section 4 methods for baseline collection and assessment · the methods used for baseline data...

MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

www.thefirelightgroup.com 21

Section 4 Methods for Baseline Collection and Assessment

4.1 Introduction The Firelight Group was retained by the MCFN to document evidence of indigenous knowledge and use in the area of several proposed projects by various proponents as part of the MCFN Framework. The study area for the Framework includes the LSA and RSA for the Project. While data was collected over a wider area, analysis and impact assessment in this report is specific to the Frontier Project, and MCFN knowledge and use values within the LSA and RSA.

4.2 Baseline Data Collection Methods Baseline data collection for the study involved identifying key themes and VCs, defining temporal and spatial boundaries of assessment, and collecting and compiling baseline information. The latter included: a scoping process; document review; gap analysis; and use, occupancy, and avoidance mapping interviews. While previous land use and occupancy mapping conducted by the MCFN was reviewed, baseline information presented relies on data collected through interviews conducted as part of the broader MCFN Framework, and has been analyzed specifically for this report with respect to the Frontier Project. The methods used for baseline data collection and timeline are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline Data Collection

Steps for baseline data collection

Description

Step 1: Confirmation of themes and methodology

A meeting was held with MCFN elders, land users, and staff to confirm key themes, identify likely industry interactions for further investigation, and begin defining the sample for participation.

Step 2: Gather information about key themes

Review and compilation of information from existing sources (transcripts, reports, and spatial data) to identify spatial information within 5 km, 25 km, and downstream within the RSA, and to characterize baseline condition of key themes.



Step 3: Data collection to fill gaps, community review, analysis, and confirmation

43 individual mapping interviews were conducted with 43 knowledge holders and land users from MCFN in the spring of 2012. Project-specific reporting, analysis and findings were reviewed by MCFN staff and in a meeting of elders and land users held in Fort Chipewyan in October 2012. An additional focus group was held in February 2013. Additional data collection and verification is ongoing.

4.2.1 Identification of Key VCs

A VC is defined as an important aspect of the environment that a project has potential to affect, and, consistent with standard assessment practice, is considered within an environmental assessment (Hegmann et al., 1999).22 VCs may include tangible or biophysical resources (e.g., particular places or species), as well as less tangible social, economic, cultural and health, and knowledge based VCs (e.g., place names, indigenous language, or traditional knowledge regarding a particular area).

In the context of MCFN knowledge and use, the identification of VCs provides a way to focus on what is most important with respect to a particular project. The VCs for this assessment were determined through:

• Consideration of past work with MCFN community and staff; • Review of materials from past MCFN studies, including previous TUS; and • Meetings held with the MCFN elders, knowledge holders, and staff.

4.2.1.1 Site-specific Values

For the purpose of this report, site-specific values include values that are reported as specific and spatially distinct, and that may be mapped (though exact locations may be considered confidential). Site-specific values, such as cabins or kill sites, reflect specific instances of use that anchor the wider practice of livelihood within a particular landscape. For example, a particular moose kill site may be mapped with a precise point, but that value is correctly interpreted as an anchor or focal point for a wide spectrum of other related livelihood practices and values, including:

• Wider hunting areas covered in efforts to find the moose; • Practice of navigation and tracking in order to access the moose; • Religious or ceremonial practices that may be associated with the hunt; • Food processing and preparation techniques to utilize the moose; • Connection to family hunting areas and sense of place;

22 Valued ecosystem component (VEC) is a term frequently used to designate a similar concept, but is focused on biophysical resources. This report uses VC in relation to MCFN knowledge and use values, as VC is a more general term.



• Indigenous language and place names used to share hunting knowledge and teach younger generations;

• Cultural sharing of meat or other resources to elders and other community members following the hunt; and

• The range of social relationships and knowledge transmission (teaching) activities that are required for a successful hunt to occur.

In other words, every mapped site-specific value implies a much wider range of unmapped or non-site specific activities, practices, and relationships, and a wider geographic area, upon which the meaningful practice of that use relies. Therefore, the area covered by recorded site-specific use values is only a small portion of the area actually needed for meaningful practice of MCFN livelihood.

