic Performance Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3: Differences in Absolute Damages between the Historic Sequence and 50,000 year Stochastic Sequence under Plan 1958-DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4: Summary Results (economic results determined from stochastic, environmental ratios based on historical supply sequence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5: Summary Economic Impacts based on Historical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6: Economic Results by Interest and Region (based on stochastic supply sequence) . . . . . . . . 55 7: Percent Damage by Performance Indicator Relative to an Economic Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8: Environmental Performance Indicator Results (Ratios) based on Historical Supplies. . . . . . . 60 9: Shore Protection Maintenance, by Lake Ontario County, based on the Stochastic Supply Simulation (average annual values (in million U.S. dollars) discounted at 4% over 30-year period) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows xi FINAL REPORT
Page 1 and 2: FINAL REPORT Options for Managing L
Page 3: FINAL REPORT Options for Managing L
Page 6 and 7: FINAL REPORT current operating regi
Page 8 and 9: FINAL REPORT The current regulation
Page 10 and 11: FINAL REPORT If none of the candida
Page 12 and 13: FINAL REPORT Divergent Viewpoints T
Page 16 and 17: FINAL REPORT 10: Priority Performan
Page 18 and 19: FINAL REPORT a considerable amount
Page 20 and 21: FINAL REPORT The plan consists of a
Page 22 and 23: FINAL REPORT Figure 2: The Lake Ont
Page 24 and 25: FINAL REPORT 2. Criteria and regula
Page 26 and 27: FINAL REPORT water level and flow d
Page 28 and 29: FINAL REPORT Independent Review Ind
Page 30 and 31: FINAL REPORT Coastal Processes The
Page 32 and 33: FINAL REPORT The current estimate o
Page 34 and 35: FINAL REPORT Table 2: Economic Perf
Page 36 and 37: FINAL REPORT • Shore protection m
Page 38 and 39: FINAL REPORT Abbreviations STELLA -
Page 40 and 41: FINAL REPORT Approach 2: Optimizati
Page 42 and 43: FINAL REPORT Evaluation and Screeni
Page 44 and 45: FINAL REPORT • All performance in
Page 46 and 47: FINAL REPORT 5. During the Seaway n
Page 48 and 49: FINAL REPORT The programmed Plan 19
Page 50 and 51: FINAL REPORT Other efforts showed t
Page 52 and 53: FINAL REPORT Plan E generally produ
Page 54 and 55: FINAL REPORT An early version of Pl
Page 56 and 57: FINAL REPORT Plan Evaluations and C
Page 58 and 59: FINAL REPORT Table 3: Differences i
Page 60 and 61: Lake Ontario FINAL REPORT Figure 13
Page 62 and 63: St. Lawrence River at Lac St. Louis
Page 64 and 65:
FINAL REPORT Figures 29, 30, 32 and
Page 66 and 67:
Discharge (m 3 /s) Discharge (tcfs)
Page 68 and 69:
Level (m IGLD 1985) Level (ft. IGLD
Page 70 and 71:
FINAL REPORT Economic Results All p
Page 72 and 73:
FINAL REPORT Disproportionate Loss
Page 74 and 75:
FINAL REPORT Table 7: Percent Damag
Page 76 and 77:
FINAL REPORT Table 8: Environmental
Page 78 and 79:
FINAL REPORT Beyond the Summary Num
Page 80 and 81:
FINAL REPORT Figure 36: Net economi
Page 82 and 83:
FINAL REPORT On Lake Ontario, lakeb
Page 84 and 85:
FINAL REPORT Coastal damages occur
Page 86 and 87:
FINAL REPORT Figure 39: Wetland pla
Page 88 and 89:
FINAL REPORT Sensitivity Analyses D
Page 90 and 91:
FINAL REPORT Table 11: Summary of E
Page 92 and 93:
FINAL REPORT Figure 43: Lake Ontari
Page 94 and 95:
FINAL REPORT Climate Change Analysi
Page 96 and 97:
FINAL REPORT Table 13: Summary of E
Page 98 and 99:
FINAL REPORT Validation The Plan Fo
Page 100 and 101:
FINAL REPORT Municipal and Industri
Page 102 and 103:
FINAL REPORT Interest-specific shor
Page 104 and 105:
FINAL REPORT Change the Criteria an
Page 106 and 107:
FINAL REPORT Through the advocacy o
Page 108 and 109:
FINAL REPORT 5. People living along
Page 110 and 111:
FINAL REPORT The Study Board consid
Page 112 and 113:
FINAL REPORT • Ecohydrology is th
Page 114 and 115:
FINAL REPORT Institutional issues d
Page 116 and 117:
FINAL REPORT Environmental Data and
Page 118 and 119:
FINAL REPORT The point of access to
Page 120 and 121:
FINAL REPORT Possible Changes in th
