DOCSLIB.ORG

1. Consent Items 2. Financial Report 3. Operations Report 4. State Water Project Activities 5. Manager's Report 6. Enginee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. Consent Items 2. Financial Report 3. Operations Report 4. State Water Project Activities 5. Manager's Report 6. Enginee Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Regular Board Meeting March 09, 2021, 8:30 AM NOTICE: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held entirely by web access and teleconference. The public can view or listen to the meeting and offer public comment by logging/calling into the following web address/conference line at the time the meeting is scheduled: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/82838297904 Meeting ID: 828 3829 7904 Password: 013638 Telephone Dial-in: (669) 900-6833 Any changes to this information will be posted on the District’s website (www.rrbwsd.com) at or before the meeting is called to order. Please check the District’s website if you are unable to hear the meeting. 1. CONSENT ITEMS a) Regular Board Meeting Minutes- February 9, 2021 2. FINANCIAL REPORT a) Treasurer’s Report b) Accounts Payable c) Revenue and Expenditures Report 3. OPERATIONS REPORT a) District Groundwater Levels Report b) Operations Report c) Maintenance Report d) Consideration of Encroachment Permit 4. STATE WATER PROJECT ACTIVITIES a) Update on State Water Project Operations b) California Delta Conveyance Project 5. MANAGER’S REPORT a) Operational Exchange Agreement 6. ENGINEER’S REPORT a) Onyx Ranch i. Operations Report b) Drought Relief Project i. Status Report ii. Consideration of Pumping Plant Flow Meter Replacement c) Recharge and Conveyance Projects i. Consideration of SCADA Flow Measurement Improvements 7. COMMITTEE/SPECIAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES a) Groundwater Banking Authority b) James Groundwater Banking Authority c) Kern Groundwater Authority d) Rosedale Management Area Committee i. Ratification of Accounting Platform Technical Services Agreement ii. Evapotranspiration Calculation Comparison Report e) Kern Fan Monitoring Committee f) Cross Valley Canal Advisory Committee 1 | Page g) Pioneer Project h) Kern River Watershed Coalition Authority (KRWCA) i) Kern Fan Authority j) Joint Operating Committee (JOC) – Consideration of Groundwater Model Update k) Committee for Delta Reliability l) South Valley Water Resources Authority m) Valley Ag Water Coalition n) Kern Integrated Regional Water Management Plan o) Sites Reservoir Project 8. ATTORNEY’S REPORT a) Consideration of Engineer-Manager Employment Contract b) Consideration of Revisions to Annual Salary Schedule c) Consideration of Consulting Agreement d) Consideration of Appointment of District Representatives to Various Committees 9. OLD OR NEW BUSINESS a) Consideration of ACWA Region 7 Board of Directors Nomination 10. CORRESPONDENCE 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. CLOSED SESSION a) Conference with legal counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): Two (2) Matters b) Conference with legal counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): Two (2) Matters c) Public Employment / Appointment – Government Code Sections 54957: Position(s): Engineer-Manager / Water Resources Specialist / Undesignated Position d) Conference with legal counsel – Pending Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1): i. State Water Resources Control Board – Applications to Appropriate Kern River Water ii. City of Bakersfield v. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District (McAllister CEQA) iii. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District v. City of Bakersfield (Miscellaneous Contract) iv. Department of Water Resources v. All Persons Interested (Validation Action) v. City of Bakersfield / Kern County Water Agency vs. Rosedale, et al. (Kern Fan Project EIR) vi. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, et al. vs. Kern County Water Agency, et al. (CVC Litigation) e) Conference with real property negotiator – Government Code Section 54956.8 – Negotiators: Eric Averett / Dan Bartel / Dan Raytis i. Property: Water Supply (Delta Conveyance). Negotiating parties: Various parties and Rosedale- Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment ii. Property: APN: 104-250-29. Negotiating parties: McCaslin River Ranch, LLC and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment iii. Property: APNs: 104-240-22, 30 & 31. Negotiating parties: Bolthouse Land Company and 2 | Page Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment iv. Property: APN: 104-291-07. Negotiating parties: Diamond M. Prop, LLC and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment v. Property: APN: 104-270-28. Negotiating parties: Marc McCaslin and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment vi. Property: APNs: 103-110-02; 103-110-04; 103-110-09; 103-120-14; 103-120-15; 103-120-16; 103- 120-17; 103-130-01; 103-130-03; 103-130-05; 103-130-07; 103-140-02; 103-140-05; 103-140-06; 103-140-12; 103-140-15; 103-140-16; 103-140-17; 103-140-18; 103-140-19; 103-180-01; 103-180- 05; 103-180-07; 103-190-13; 103-190-14; 103-200-23; 103-200-25; 103-200-26; 103-200-27; 103- 200-28; 103-200-29, County of Kern. Negotiating Parties: Belluomini Ranches, LP, Tech Ag Financial Group, Inc. and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment vii. Property: Water Supply. Negotiating parties: Various parties and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Under negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment 13. