DOCSLIB.ORG

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC AND TRUST RESOURCES AND AFFECTED COMMUNITIES February 18, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................1 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1.1.1. Non-Federal Parties.....................................................................................1 1.1.2. Federal Agencies as Parties .........................................................................2 1.1.3. Addition of Other Parties.............................................................................3 1.2. General Recitals.......................................................................................................3 1.2.1. Klamath Hydroelectric Project ....................................................................3 1.2.2. Klamath Reclamation Project and Other Irrigation Deliveries....................3 1.2.3. Sustainable Tribal Communities..................................................................3 1.3. Goals of the Agreement ...........................................................................................4 1.4. Structure of Agreement............................................................................................4 1.5. Effectiveness............................................................................................................5 1.5.1. Effective Date..............................................................................................5 1.5.2. Performance .................................................................................................5 1.6. Term of the Agreement............................................................................................5 1.7. Definitions and Acronyms .......................................................................................5 2. Legal Responsibilities, Reservation of Rights, and Precedents ...................................13 2.1. Compliance with Legal Responsibilities ...............................................................13 2.2. Reservation of Rights.............................................................................................13 2.2.1. Generally....................................................................................................13 2.2.2. Reservations Regarding Federal Appropriations.......................................13 2.2.3. Availability of Public Funds ......................................................................14 2.2.4. Reservations Regarding Legislative Proposals..........................................14 2.2.5. Reservations Regarding Regulations.........................................................14 2.2.6. No Pre-decisional Commitment.................................................................14 2.2.7. No Alteration of Environmental Review ...................................................14 2.2.8. Enforceability.............................................................................................15 2.2.9. No Argument, Admission, or Precedent....................................................15 2.2.10. Protection of Interests ................................................................................16 2.2.11. No Determination of Water Rights by the Agreement ..............................16 2.2.12. Trinity River...............................................................................................16 3. Obligations under the Agreement ..................................................................................17 3.1. Obligation to Support.............................................................................................17 3.1.1. Authorizing Legislation.............................................................................17 A. Additional Authorities...................................................................17 B. Support for Proposed Legislation ..................................................17 i. Legislation..........................................................................17 ii. Participation in Legislative Process...................................17 3.1.2. Regulatory Approvals................................................................................18 3.1.3. Defense of Agreement ...............................................................................18 A. Litigation........................................................................................18 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, February 18, 2010 i B. Comments ......................................................................................18 C. Scientific Research.........................................................................18 3.2. Obligation to Implement........................................................................................18 3.2.1. General.......................................................................................................18 3.2.2. Cooperation Among the Parties.................................................................18 3.2.3. Lead or Responsible Party .........................................................................19 3.2.4. Timeliness..................................................................................................19 A. General...........................................................................................19 B. Implementation of Obligations Consistent with Sequence in the Agreement......................................................................................19 i. Dispute Resolution.............................................................19 ii. Funding ..............................................................................19 iii. Litigation............................................................................20 iv. Cooperation........................................................................20 v. Obligation to Cure..............................................................20 vi. Authorizing Legislation.....................................................21 C. Extension of Time..........................................................................21 3.2.5. Environmental Review...............................................................................22 3.2.6. Force Majeure............................................................................................22 A. Suspension of Obligation...............................................................22 B. Remedies........................................................................................22 4. Funding .............................................................................................................................23 4.1. Budget....................................................................................................................23 4.1.1. Support.......................................................................................................23 4.1.2. Appendix C-2.............................................................................................23 A. Proposed Budget for the First Ten Years of Implementation........23 B. Adjustment Based on Changed Circumstances .............................23 4.1.3. Maximum Benefits.....................................................................................24 4.1.4. Other Funds................................................................................................24 4.2. Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement Fund ..............................................24 4.2.1. Establishment of Accounts by Program or Sub-Program..........................24 4.2.2. Management of Fund .................................................................................24 A. Receipt of Funds ............................................................................24 B. Disbursement .................................................................................25 C. Accounting and Reporting.............................................................25 4.3. Accountability for Use of Funding ........................................................................25 5. Coordination and Oversight ...........................................................................................25 5.1. Purpose...................................................................................................................25 5.2. Structure.................................................................................................................25 5.3. Funding of Coordination and Oversight ................................................................25 5.4. Accountability........................................................................................................25 5.4.1. Adaptive Management...............................................................................26 5.4.2. Reporting....................................................................................................26 A. Real-Time Reporting.....................................................................26 B. Annual and Decadal Reports .........................................................26 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, February 18, 2010 ii 6. Dispute Resolution ...........................................................................................................26 6.1. Cooperation............................................................................................................26
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions Why are we doing this project? The City of Klamath Falls is working to upgrade the Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) due to its aging infrastructure and the need to meet new, stricter treatment standards. The project is an important, long-term investment for the community. The City has operated the Spring Street STP since 1958, serving Klamath Falls for over 60 years. Many of the plant’s parts are original since their installation in the 1950s. As repairs are becoming necessary due to age, it is more cost-efficient to replace them entirely them than to repair them. A comprehensive upgrade is a smart investment in the plant, avoiding short-term, quick-fix solutions that add up in the long run. What benefits will this project provide to the City of Klamath Falls? The City’s Wastewater Division provides services to approximately 21,000 city residents and Klamath Basin area customers, cleaning an average 2.2 million gallons of wastewater per day from over 7,400 service connections. These upgrades will provide the following benefits to this process and to the community: • Improved health, safety, and welfare of the public. • Reliable, robust treatment with sufficient process and equipment redundancy (allowing the plant to stay operational while routine maintenance and repairs occur), and operator-friendly facilities. • Energy efficiency, which will result in additional funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon and reduced power bills. • Reduction in operation and maintenance costs due to the elimination of two existing processes: primary clarification and digestion. Along with being a smart long-term investment, the upgrades will help keep the City in compliance with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations and protect the area’s natural resources such as Lake Ewauna, the headwaters of the Klamath River where the treated wastewater is discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State
    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
    [Show full text]
  • KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No
    KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No. 2082] REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Copco No. 1, c1915 PacifiCorp Archives Photo for PacifiCorp, Portland, OR Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Preservation Specialist Under contract to CH2M-Hill Corvallis, OR October 2003 App E-6E DOE 1_Cover.doc DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER Property Name: KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date of Construction: 1903-1958 Address: N/A County: Klamath, Oregon Siskiyou, California Original Use: Hydroelectric Generation Current Use: Hydroelectric Generation Style: Utilitarian/Industrial Theme: Commerce/Industrial _____________________________________________________________________________________ PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE: The resources of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project were built between 1903 and 1958 by the California Oregon Power Company and its various pioneer predecessors and are now owned and operated by PacifiCorp under Federal Energy Regulatory License No. 2082. The resources of the project are strongly associated with the early development of electricity in the southern Oregon and northern California region and played a significant role in the area’s economy both directly, as a part of a regionally-significant, locally-owned and operated, private utility, and indirectly, through the role that increased electrical capacity played in the expansion of the timber, agriculture, and recreation industries during the first six decades of the 20th century. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is considered regionally significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion “A” for its association with the industrial and economic development of southern Oregon and northern California. [See Statement of Significance, Page 19] Copco No. 1, Dam and Gatehouse, 2002 In my opinion, the property ___ meets ___ does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Yurok Final Brief
    Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 22 JEFFREY H. WOOD, Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Environment & Natural Resources Division 2 SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 3 ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Attorney KAITLYN POIRIER, Trial Attorney 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 6 Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 7 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Tel: 202-307-6623; Fax: 202-305-0275 8 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 YUROK TRIBE, et al., ) 15 Case No. 3:16-cv-06863-WHO ) 16 Plaintiff, ) ) 17 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE v. ) TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 18 ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., ) JUDGMENT AND/OR STAY OF 19 ) ENFORCEMENT (ECF No. 101) Defendants, ) 20 ) 21 and ) ) 22 KLAMATH WATER USERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 23 ) 24 Defendant-Intervenors. ) 25 26 27 28 1 Federal Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ Motion for Relief 3:16-cv-6863-WHO Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 4 A. Hydrologic Conditions In Water Year 2018 5 5 B. 2013 Biological Opinion Requirements for Suckers 5 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 7 A. Given Hydrologic Conditions, Guidance Measures 1 8 and 4 Cannot Both Be Implemented As They Were Designed Without Impermissibly Interfering With 9 Conditions Necessary to Protect Endangered Suckers 7 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulelake Subbasin Groundwater Core Team
    TULELAKE SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER CORE TEAM CORE TEAM MEMBERS Kraig Beasly Gary Wright, Tulelake Irrigation District Chairperson Kraig Beasly, Tulelake Irrigation District Henry Ebinger, City of Tulelake Tiffany Martinez Clerk of the Core Team Matt Parker , Siskiyou County Tiffany Martinez, Modoc County Tulelake City Hall 591 Main Street, Tulelake, CA 96134 (530) 667-2249 AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 1:00 PM Alternate Meeting Locations: 204 South Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101 Pursuant to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-25-20 & N-29-20 issued on March 12, 2020 and March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team will be enacting social distancing procedures for the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team Meetings to members of the public and staff. Additionally, members of the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. To protect the public, staff, and members of the Tulelake Sub Basin Core Team, members of the public are encouraged to participate in the Core Team meetings in the following ways: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89927653957?pwd=S3JRaExmeXlwS2xBejVNR1Q0aDN6dz09 Meeting ID: 899 2765 3957 Passcode: 149882 One tap mobile 1-669-900-9128,,89927653957#,,,,*149882# US (San Jose) Public comments can also be e-mailed to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2021 to be entered into the record. Page 1 of 3 AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a new structure for managing California’s groundwater resources at a local level by local agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Watchable Wildlife (Page 1)
    elcome to Klamath, Lake and Modoc that want to get away from it all! You’re guaranteed to see lots of waterfowl; migratory birds and bald eagles. Check out the ¢ Country, one of America’s richest havens Wood River for some great trout fishing! Info: (541) 883-6916. 25 W for wildlife, where seven national wildlife refuges, three state wildlife areas and thousands of acres of private farmlands provide habitat for a WATCHABLE rich variety of waterfowl, wading birds, songbirds, raptors, big game, small mammals and aquatic life. WILDLIFE ake an early morning drive on an auto tour route through Lower T Klamath or Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, and listen to the rau- cous sounds of millions of birds feeding, building nests, or perhaps gaining We would like to thank Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge strength during a rest on their migration. An estimated 80 percent of the for assisting in sponsoring this brochure. waterfowl in the Pacific flyway pay a visit to the Klamath Basin sometime dur- ing the year. The Klamath Basin Refuges are a fee demo program. 100% of the fees go back into the refuges. Suggestions or New Ideas: Please contact Klamath County Dept. of Tourism ald eagles gather by the hundreds in the Klamath Basin each 1-800-445-6728 B winter. Klamath Falls hosts an annual Bald Eagle Conference in February, providing a forum for professional wildlife managers and serious VISIT THE SOUTHERN OREGON VISITOR ASSOCIATION bird enthusiasts. Forested lands north and west of Klamath Falls produce HOME PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT one of Oregon’s most productive eagle nesting areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River
    Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation November 2005 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. Cover photo by J. Rasmussen— McCornac Point Marsh Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River—Phase I Natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and the Klamath River at Keno prepared by Technical Service Center Water Resources Services Thomas Perry, Hydrologist Amy Lieb, Hydrologist Alan Harrison, Environmental Engineer Mark Spears, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Ty Mull, Agricultural Engineer Concrete Dams and Waterways Elisabeth Cohen, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Klamath Basin Area Office John Rasmussen, Hydrologist Jon Hicks, Water Conservation Specialist TSC Project Management Del Holz, Manager Joe Lyons, Assistant Manager prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon November 2005 Base map and study area. Preface This study was undertaken to estimate the effects of agricultural development on natural flows in the Upper Klamath River Basin. A large body of data was reviewed and analyzed to obtain the results included in this assessment of the natural hydrology of the Basin. Within this report, the term natural represents typical flows without agricultural development in the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • 10.0 Screening Level Determination of Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue in Selected Project Reservoirs