Page 122 and 123:
FINAL REPORT 106 Options for Managi
Page 124 and 125:
FINAL REPORT People and Organizatio
Page 126 and 127:
FINAL REPORT Environmental Technica
Page 128 and 129:
FINAL REPORT Common Data and Inform
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
FINAL REPORT BASIN; WATERSHED - The
Page 134 and 135:
FINAL REPORT EROSION - The wearing
Page 136 and 137:
FINAL REPORT INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL
Page 138 and 139:
FINAL REPORT PHYSIOGRAPHY - A descr
Page 140 and 141:
FINAL REPORT TECHNICAL WORK GROUP (
Page 142 and 143:
FINAL REPORT Pacific International
Page 144 and 145:
FINAL REPORT Savage, C. Lake Ontari
Page 146 and 147:
FINAL REPORT Doyon, B., et al. (200
Page 148 and 149:
FINAL REPORT Planning and Managemen
Page 150 and 151:
FINAL REPORT h. Information Managem
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164:
ANNEXES Options for Managing Lake O
Page 167 and 168:
ANNEXES Annex 3 - Plan Descriptions
Page 170 and 171:
ANNEX 1 Annex 1 Pertinent Documents
Page 172 and 173:
The Study Board shall provide optio
Page 174 and 175:
Pertinent Document 2 Plan of Study
Page 176 and 177:
trial regulation plans will need to
Page 178 and 179:
WHEREAS pursuant to the said Applic
Page 180 and 181:
(c) (d) (e) (f) (g) The works shall
Page 182 and 183:
(i) (j) (k) Under regulation, the f
Page 184 and 185:
(b) Control Facilities Adequate con
Page 186 and 187:
ANNEX 2 2 Annex2 Technical Work Gro
Page 188 and 189:
Hydrology, supplies Historical and
Page 190 and 191:
Performance Indicators As noted ear
Page 192 and 193:
Table A-2: Lower St. Lawrence River
Page 194 and 195:
Table A-3: Weighting Scheme for Eco
Page 196 and 197:
In the St. Lawrence River, high spr
Page 198 and 199:
References Armellin, A., Mingelbier
Page 200 and 201:
A. Environmental Contextual Narrati
Page 202 and 203:
types. Analyses of historical aeria
Page 204 and 205:
9. References Listed in text Baedke
Page 206 and 207:
B. Recreational Boating and Tourism
Page 208 and 209:
In addition to recreational boating
Page 210 and 211:
Summary of Key Findings Based on it
Page 212 and 213:
ANNEX 2 Figure B-3: Alexandria Bay
Page 214 and 215:
Participants Recreational Boating a
Page 216 and 217:
Communities along New York waters v
Page 218 and 219:
On the Canadian side, a telephone s
Page 220 and 221:
3. Potentially Significant Benefit
Page 222 and 223:
The average horsepower of motor boa
Page 224 and 225:
Noden, D. and Brown, T. (1975) The
Page 226 and 227:
The Lower St. Lawrence River In com
Page 228 and 229:
Table C-1: Unit Costs for the Const
Page 230 and 231:
Beach Access The beach access perfo
Page 232 and 233:
Since the value of shore protection
Page 234 and 235:
ANNEX 2 Figure C-6: Map of percent
Page 236 and 237:
ANNEX 2 Figure C-8: Map of downstre
Page 238 and 239:
References Baird, W.F. and Associat
Page 240 and 241:
C. Coastal Processes Contextual Nar
Page 242 and 243:
Given the current land use policies
Page 244 and 245:
. In the case of the shore protecti
Page 246 and 247:
e. With the ever increasing urban d
Page 248 and 249:
8. Risk Assessment/Sensitivity Anal
Page 250 and 251:
C. Coastal Processes Contextual Nar
Page 252 and 253:
This interest suffered badly during
Page 254 and 255:
5. Key Trends Construction along ri
Page 256 and 257:
Finally, from a computational stand
Page 258 and 259:
D. Commercial Navigation Technical
Page 260 and 261:
More information on the socio-econo
Page 262 and 263:
Participants Commercial Navigation
Page 264 and 265:
. Number of stakeholders The St. La
Page 266 and 267:
g. Trade flows and current market c
Page 268 and 269:
Commercial navigation costs actuall
Page 270 and 271:
5. Key Trends Provided below are hi
Page 272 and 273:
Another adaptive measure to falling
Page 274 and 275:
f. In Montreal, water levels impact
Page 276 and 277:
U.S. Dollars ANNEX 2 Figure E-1: Sh
Page 278 and 279:
Ice formation Ice cover stability i
Page 280 and 281:
Hydroelectric Power Generation Tech
Page 282 and 283:
Regionally, hydropower is seen main
Page 284 and 285:
NYISO administers the Day Ahead Mar
Page 286 and 287:
(b) The hydropower performance indi