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING: I, Megan Misuraca, declare under penalty of perjury, that I am employed by the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District and I posted the foregoing Agenda at the District Office and on the District’s website (www.rrbwsd.com) on or before March 5, 2021. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services may be made by telephoning or contacting Megan Misuraca at [email protected]. Please attempt to make such requests known at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting. 3 | Page BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 09, 2021 8:30 a.m. NOTE: This meeting was conducted by teleconference pursuant to and in conformance with Executive Order N-29-20 relating to public meetings during the State of Emergency that was declared as a result of COVID-19. DIRECTORS PRESENT Roy Pierucci, Gary Unruh, Jason Selvidge, Mitch Millwee and Barry Watts DIRECTORS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT District Staff / Consultants - Eric Averett, Dan Bartel, Zach Smith, Megan Misuraca, Markus Nygren, Rachelle Echeverria and Dan Raytis Public – Tim Gobler, Garrett Bush, Leta Spencer, Patty Poire, Rick Iger and Audrey Arnao CALL TO ORDER President Pierucci called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. CONSENT ITEMS a) Regular Board Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2021 b) Special Board Meeting Minutes – January 22, 2021 c) Special Board Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2021 A motion was made by Director Unruh and seconded by Director Selvidge to adopt the Consent Items. The motion was unanimously passed. AYES: Directors Pierucci, Unruh, Selvidge, Millwee and Watts NOES: None ABSTAINED: None FINANCIAL REPORTS a) Treasurer’s Report – Mr. Averett reviewed the treasurers report with the Board. A motion was made by Director Millwee with a second by Director Watts to accept the treasurers report as presented. The motion was unanimously passed. AYES: Directors Pierucci, Unruh, Selvidge, Millwee and Watts NOES: None ABSTAINED: None b) Accounts Payable/ January 09, 2021 through February 5, 2021 — Ms. Misuraca reviewed the accounts payable report with the Board. A motion was made by Director Watts and seconded 1 by Director Millwee to ratify and approve payment of the accounts payable in the total amount of $1,641,755.54. The motion was unanimously passed. AYES: Directors Pierucci, Unruh, Selvidge, Millwee and Watts NOES: None ABSTAINED: None c) Revenue and Expenditures Report – Mr. Averett reviewed the current Revenue and Expenditures Report through 01/31/2021 with the Board. d) Consideration of Proposal for 2020 Audit – Ms. Misuraca reviewed the proposal to complete the District’s 2020 financial audit. The Board asked Ms. Misuraca to inquire as to why the amount did not decrease from last year prior to authorizing the work since it was the Board’s understanding that there were certain items that would only need to be addressed last year. A motion was made by Director Selvidge with a second by Director Unruh to approve the BHK Proposal for the District’s 2020 audit in an amount not to exceed $29,000, subject to an inquiry by Ms. Misuraca as to the amount necessary to complete this year’s audit. The motion was unanimously passed. AYES: Directors Pierucci, Unruh, Selvidge, Millwee and Watts NOES: None ABSTAINED: None DISTRICT OPERATIONS REPORT a) District Water Levels & Hydrographs Report – Mr. Nygren reviewed the current District water levels with the Board. b) Operations Report – Mr. Smith reviewed current operations and projected demands for the beginning of 2021. c) Maintenance Report – Mr. Smith reviewed maintenance projects that have taken place over the last month. STATE WATER PROJECT ACTIVITIES UPDATE a) Update on State Water Project Operations – Water Management Amendment Presentation – Mr. Averett reviewed key elements in the SWP Water Management Amendment with the Board. No action was taken. b) Consideration of 2021 Turn-Back Pool Program – Mr. Averett reviewed the terms of the 2021 Turn-Back Pool Program with the Board. A motion was made by Director Selvidge with a second by Director Millwee to approve the District’s participation in the 2021 Turn-Back Pool Program and ratify the execution of the agreement. The motion was unanimously passed. AYES: Directors Pierucci, Unruh, Selvidge, Millwee and Watts NOES: None ABSTAINED: None c) California Delta Conveyance Project – i. Consideration of IRWD Funding Agreement – Mr. Averett reviewed the terms of the agreement between Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District and Irvine Ranch Water District for Preliminary Planning and Design Costs Related to a Potential Delta Conveyance Project. A motion was made by Director Watts with a second by Director 2 Selvidge to approve the funding agreement and authorize staff to execute the agreement subject to approval of General Counsel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016
    SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS FOR YEAR ENDING 2016 (Government Code § 12599) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES SUMMARY 1 - 5 TABLE SUBJECT/TITLE 1 ALPHABETICAL LISTING BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 2 LISTING BY PERCENT TO CHARITY IN DESCENDING ORDER 3 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – GOODS PURCHASED FROM CHARITY 4 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – MANAGEMENT FEE/COMMISSION 5 VEHICLE DONATIONS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 6 COMMERCIAL COVENTURERS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION California Department of Justice November 2017 SUMMARY Every year Californians provide generous support to a wide array of charities, either directly or through commercial fundraisers that charities hire to solicit donations on their behalf. The term “commercial fundraiser” refers generally to a person or corporation that contracts with a charity, for compensation, to solicit funds. The commercial fundraiser charges either a flat fee or a percentage of the donations collected. By law, commercial fundraisers are required to register with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and file a Notice of Intent before soliciting donations in California. For each solicitation campaign conducted, commercial fundraisers are then required to file annual financial disclosure reports that set forth total revenue and expenses incurred. This Summary Report is prepared from self-reported information contained in the annual financial disclosure reports filed by commercial fundraisers for 2016 and includes statistics for donations of both cash and used personal property (such as clothing and vehicles) for the benefit of charity. Only information from complete financial reports received before October 20, 2017 is included.
    [Show full text]
  • North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2f59n5kg No online items North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Xiuzhi Zhou and Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2000 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining mssHM 51035-51130 1 Co. Records: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records Dates (inclusive): 1890-1891 Collection Number: mssHM 51035-51130 Creator: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company. Extent: 96 pieces in 1 box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection consists primarily of letters from the secretary to the president of the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company of Nevada County, California, in 1890-1891 related to the company and hydraulic mining. Language: English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item]. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Kern Storm Water Resource Plan
    Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California Report prepared by: December 2016 Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California December 2016 Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 1800 30th Street, Suite 280, Bakersfield, California 93301 COPYRIGHT 2016 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights. Report Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Jeff Eklund, PE Len Marino, PE Mike Day, PE Gretchen Heisdorf, PE Hilary Reinhard, PE Trilby Barton Cheryl Hunter Contact: Jeff Eklund, PE Telephone: (661) 616-5900 G:\Buena Vista WSD-1048\104816001-Kern Storm Water Resource Plan\_DOCS\Reports\1215-2016 Kern SWRP Final.docx Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Table of Contents List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Executive Summary Published March 2008 by The Sierra Fund The Sierra Fund’s Initiative to address legacy mining pollution has been made possible by the support of: The California Endowment The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and True North Foundation Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Is human health, water quality or the environment at risk from historic mining toxins? The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today. Working with partners from state, federal, and tribal governments as well as from the academic, health, and environmental communities, The Sierra Fund’s report “Mining’s Toxic Legacy” is the first comprehen- sive evaluation of what happened during the Gold Rush, including: the cultural, health, and environmental impacts of this era; the obstacles that lie in the way of addressing these impacts; and a strategic plan for taking action on the longest neglected environmental problem in the Golden State of California. The California Gold Rush clawed out of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada considerable gold—93 tons or 2.7 million troy ounces in the peak year of 1853 alone... In the course of doing so, everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)