Site-specific VCs for baseline collection include five classes of site-specific values:

• Subsistence values (including harvesting and kill sites, and plant food collection areas);

• Habitation values (including temporary or occasional, and permanent or seasonal camps and cabins reported within the LSA and RSA);

• Cultural/spiritual values (including burials, village sites, ceremonial areas, and medicinal plant sites, and non-RFMA trapping and teaching areas reported within the LSA and RSA);

• Transportation values (including trails, water routes, and navigation sites reported within the LSA and RSA); and

• Environmental feature values (including specific highly valued habitat for moose, wood bison, and woodland caribou reported within the LSA and RSA).

4.2.1.2 Non-site specific Values

For the purpose of this report, non-site specific values are those that may be specific to a resource or other concern, but are spatially indistinct or difficult to map. Non-site specific values often represent the critical conditions or elements that must be present for the continued practice of Aboriginal rights, such as the hunting and gathering of wild foods. As such, VCs range from the direct presence of traditionally hunted animals and other wild foods on the land, to continued access to traditional hunting areas and non-contaminated sources of wild foods. Non-site specific values include intangible cultural resources, such as the transmission of knowledge across generations and the continued use of traditional place names.

Non-site specific VCs included in this assessment are:

• Migratory waterfowl and aquatic fur; • Caribou, bison, and moose; • Access and impaired use; • Water, wild foods, and contaminants; and



• Intangible cultural resources (including but not limited to MCFN transmission of knowledge and language, and practice of sakaw pimacihiwin).

Because of the potential for the Project to impact watersheds, including Buckton Creek, flowing into uniquely sensitive and important portions of MCFN territory, including Lake Claire and WBNP, special attention is paid to Lake Claire and WBNP as a sub-component of the water, wild foods, and contaminants VC.

4.2.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries of Assessment

The temporal boundaries for baseline data collection include past, current, and planned future MCFN knowledge and use. For the purpose of this study:

• A past value refers to an account of knowledge and use prior to living memory; • A current value refers to an account of knowledge and use within living memory;

and • A planned future value refers to anticipated or intended knowledge or use

patterns. Spatial boundaries for baseline collection include:

• The Project footprint, including a 250 m zone of influence (ZOI) to represent edge effects;23

• The LSA, defined as an area within 5 km of the Project footprint,24 within which intense project-related disturbance can be expected; and

23 A 250 m ZOI around the industrial footprint is used to document site-specific impacts on VCs, based on evidence that this distance is a reasonable approximation for a zone within which the abundance of wildlife and land use by humans may be altered (MSES, 2010). According to Management and Solutions in Environmental Science (MSES) (2010), this buffer size agrees with direction from Alberta and British Columbia provincial resource management agencies and is based on the following evidence:

• Hunting is not permitted within 183 m of any occupied building (ASRD 2008);

• Moose presence near roads is reduced within 200 m (Rolley and Keith,1980) to 500 m (Laurian et al. 2008);

• Moose suffer higher mortality from wolf predation near trails (median distance of kills was 209 m, compared to random sites at 470 m (Kunkel and Pletscher 2000);

• Caribou avoid industrial features within about 250 m (Dyer et al. 2001);

• The viability of caribou populations could be compromised when more than 61% of the landscape is within 250 m of industrial features (Sorensen et al. 2008);

• Other mammals avoid industrial features within about this distance (Forman et al. 2003);

• Birds in woodlands avoid roads, power lines, and seismic lines by up to about 300 m, depending on species and ecological context (Kroodsma 1982; Bayne et al. 2008; Machtans 2006); and

• Comprehensive reviews of edge responses show that “abiotic and plant responses are generally reported to extend up to 50 m into patches, invertebrate responses up to 100 m, and bird responses 50–200 m" (Ries et al. 2004, p. 510). (p. 3; all citations included in the original)



• The larger RSA (defined below), within which project-related effects may interact with MCFN values (see Figure 4).

The RSA is a broad area within which direct, indirect, or induced effects of the Project may be anticipated, such as noise, dust, odors, access management activities, traffic (including the movement of workers outside of the immediate project area or recreation users accessing new roads), effects on water, and other forms of disturbance experienced by MCFN members. For this project, the RSA is defined by a 25 km area around the Project footprint. The RSA also includes a buffer of 5 km applied to streams and water courses flowing from the footprint and extending downstream to include receiving waters. This includes a 5 km area around the Athabasca River, Buckton Creek, Ronald Lake, and bodies of water that receive resulting flow, including Lake Mamawi and Lake Claire.