Page 288 and 289:
Synapse Energy Economics Inc. devel
Page 290 and 291:
9. References The Hydroelectric Pow
Page 292 and 293:
F. Municipal, Industrial and Domest
Page 294 and 295:
Taste and odours performance indica
Page 296 and 297:
Determining a critical elevation fo
Page 298 and 299:
Water level in Pointe-Claire (m) Fi
Page 300 and 301:
F. Municipal, Industrial and Domest
Page 302 and 303:
7. Adaptive Behaviours The evaluati
Page 304 and 305:
(d) History of the interest The Akw
Page 306 and 307:
Under this project, the H&H TWG pro
Page 308 and 309:
increases throughout the year. Mixi
Page 310 and 311:
• build operational hydrology for
Page 312 and 313:
Fan, Y. and Fay, D. (2001) Variatio
Page 314 and 315:
I. Common Data Needs Technical Work
Page 316 and 317:
Collection of detailed bathymetric
Page 318 and 319:
• Metadata requirements Metadata
Page 320 and 321:
FTP Support The first component of
Page 322 and 323:
ANNEX 2 Figure J-3: Typical product
Page 324 and 325:
ANNEX 3 Annex 3 Plan Descriptions a
Page 326 and 327:
After discussions, the Plan Formula
Page 328 and 329:
Table A-1: Constraints Applied to E
Page 330 and 331:
Deviations The outflow calculated a
Page 332 and 333:
The following list summarizes the a
Page 334 and 335:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-3: Lake Ontario Av
Page 336 and 337:
Lake Ontario level (m) 1.9 1.8 1.7
Page 338 and 339:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-8: Cumulative Freq
Page 340 and 341:
Total winter flow (10 m 3 /s - quar
Page 342 and 343:
Plan 1958-DD - Appendix Detailed de
Page 344 and 345:
SELECT CASE adjusted supply indicat
Page 346 and 347:
If the Lake Ontario level is greate
Page 348 and 349:
The inflow category (e.g., wet, dry
Page 350 and 351:
Step 5 - Ice limit: Exactly the sam
Page 352 and 353:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-18: Plan A + rule
Page 354 and 355:
Other rules Plan B + has two additi
Page 356 and 357:
Plan D + : Blended Benefits Objecti
Page 358 and 359:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-19A: Lake Ontario
Page 360 and 361:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-20: Lake Ontario s
Page 362 and 363:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-21F: Long Sault Da
Page 364 and 365:
Figure B-23 shows the three benefit
Page 366 and 367:
Score Figure B-25: Score based on t
Page 368 and 369:
Flow Constraints In addition to the
Page 370 and 371:
This procedure is repeated until th
Page 372 and 373:
Reference and Interest Specific Reg
Page 374 and 375:
Plan 1958-D Regulation of Lake Onta
Page 376 and 377:
4. The “I” limits, or ice limit
Page 378 and 379:
Figure B-31 compares the scoring re
Page 380 and 381:
Experimental variations In simpler
Page 382 and 383:
C. Summary Tables of Plan Results T
Page 384 and 385:
Historical Time Series (1900-2000)
Page 386 and 387:
Environmental Results (Historical)
Page 388 and 389:
Stochastic Supply Sequences Economi
Page 390 and 391:
Table C-8: Economic results for can
Page 392 and 393:
Table C-10: Economic results for ca
Page 394 and 395:
Table C-12: Environmental results f
Page 396 and 397:
Table C-14: Environmental results f
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
ANNEX 4 Introduction Annex 4 Mitiga
Page 404 and 405:
The great majority of potential act
Page 406 and 407:
Great Lakes Advance Emergency Manag
Page 408 and 409:
“(b) General Plan. (1) The Secret
Page 410 and 411:
Adaptive Management Action Plan (AM
Page 412 and 413:
difference in evaluations. If, for
Page 414 and 415:
Coastal Monitoring Purpose: Monitor
Page 416 and 417:
Adaptive Management Program Summary
Page 418 and 419:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ABIOTIC - Non-liv
Page 420 and 421:
COASTAL EROSION - The wearing away
Page 422 and 423:
EROSION - The wearing away of land
Page 424 and 425:
HYDROLOGIC MODELING - The use of ph
Page 426 and 427:
MEASURE, STRUCTURAL - Any measure t
Page 428 and 429:
PUBLIC INFORMATION - Activities whe
Page 430 and 431:
SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION - Categorical
show all

FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?