    COM MENTS OF THE SAN JUAN RIDGE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN JUAN RIDGE MINE Submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department December 4, 2012 Sacramento Bee, December 31, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4 III. OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................8 A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................8 B. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................10 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .........14 A. THE EIR MUST CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT; CEQA DEMANDS AN ACCURATE, STABLE AND FINITE PROJECT DEFINITION THAT ADDRESSES THE “WHOLE OF THE ACTION” UNDER REVIEW. ...........................................................................................................14 1. The Proposed Action Should Be Described in a Manner that Provides for Full Disclosure and Evaluation of Potentially Significant Impacts ..............................................15 2. Additional Information Is Needed ..................................................................................19 B. CEQA REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY “SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract and Presentation by Steve Evans, Friends of the River
    PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS Reclaiming the Sierra Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines Reclaiming the Sierra: Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines May 3 - 5, 2012 Miners Foundry Nevada City, California Presented by THE SIERRA FUND INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A PASSIVE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO TREAT MINING INFLUENCED WATER FROM THE MAGENTA DRAIN PORTAL AT EMPIRE MINE STATE HISTORIC PARK, GRASS VALLEY, CA James Gusek, Lee Josselyn, William Agster, Steve Lofholm, and Daniel Millsap Abstract. Empire Mine State Historic Park (EMSHP) near Grass Valley, CA contains historic mine workings that flooded with ground water since the Empire Mine closed in 1957. Mining influenced water (MIW) perennially flows from portions of the underground workings via the Magenta Drain portal located near the northwest corner of the Park and into an unnamed channel. The MIW water has a neutral pH (no acid mine drainage), but contains elevated concentrations of iron, arsenic, manganese, and various other trace metals. Design treatment flows vary significantly from 20 gallons per minute to a maximum 100 year storm event level of 1,200 gallons per minute. Several active treatment alternatives were evaluated including traditional lime dosing and green sand; passive treatment technologies, including biochemical reactors were also considered. However, bench scale test results indicated that simple settling of suspended iron oxy-hydroxide (with co-precipitated arsenic) and passive aerobic precipitation of manganese oxide could meet regulatory mandated effluent limits. Passive treatment methods are economical, with lower initial capital costs, lower long term operations and maintenance costs and smaller carbon footprint than active treatment methods. Keeping with California’s Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Mission Statement, “to preserve the State’s extraordinary biological diversity and protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources,” the technology is green and sustainable which is critical since the passive treatment system (PTS) will, in principle, operate into perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
    SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • KERN FAN AUTHORITY INTEGRATION PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
    KERN FAN AUTHORITY INTEGRATION PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Prepared for October 2019 Kern Fan Authority KERN FAN AUTHORITY INTEGRATION PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Prepared for October 2019 Kern Fan Authority 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Diego Camarillo Orlando San Francisco Delray Beach Pasadena Santa Monica Destin Petaluma Sarasota Irvine Portland Seattle Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa D130466 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Kern Fan Authority Integration Project Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page Chapter 1, Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1-1 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ...................................................1-1 1.2 CEQA Responsible Agencies ................................................................1-2 1.3 Kern Fan Authority
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest (USDA 2016A); • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest (USDA 2016B)