The northern or downstream extent of the RSA, in the area of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, was identified based on MCFN knowledge of river flows reported by elders and river users. Inclusion of the Lake Mamawi area (west of Lake Athabasca) in the RSA was based on MCFN elders’ and land users’ knowledge of the flow of the Athabasca River and was confirmed by an experienced hydrologist (M. Carver, personal communication, January 18, 2011). Attention to downstream effects is based on MCFN concerns about impaired use due to a high degree of public concern regarding existing observations of waterborne contamination and MCFN members’ reasonable estimation that the proposed Frontier Project will contribute additional waterborne contamination to an already damaged watershed. Due to the potential displacement of MCFN land use, such as subsistence hunting, it is also possible there will be indirect project effects outside the RSA as MCFN members avoid areas perceived to be affected by the Project.

Figure 4 shows the Project in relation to broad areas of MCFN hunting, trapping, fishing, plant collection, habitation, and cultural use and occupancy identified in several previous MCFN studies. The map shows each study as a single polygon representing the maximum extent of use and occupancy activities reported. Each study is limited by its methods and spatial scope, and the area of WBNP and north was largely undocumented in the studies. Absence of data does not mean absence of use or value. However, the figure provides a broad sense of the range of MCFN subsistence practices, and how the Project area is central to that range.

24 5 km (just over three miles) is an approximation of the distance easily travelled in a day trip from a point (such as a cabin, camp or other location) by foot through bush, as when hunting, and returning to the point of origin (Candler, Olson and DeRoy, 2010: 29). This distance was confirmed by MCFN Elder’s Council in Candler, Olson and DeRoy (2010). It is used as a reasonable approximation of the area of regularly relied-upon resource use surrounding a given transportation or habitation value.



Figure 4. Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA) in Relation to the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

RSA and LSA in relation to the

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

10

0 RSA

0 LSA

• I\U~~T~

1:1,000,000

20

Kilometres

Legend

,. MCFN Reserves

Q Other Reserves

30

Q Proposed project footprint

CJ Parks and protected areas

All bound.ms .,. subject to reMc•tion by MCFN Cll;.f ar'ld Council.

the ~,.,,., firelight < >

group '-v~

40

t.cto PIOG.teed UftOef 1t1t OtediOtl ot s•en DeRoy ot the FniGI'II Gtovo Gn.Nk'fii, 2012BiiMIMIPdiiiOf'ONIHireflltlleNI~I T~aptiiCS'J'sttmlndNII:UtliiAISOJrt.SCinadl WldiOOiprll'lll Will P10¥1dH by' the Propon.nt

This map cioH net aapiUfllll eompii•IIJ of MCfH'I r1611Kiftsl'llp to tMtl •.ct.toon.l It ncb Of the Ill tnt of 1111 p!.UC. oiiNfY .,d llbor~ nghCS TI'IISIMO.IIMngdocumtniii'IOISII'IIIenclediObell'l*lded Mdl*'-<1-llme TlledltiUHdiOpr~lhlsiMP019f"'l 11om n'IIIII)M' toufCts Trle map IS PIOI*tJ of N MIIOstw C.. FUI N"<:ln lftd m.y Orlf be ~rowced Wlh WI rttrl pel'mtHIOn



4.2.3 MCFN Baseline Information Sources

Baseline information for this assessment is drawn from three sources:

• Data on historic MCFN land use and occupancy from archival sources (see Appendix 3);

• Existing baseline information sources from other studies; and • New data from mapping interviews with MCFN members.

