DOCSLIB.ORG

127 FERC ¶ 62,070 UNITED STATES of AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 21

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
127 FERC ¶ 62,070 UNITED STATES of AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 21 20090424-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/24/2009 127 FERC ¶ 62,070 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 21 30 -033 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE April 24, 2009 INTRODUCTION 1. On December 26, 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application for a new license, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 for the continued operatio n and maintenance of the Spring Gap -Stanislaus Hydroelectric Project No. 2130 (project) . The new license applicatio n was prepared pursuant to the Commission’s traditional licensing process. 2 The project’s installed capacity under this license is 87.9 megawatts (MW). 3 The project is located on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (Middle Fork) and South Fork Stanislaus Ri ver (South Fork) in Calaveras and Tuolumne C ounties, California , and occupies approximately 1,060 acres within the Stanislaus National Forest, managed by the U .S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (Forest Service). 4,5 As discussed below, I am iss uing a new license for the project. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797( e) and 808 (2006), respectively. 2 18 C.F.R. § 4.34(i) (2008). 3 The installed capacity of the Spring Gap development is 6.0 MW and the existing installed capacity of the Stanislaus development is 81.9 MW. The license application cited the rated capacitie s of the units to be 7.0 MW and 91.0 MW, respectively. These ratings reflect the higher turbine ratings as opposed to the limiting generator capacities which, in this case, are used to determine the installed capacities of the units. 4 In its application, PG&E states that the project occupies 1,049.98 acres of federal lands (administered by the Stanislaus National Forest ); however, the Commission’s annual charges for federal lands are based on the project’s use of 1,060 .98 acres of federal lands . On Janua ry 6, 2009, the Commission’s Office of Executive Director issued a letter requesting PG&E to certify the number of federal acres the project occupies. In (continue d) 20090424-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/24/2009 Project No. 2130 -033 2 BACKGROUND 2. The current license for the project, issued on February 21 , 1955, expired on December 31, 2004. 6 Since then, PG&E has operated the project under an annual license pending the disposition of its new license a pplication. 3. On January 2, 2004, the Commission issued a public notice accepting the application and requesting motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, terms an d conditions, and prescriptions to be filed by March 2, 2004. The following entities filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene: American Whitewater Affiliation; California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board); Friends of the River; Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center; Trout Unlimited; County of Tuolumne; Tuolumne Public Power Agency; Tuolumne Utilities District (Tuolumne Utilities) ; and the Forest Service. 7 Untimely motions to intervene were filed by Calaveras Public Power Agency and the County of Calaveras. These late interventions were granted in a no tice issued July 18, 2005. None of the intervenors oppose the project. 4. On February 26, 2004, and March 1, 2004, respectively, the Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) filed c omments , recommendations, and terms and conditions in response to the C ommission’s notice. 5. On March 1, 2004, PG&E submitted recommended resource measures for the Spring Gap -Stanislaus Project that replaced its originally proposed measures in the license application. These recommended resource measures we re developed as a result addition, t o further resolve this inconsistency, Article 20 6 requires PG&E to file a statement with s upporting documentation verifying the amount of federal land occupied by the project . 5 The project is located on federal lands within the Stanislaus National Forest; therefore, FPA section 23(b)( 1), 16 U.S.C. § 817 (2006), requires the project to be licen sed. 6 See 14 FPC 556 (1955). The original license was granted on February 21, 1955, for a term of 50 years with an effective date of January 1, 1955. 7 Timely unopposed motions to intervene were automatically granted by operation of R ule 214 of the Commi ssion's Ru les of Practice and Procedure. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (2008) . 20090424-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/24/2009 Project No. 2130 -033 3 of consensus among a relicensing collaborative group. 8 The specific details of these consensus measures are discussed below. 6. On September 30, 2004, Commission staff issued for comment a multi -project draft environmental impact sta tement (EIS) , which included the evaluation of the environmental effects from PG&E’s proposal with the consensus measures and alternatives for relicensing the Spring Gap -Stanislaus Project . 