    Draft REVISED ‘INIMIM FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for March 2018 U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Yuba Watershed Institute Prepared by Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, PhD, Rebecca Robinson, MS, and Chris Friedel ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Bella Vista Foundation. Special thanks go to the Board of Directors of the Yuba Watershed Institute (Corinne Munger, Ann Hobbs, Bob Erickson, Kurt Lorenz, Gary Parsons, and Daniel Nicholson) for providing extensive comments and edits to earlier drafts, and to Jerry Tecklin for his detailed recollections of past treatments and uncommon plant populations. The data collection effort would not have been possible without the assistance of a stellar field crew, which included Rusty Fites-Kaufman, Casey Fites-Kaufman, and Nathaniel Van Order. TABLE OF CONTENTS Revised ‘Inimim Forest Management Plan 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 2. ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Natural
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Kern Council of Governments Transportation Planning Policy Committee
    February Workshop Roundabouts in Kern County Presented by John Liu Thursday, February 20, 2020 6:00 PM to 6:25 PM in the KCOG Board Room This workshop will be presented prior to the regularly scheduled Board meeting of the Kern Council of Governments. AGENDA KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE KERN COG CONFERENCE ROOM THURSDAY 1401 19TH STREET, THIRD FLOOR February 20, 2020 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 6:30 P.M. WEB SITE: www.kerncog.org 6:00 P.M. WORKSHOP: Roundabouts in Kern – Presented by: John Liu DISCLAIMER: This agenda includes the proposed actions and activities, with respect to each agenda item, as of the date of posting. As such, it does not preclude the Committee from taking other actions on items on the agenda, which are different or in addition to those recommended. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL: Gurrola, B. Smith, Lessenevitch, Couch, Scrivner, Vallejo, Crump, Cantu, Mower, Alvarado, Krier, P. Smith, Reyna Congestion Management Agency Ex-Officio Members: Kiernan, Dermody, Gordon, Parra III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the Committee on any matter not on this agenda but under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Committee members may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff for factual information or request staff to report back to the Committee at a later meeting. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES, WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHAIR TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR CONDUCTING THE MEETING.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act Exchanger the Cross Valley CVP Contractor Who Is Considered to Be the First Party in the Exchange
    Article 5 Exchange Draft EA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Acronyms and Definitions………………………………………………………. ii Section 1 Purpose and Need…………………………………………………….. 1 Section 2 Alternatives…………………………………………………………… 8 Section 3 Affected Environment……………………………………………….. 11 Section 4 Environmental Consequences……………………………………….. 27 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species……….. 36 Section 5 Environmental Commitments……………………………………….. 41 Section 6 References…………………………………………………………….. 42 Section 7 Consultation and Coordination……………………………………… 43 Section 8 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted…………………………….. 44 Appendix Appendix A Article 5 Language………………………………………………… 44 Appendix B Imbalanced Exchange Scenarios………………………………….. 48 Appendix C Cross Valley Contractors………………………………………….. 50 Appendix D Friant Division Potential Exchangees…………………………….. 58 Appendix E Other Non-CVP Water Districts and Potential Exchangees……. 68 Appendix F State Listed Species and Species of Concern……………………... 102 Appendix G Figures 3-1 thru 3-4 Maps………………………………………… 107 Tables Table 1.1 List of CV Contractors and CVP Supply……………………………. 2 Table 3.1 CV Contractors and Subcontractors………………………………… 12 Table 3.2 Potential Exchangees from the Friant Division CVP Contractors…. 13 Table 3.3 Deer Creek & Tule River Authority………………………………….. 14 Table 3.4 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District…………………………. 14 Table 3.5 Kern County Water Agency…………………………………………... 15 Table 3.6 Kern Water Bank Authority………………………………………….. 16 Table 3.7 Kings River Conservation District…………………………………… 16 Table 3.8 Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District…………………………… 17 Table 3.9 Groundwater Basins and Subbasins…………………………….……. 19 Table 3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species that may Occur within the Action Area……………………………………………. 24 i Article 5 Exchange Draft EA LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms and Definitions AEWSD Arvin Edison Water Storage District AF Acre foot. The quantity of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot (325,872 gallons).
    [Show full text]