4.2.3.1 Existing Baseline Information Sources

Interviews and analysis were informed by pre-existing MCFN site-specific baseline information. Sources included the following six studies, all of which were reviewed in Elias (2011):

• The Ayapaskowinowak study (Tanner, 2006); • Husky Sunrise study (Husky Oil Operations Ltd., 2005); • PACTeam historic study (PACTeam Canada Inc., 2007); • Deer Creek study (Tanner, 2008); • Total Joslyn North Mine study by Calliou Group (Conacher, Janssen, and

Campbell, 2009); and • MCFN comprehensive TLU study (Tobias, 2010). Data reported by individual participants and recorded in the Tanner (2006), Tanner (2008), Husky (2005), PACTeam (2007), and Calliou Group (Conacher, Janssen, and Campbell, 2009) studies were reviewed in interviews, but data from these studies was only included in the dataset for this assessment if it was confirmed and remapped through the 2012 interviews. Because of the quality and reliability of the Tobias (2010) study, this data is included in the dataset, and was confirmed and updated with time stamps where possible.25 Relevant mapped data from As Long as the Rivers Flow (Candler, Olson and DeRoy, 2010), the MCFN submission on the LARP (Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2010), and the MCFN Indigenous Knowledge Study for Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion, Pierre River Mine, and Redclay Compensation Lake (Candler, 2012) was also included.

To enable integration of the multiple data sets, old and new data was categorized or “lumped” using five broad activity classes:

• Cultural/spiritual values; • Environmental values; • Habitation values;

25 Tobias’ study included a detailed methodology report and necessary meta-data associated with the mapped points.



• Subsistence values; and • Transportation values. For example, various sites recorded as burials, medicine collection, ceremonial, birth, and death sites were all considered to be part of the “cultural/spiritual” activity class. Permanent and temporary habitation areas, including cabins, permanent camps, and temporary camps, were classed as “habitation.” Hunting sites, fishing sites, berry collection areas, and trapping areas were classed as “subsistence.” Trails, water routes, and hazards like sand bars, dangerous rocks, or other transport-related locations were classed as “transportation.”

Additional baseline information sources, including ethnographic material, internal MCFN reports, and academic papers were reviewed and considered in the gap analysis, or following the interviews. In particular, existing MCFN spatial data was used to identify interview participants, and to refine the interview guide and VCs.

4.2.3.2 Interview Methodology

A total of 43 formal use and avoidance mapping interviews were conducted with 43 knowledge holders and land users from MCFN in the spring of 2012. The initial participant sample was developed based on the identification of top reporters26 from past studies, as well as community identification of knowledge holders and land users conducted during initial scoping and research design. Efforts were made to involve men and women, and representatives of all major families within the Nation. Efforts were also made to involve both elders and younger land users, living on and off reserve. Data collection focused on the Project LSA, but extended into the RSA as necessary. No operational level GPS-based field verification of interview data was conducted as part of this assessment due to budgetary and time constraints. The direct-to-digital method used provides a level of spatial accuracy adequate to the assessment.

All mapping interviews were conducted with individual MCFN members, included documentation of prior informed consent (see Appendix 5), and used a standardized interview guide designed to meet the needs of the study and to provide a consistent but flexible framework for soliciting and recording responses (see Appendix 6). Interview and mapping protocols were based on standard techniques (Tobias, 2010). Where data were location-specific, they were mapped using a direct-to-digital process at 1:50,000 scale or finer, using points, lines, or polygons. The direct-to-digital mapping method is described in Appendix 7. Interview data was coded in such a way that disaggregation of individual participant data is possible, and firsthand and secondhand information is distinguishable.

All mapping interviews were recorded using digital audio recording and digital video recording of the map surface, and through interview notes captured on interview forms or in notebooks. Questions were designed to gain a deeper understanding of

26 These are the participants who reported the largest number of sites in an area.



the participant’s background and relationship to the study area, patterns of avoidance and use (including hunting, trapping, fishing, and related practices), and how the participant’s use has changed over time. Where data was location-specific, it was mapped using points, lines, or polygons (see Appendix 7). Temporal information regarding season and year was recorded where possible. The coding of data took place on screen so that it could be reviewed as it was entered. Interviews averaged approximately two and a half hours. For some participants, there was not adequate time to address their use and occupancy in relation to the entire study area. Where this was the case, areas in closest proximity to the proposed Project’s footprint were emphasized. All interviews were conducted in English, although Cree translation was made available in some cases.

Where digital map data previously recorded by a participating individual was available from previous datasets, including Tobias (2010), PACTeam (2007), Calliou Group (Conacher, Janssen, and Campbell, 2009), Tanner (2006), and Husky (2005), this data was projected and reviewed during the interview to verify its quality (including validity and accuracy), and to avoid redundancy. Where necessary, spatial data was updated or corrected for location, and where possible, temporal information was added. Original data was maintained, with new or refined data added as new layers or fields (see Appendix 7 for more information).