9 Comments were due by December 7, 2004. In addition, the Commis sion accepted oral testimony on the draft EIS at two meetings , both held on November 16, 2004, in Sonora, California. Comments were filed by the State of California – Department of Health Services, Interior, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Water Board, Tuolumne Utilities, Michael Gamerl, Forest Service, Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment, California Department of Fish and Game ( California Fish and Game), Trout Unlimited, Friends of the River, Central Sierra Environmental Resou rce Center, PG&E, Calaveras County Water District, Clean Lakes Inc., Pinecrest Lake Resort, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oral testimony was received from t he South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation Districts ’ ( Irrigation Districts ), PG&E , California Water Board, Forest Service, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Tom Sawyer, and Alyce Lowry. Commission staff considered all written and oral comments when preparing the final EIS, which was issued on March 1, 2005. 7. The motions t o intervene , comments , and recommendations have been fully considered in determining whether, and under what conditions , to issue this license. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Area 8. The Spring Gap -Stanislaus P roject is located on the Middle and South Forks of the Stanislaus River in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range of north -central California. The headwaters of the Stanislaus River originate at Kennedy Creek in the Emigrant Wilderness Area at an elevation of about 9,650 feet and the river flows in a general so uthwesterly direction to its confluence with the San Joaquin River in the Central Valley region. The upper regions of the project are accessible via State Highway 108 and along 8 This relicensing collaborative group included PG&E, the Forest Service, American Whitewater, Friends of the River, Trout Unlimited, County of Tuolumne, Tuolumne Public Power Agency , Tuolumne Utilities District, and Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center. 9 Final EIS for the Stanislaus River Projects, FERC Project Nos. 2130, 2005, 2118, and 2067. 20090424-3049 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/24/2009 Project No. 2130 -033 4 several Forest Service -maintained dirt roads. Traveling over Sonora Pass, Hig hway 108 connects State H ighways 120 and 49 to U.S. Highway 395 on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. 9. The deeply incised Stanislaus R iver canyon dominates the topography in the project area with a difference of elevation around 2,000 feet from ridge to p to the river. Drainage of the western slope of the Sierras near the project area is predominantly southwestward, and the Stanislaus River basin is bordered to the north by the Mokelumne River and the Tuolumne River to the south. All three of these rive rs are tributaries to the San Joaquin River. Mountain peaks in the headwaters of the Stanislaus River basin reach elevations of more than 11,000 feet. Elevations in the project area range from about 1,000 to 7,300 feet. Most of the river basin, especial ly in the project area, is forested with major land uses including recreation, conservation, timbering, and grazing. 10. The Spring Gap -Stanislaus P roject includes four developments and is intricately connected with several other licensed hydroelectric project s in the Stanislaus River watershed: T he Irrigation Districts’ Beardsley/ Donnells Hydroelectric Project No. 2005; Tri -Dam Power Authority’s (Tri -Dam Power) Sand Bar Hydroelectric Project No. 2975; PG&E’s Phoenix Hydroelectric Project No. 1061; and the Irr igation Districts’ Tulloch Hydroelectric Project No. 2067 .10 Middle Fork Stanislaus River 11. Relief reservoir , the uppermost project facility, is located in the upper reaches of the watershed . The reservoir, located on Summit Creek just before its confluence with Kennedy Creek to form the Middle Fork , acts as a storage reservoir for both PG&E’s Spring Gap -Stanislaus Project and the Irrigation Districts’ downstream hydropower projects. From the project’s Relief reservoir, water flows approximately 16 miles do wnstream into Donnells reservoir , part of the Irrigation Districts’ Beardsley/Donnells Project. 12. The Irrigation Districts’ Donnells reservoir is a storage facility usually operated to limit spill at its Donnells dam and its downstream Beardsley dam during the peak spring runoff period. At Donnells dam, which impounds Donnells reservoir, most flow is diverted into the 8 -mile -long Donnells power tunnel. This power tunnel feeds Donnells powerhouse, located near the upstream end of Beardsley reservoir on the Middle Fork. 10 New licenses were issued to the Irrigation Districts for the Beardsley/Donnells Project on January 30, 2006, 114 FERC ¶ 62,081 ; and for the Tulloch Project on February 16, 2006, 114 FERC ¶ 62,162 . An initial license was issued to Tri -Dam Power for the Sand Bar Project on September 8, 1983, 25 FERC ¶ 62,278; and a new license was iss ued to PG&E for the Phoenix Project on September 30, 1992, 60 FERC ¶ 62,256 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tri-Dam Project
    AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\IJ IJ\\ BOARD MEETING March 19, 2020 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARCH 19, 2020 8:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages publi c participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the publi c, and limited to 5 minutes per person. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2 l. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of February 20, 2020. 2. Approve February 2020 financial statements and statement of obligations. a. Investment p01tfolio and reserve fund status. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 3- 11 3. Discussion and possible action to approve annual fee for use of Federal Lands for operations of the Tri-Dam Project 4. Discussion and possible action to authorize the General Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for the preparation of the dam breach analysis and updated inundation mapping for Beardsley, Donnells, Tulloch and Goodwin Projects, including a budget adjustment for Account #59690.