    10.0 SCREENING LEVEL DETERMINATION OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH TISSUE IN SELECTED PROJECT RESERVOIRS 10.1 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE Past activities in and around Lake Ewauna and other locations in Keno reservoir suggest that sediments in the reservoir may be contaminated with agricultural chemical residue, poly- chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and trace metals including mercury. While it is unknown whether the Klamath Hydroelectric Project has contributed to the potential sources of sediment contaminants, it is possible that accumulation of potentially contaminated sediments in Project reservoirs has resulted in conditions conducive to bioaccumulation of such contaminants. Both Oregon1 and California2 have water quality standards concerning bioaccumulation of toxic substances. Therefore, the water quality agencies of both states requested that studies be done to determine whether bioaccumulation of potentially toxic contaminants was occurring. The purpose of this study was to determine if edible fish in the Project reservoirs contain unaccept- ably high residues of potentially toxic contaminants. 10.2 OBJECTIVE This study is intended to be a Tier I (screening level) study of the Project reservoirs. The primary aim of the study was to identify whether certain fish species are bioaccumulating toxic substances at levels that may adversely affect public health or wildlife via fish consumption, or be harmful to aquatic life (based on existing quality criteria/guidelines for the protection of human health, wildlife, and aquatic life). Locations were sampled where fishing is practiced, including areas where various types of fishing are conducted routinely (e.g., from a pier, from shore, or from private and commercial boats), thereby exposing a significant number of people to potentially adverse health effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Klamath River Basin
    RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c)-Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2016 Chapter 5: Klamath River Basin \ j --~-- u_s_ Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation March 2016 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. 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. SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) Report to Congress Chapter 5: Klamath River Basin Prepared for United States Congress Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Policy and Administration Denver, Colorado March 2016 Chapter 5: Klamath River Basin Acronyms and Abbreviations COPCO California Oregon Power Company ENSO El Niño/Southern Oscillation KHP Klamath Hydroelectric Project NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service NWR National Wildlife Refuge PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation UKL Upper Klamath Lake U.S. United States USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WWCRA West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment 5–iii Chapter 5: Klamath River Basin About this Chapter This summary chapter is part of the 2016 SECURE Water Act Report to Congress prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in accordance with Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act. The 2016 SECURE Water Act Report follows and builds on the first SECURE Water Act Report, submitted to Congress in 2011,1 which characterized the impacts of warmer temperatures, changes to precipitation and snowpack, and changes to the timing and quantity of streamflow runoff across the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Keno Development Consists of the Keno Dam (2.1), Fish Ladder, and Communications Building
    OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Street Address: Keno Dam Development City, County: Keno, Klamath County, OR View: Keno Dam Surveyor/Agency: L. Durio /CH2M HILL ______ Date Recorded: July 2003 106 Documentation Pg 27 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Street Address: Keno Dam Development City, County: Keno, Klamath County, OR View: Keno Dam View: Keno Dam Surveyor/Agency: L Durio/CH2M HILL Date Recorded:__July 2003_ 106 Documentation Pg 28 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Street Address: Keno Dam Development City, County: Keno, Klamath County, OR View: Keno Dam Gates View: Keno Dam Fish Ladder Surveyor/Agency: L Durio/CH2M HILL Date Recorded:__July 2003_ 106 Documentation Pg 29 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Street Address: Keno Dam Development City, County: Keno, Klamath County, OR View: Keno Dam Communications Building View: Surveyor/Agency: L Durio/CH2M HILL Date Recorded:__July 2003_ 106 Documentation Pg 30 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet Street Address: Keno Dam Development City, County: Keno, Klamath County, OR 2.0 Keno Dam Development In 1920, this general area was the site of the dam and small powerhouse of the Keno Power Company. The California-Oregon Power Company (COPCO) purchased the Keno Power Company in 1921, and in 1927 Keno Power officially merged into COPCO. In 1931, the Keno Regulating Dam was constructed to regulate the flow of water between Klamath Falls and the site. The initial dam was known as Needle Dam and was made of timbers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mission of the Karuk Tribe Is to Promote the General Welfare of All Karuk People, to Establish Equality and Justice For
    KARUK TRIBE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 25, 2012, 3 PM, Yreka, CA A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER – ROLL CALL AA) PRAYER / KARUK TRIBE MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Karuk Tribe is to promote the general welfare of all Karuk People, to establish equality and justice for our Tribe, to restore and preserve Tribal traditions, customs, language and ancestral rights, and to secure to ourselves and our descendants the power to exercise the inherent rights of self-governance. CH) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA EE) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES (August 23, 2012) H.) OLD BUSINESS (Five Minutes Each) 1. F.) GUESTS: (Ten Minutes Each) 1. I.) DIRECTOR REPORTS (Ten Minutes Each) 1. Sandi Tripp, Director of Transportation (written report) 2. Leaf Hillman, DNR Director (written report) 3. Scott Quinn, Director of Land Management (written report) 4. Daniel Goodwin, Maintenance Supervisor (written report) 5. Robert Attebery, LIAP Administrator (written report) 6. Tamara Barnett, HR Manager (written report) 7. Dion Wood, TERO/Childcare Director (written report) 8. Duke Arwood, Education Coordinator 9. Tiffany Ashworth, Dir. Admin Programs and Compliance 10. Lisa Morehead, Grant Writer/Resource Developer 11. Erin Hillman, Executive Director KTHA (written report) 12. Hélène Rouvier, People’s Center Coordinator (written report) 13. Laura Mayton, Chief Financial Officer 14. Jaclyn Goodwin, Self-Governance Coordinator (written report) 15. April Attebury, Tribal Court Administrator 16. Darlene Snapp-Silfies, KCDC Chief Financial Officer (written report) II.)REQUESTS (Five Minutes Each) K) PHONE VOTES (Five Minutes) 1. Request approval of resolution 12-R-109 accepting $130,000 from Indian health Services. Passed. 2. Request approval to post the YR provider vacancy and the Happy Camp Medical Direct position description.
    [Show full text]