4.3 Impact Assessment Methods Assessing the impact of the Project involved identifying key VCs, defining temporal and spatial boundaries of assessment, identifying anticipated effects on VCs, identifying mitigations proposed by the proponent, characterizing residual effects of the Project on VCs, and determining the significance of these residual effects.

4.3.1 Valued Components for Assessment

VCs for assessment are the same as those noted above for baseline collection. See Section 4.2.1.1 for site-specific VCs, and Section 4.2.1.2 for non-site specific VCs.

4.3.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries for Assessment

The temporal and spatial boundaries for assessment correspond to those for baseline collection (see 4.2.2 and Figure 4).

It is important to note that, like many social and ecological values, First Nations traditional use values exist within an ongoing process of interdependent environmental, cultural, economic, and social change that is rooted in the (often distant) past and extends far into the future. The assessment of impacts provides a prediction of likely future change resulting from the Project given available information. MCFN knowledge and use involve complex and dynamic cultural and ecological systems, and it is important to note that what may appear to be minor changes in a single component may have larger and unexpected consequences for the whole.



4.3.3 Residual Effects Characterization

Residual effects are those effects likely to remain following full implementation of proposed mitigations. To facilitate consideration and integration of findings, the methods used in residual effects characterization are generally consistent with those methods used by the proponent in the Integrated Application (Teck, 2011).

In this assessment, generally consistent with the methods used in the proponent’s applications and with Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) guidance documents (Hegmann et al., 1999), residual effects are characterized based on criteria outlined below.

Direction of an impact may be positive, neutral, or negative with respect to the baseline (e.g., a change resulting in increased traditional use would be classed as positive, whereas a change resulting in decreased traditional use would be considered negative).

Magnitude describes the intensity or severity of an effect. It is the amount of change in a measurable or perceivable parameter or variable relative to the baseline condition, guideline value, or other defined standard. In the case of effects on MCFN knowledge and use, magnitude was determined based on a qualitative and quantitative (where possible) evaluation of potentially affected VCs (as discussed in the baseline). Factors considered include:

• Vulnerability of value or sensitivity to change (high/low); • Cultural importance (high/low); • Rarity of similar values within the LSA/RSA (high/low); • Intensity of likely community concern (high/low); and • Degree of likely change in use practice (high/low). Where change is predicted to be discernible but low in all factors, magnitude is considered to be low. Where change is predicted to be discernible and only one factor is high, magnitude is considered to be moderate. Where change is predicted to be discernible and two or more factors are high, then magnitude is considered high.

Geographic extent is the spatial area affected by a specific project. Effects within the LSA only are considered to be local. Effects extending into the RSA are considered to be regional (even if they diminish in magnitude in relation to distance from their source). Effects that extend outside the RSA are considered to be beyond regional.

Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact occurs. It considers the various phases of a project (including construction, operation, closure, and reclamation) during which the effects may occur, as well as the length of time for the environmental component to recover from the disturbance.

Reversibility indicates the potential for recovery of pre-project patterns or conditions of use and knowledge. An effect is defined as not reversible if the VC cannot be restored to pre-impact condition within the long term as defined under duration; because traditional knowledge and use is dynamic, a value is considered restored only if pre-existing cultural transmission and use patterns are restored. Reversibility



is achieved where transmission and use are restored to the point of moving toward a condition that is essentially indistinguishable from pre-existing cultural transmission and use patterns. For this to occur, both the physical/economic and cultural/spiritual relationships between people and land need to return to pre-existing patterns. Due to the importance of intergenerational transmission to the survival of cultural knowledge and cultural landscapes, where an area will be removed from Aboriginal use for one generation (approximately 22 years27) or more, impacts to the transmission of knowledge regarding that area are considered permanent (irreversible).28

Frequency describes how often the effect occurs within a given time period, and is classified as low, medium, or high in occurrence. Seasonal effects (intermittent, but effect may last for weeks or months) are considered to be of medium frequency. Continuous effects are considered to be of high frequency.