    [Show full text]
  • Beardsley Reservoir Fishing Report
    Beardsley Reservoir Fishing Report Pepillo hobnobbings her redcaps slouchingly, she vulcanise it inarticulately. Jasper still universalize pugnaciously while opposed Von isochronized that dioptres. Violinistic and conniving Judas revolved her jubbahs glimmer or adventures Mondays. Congratulations to beardsley reservoir The reservoir is open all year good road if subject to winter closure The Tri-Dam Project maintains Beardsley Road in winter. Walleye reports provide room over deep water but will be available this report. Fishing and Rich and Sal's Sport Shop. Kennedy Meadows California Gateway to the Pacific Crest Trail. Connecticut Fishing one Week of October 2th 2019 US. The park out west sunset Highway 17 between Beardsley and. Is Pinecrest open with fishing? German brown trout fishery flows are found suspended over the near future. Land surface water board funds three projects Free Content. Streamflows Stanislaus Fly Fishers. Lower middle River Reservoir ropegif 217 bytes Click here for ongoing free map service launch by MapQuest Get my time information on Water grid and. Watch for beardsley reservoir, even more reports and months and black jitterbugs and downstream of poaching that have the fly fishing report for booking. Closed on November 1 most notably LAKE WONOSKOPOMUC and SHENIPSIT RESERVOIR Please refer both the 2020 CT Fishing book for additional. Off The Radar Trout Destinations For The NorCal Kayaker. Fishing Stanislaus River information including maps. The nearby snack bar, which most comprehensive resource for carp, both sides of fishing focused on fishing report? Ice fishing from trout at Clark Canyon Reservoir Billings Hunter. Which included Donnells Dam and Beardsley Dam by the shelter Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant-Prepared Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Don Pedro Project Ferc No
    APPLICANT-PREPARED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT DON PEDRO PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 Prepared for: Turlock Irrigation District – Turlock, California Modesto Irrigation District – Modesto, California Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Description Page No. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Essential Fish Habitat Regulatory Framework .................................................... 1-1 1.2 EFH Action Area ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Public Review and Consultation during Relicensing........................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document ..................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Scoping and Study Plan Development ..................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Pre-Filing Consultation Workshop Process ............................................. 1-5 1.3.4 Initial and Updated Study Reports ........................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Draft License Application ........................................................................ 1-6 1.3.6 Post-Filing Consultation and Alternatives Analysis ................................ 1-7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Frank E. Bonner Papers, 1886-1967
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7z09p04m No online items Inventory of the Frank E. Bonner Papers, 1886-1967 Processed by Erica Nordmeier. Water Resources Collections and Archives Orbach Science Library, Room 118 PO Box 5900 University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Phone: (951) 827-2934 Fax: (951) 827-6378 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/wrca © 2008 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Inventory of the Frank E. Bonner MS 90/2 1 Papers, 1886-1967 Inventory of the Frank E. Bonner Papers, 1886-1967 Collection number: MS 90/2 Water Resources Collections and Archives University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Contact Information: Water Resources Collections and Archives Orbach Science Library, Room 118 PO Box 5900 University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Phone: (951) 827-2934 Fax: (951) 827-6378 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/wrca Collection Processed By: Erica Nordmeier and Paul Atwood Date Completed May 2001, updated July 2008 © 2008 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Frank E. Bonner Papers, Date (inclusive): 1886-1967 Collection number: MS 90/2 Creator: Frank E. Bonner Extent: 25 boxes, 3 flat boxes, and 1 map box Repository: Water Resources Collections and Archives Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Shelf location: This collection is stored off-campus at NRLF. Please contact the Water Resources Collections and Archives staff for access to the materials. Language: English. Provenance John F. Bonner, son of Frank E. Bonner, donated this collection to the Water Resources Collections and Archives on May 1, 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Appendixes