4.3.4 Environmental Consequence

The environmental consequence rating consolidates the results of the impact characterization (direction, magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent, and reversibility) into one rating that can be considered alongside the significance threshold in the assessment of significance (see Table 2). This approach allows components to be compared and areas of greatest potential concern identified.

Table 2. Environmental Consequence Rating System

Resource Direction Magnitude Geographic extent

Duration Reversibility Frequency

MCFN knowledge, use, and rights practice

positive negative neutral

negligible (0) low (+5) moderate (+10) high (+15)

local (0) effect restricted to the LSA regional (+1) effect extends beyond the LSA into the RSA beyond region (+2) effect extends beyond the RSA

short-term (0) <3 years medium-term (+1) 3 to 20 years long-term (+2) >20 years

reversible (-3) irreversible (+3)

low (0) impaired use or avoidance occurs once per year or less moderate (+1) occurs intermittently high (+2) occurs continuously

27 The numeric definition of a generation varies, but is generally estimated as the average age at which a woman has her first child. While accurate demographic data for the MCFN is not available, 22 years is taken as a reasonable estimate.

28 As noted in Section 2, this approach is consistent with that taken in other environmental assessments, and with the well-documented importance of particular places and landscapes to the continuity of Aboriginal knowledge transmission (Basso, 1996; Berkes, 1999; Palmer, 2005).



The system identifies a numerical score for each VC used to assign environmental consequence to residual impacts. Consistent with the proponent’s assessment, the following score ranges were used to characterize effect:

• Negligible: 0 to 5; • Low: 6 to 10; • Moderate: 11 to 15; • High: 16 to 20; and • Very high: over 20.

4.3.5 Significance Threshold

In addition to the environmental consequence rating, and consistent with good practice (Vanclay, 2003; United Nations Public Administration Network, 2006), a significance evaluation is provided for anticipated residual project effects.

In this assessment, with regard to MCFN knowledge and use, a significant effect is considered to be an effect (positive or adverse) that is attributable to the Project or the Project in combination with other changes (including effects of other projects or human activities), and that is likely to result in:

• Strong concern or interest by MCFN members; and • Clearly discernible (measurable or perceivable) changes to the preferred

exercise of a culturally important practice, or land, water, or resource use or right.29

Significant effects are generally related to a change in the availability or quality of, or access to, resources (tangible or intangible) important to MCFN knowledge, use, or rights practice.

Significance evaluation is based on post-mitigation residual effects. Significance may vary when considered at various spatial or social scales (e.g., individual, family, or community). Evaluation is based on impact characterization (summarized by the environmental consequence rating), assumes the most sensitive user or receptor (MCFN family or sub-group), and is based on an explicit significance threshold.

4.3.6 MCFN Sensitive Receptors

Consistent with good EA practice (Vanclay, 2003), the assessment is designed to be conservative and is based on the most sensitive receptors or most vulnerable users.

29 This definition, including consideration of measurable or perceivable effect, is similar to qualitative thresholds used in other environmental assessments, and is consistent with good practice described in the CEAA’s Cumulative Impact Assessment Practitioner’s Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999).



In the case of the Frontier Project, this is understood to be MCFN members relying on access to lands associated with the Project LSA, including families associated with Snowbird’s camp, and MCFN reserve lands and traplines along the Athabasca River and in southern WBNP including Buckton Creek and Lake Claire.

4.3.7 Confidence in Predictions

Confidence in predictions provides an indication of the level of certainty that the effects of the Project will occur at the level predicted (Hegmann et al., 1999). High levels of confidence require strong and relevant primary data collected with knowledgeable community members. Lower levels of confidence result from predictions based on professional judgments made without the benefit of strong and relevant primary or secondary data sources. For the purpose of this report, confidence in predictions is assigned based on the following three categories:

• Low: predictions are based on professional judgment with limited available secondary or primary information to inform them.

• Medium: predictions are based on professional judgment and primary information that is limited due to the extent of primary research or level of community representativeness among research participants.

• High: predictions are based on professional judgment, strong primary information (including mapping at 1:50,000 or better) conducted with a reliable sample, or operational-level studies involving field visits with knowledge holders, strong project information, and secondary literature review.

section 4 methods for baseline collection and assessment · the methods used for baseline data...

Documents