    TECHNICAL APPENDIXES November 2005 W092005005SAC TECHNICAL APPENDIXES November 2005 W092005005SAC Introduction Introduction Purpose and Scope of the Water Resources Plan Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) is a nonprofit, local public agency that operates as a political entity of the State under the California Water Code. The district’s mission is this: To protect and develop Oakdale Irrigation District water resources for the maximum benefit of the Oakdale Irrigation District community by providing excellent irrigation and domestic water service. The complexity of water issues, both locally and at the state level, necessitates a rethinking WRP HIGHLIGHTS of OID’s current practices and priorities in By evaluating several core aspects of OID— including the district’s resources, infrastructure, land order to guarantee full protection of the use trends, administrative organization, and district’s and region’s water supplies into the financial position—strategies for a water resources future. Understanding the issues facing OID management program were developed to meet the and developing a comprehensive plan to project goals. Major elements of the program recommended for implementation over a 10- to respond to these issues is the objective of this 20-year period are the following: Water Resources Plan (WRP). x Rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of existing infrastructure as dictated by Board of This plan evaluates the district’s water Directors policy, standards, and regulations resources, delivery system, and operations, and x New in-system regulating reservoirs examines land use trends to determine how x On-farm irrigation education programs and future changes in these areas will impact water irrigation improvement assistance supply and demand during the next two x Annexation of new lands into the district service decades.
    [Show full text]
  • OID SSJID SEWD Prj Description 2011 Remand LTO 9-21-12
    Buchholz, Gwendolyn/BAO From: Karna Harrigfeld [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:20 PM To: sha-MPR-RemandSEP Cc: 'Tim O'Laughlin'; 'William Paris III'; Steve Knell; Jeff Shields; Steve Emrick; Kevin Kauffman Subject: East Side Division - New Melones - Stanislaus River Project Description Attachments: 185526.pdf Importance: High Here is a revised Project Description for the East Side Division of the CVP submitted by Oakdale Irrigation District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Stockton East Water District. Karna E. Harrigfeld Attorney-at-Law T: 209.472.7700 \ F: 209.472.7986 5757 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 222 STOCKTON, CA 95207 www.herumcrabtree.com \ [email protected] Connect to Us: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying attachment(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication or accompanying document(s) is strictly prohibited, and the message should be immediately deleted with any attachment(s). Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney‐client privilege or confidentiality as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately by return electronic mail or by telephone at (209) 472‐7700. Thank you 1 East Side Division 1.0 Hydrology and Setting The Stanislaus River is located on the Western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and drains a watershed of approximately 900 square miles. The Stanislaus River Basin includes the North Fork Stanislaus River (NFSR), South Fork Stanislaus River (SFSR), and Middle Fork Stanislaus River (MFSR).
    [Show full text]
  • Goodwin Power OCT 30 2013 Pre-App.Pdf
    PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT OCTOBER 30, 2013 Prepared by America Renewables, LLC for: GOODWIN POWER, LLC Goodwin Dam Hydropower Project (FERC Project No. 13728) Goodwin Power Pre-Application Document Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1! PROCESS(PLAN(AND(SCHEDULE(...............................................................................................................(1! 1.1! PROCESS!PLAN!AND!SCHEDULE!THROUGH!FILING!OF!LICENSE!APPLICATION!..................................................!1! 2! PROJECT(LOCATION,(FACILITIES,(AND(OPERATIONS(.......................................................................(1! 2.1! NAME!AND!BUSINESS!ADDRESS!..................................................................................................................................!1! 2.2! DETAILED!MAPS!.............................................................................................................................................................!1! 2.3! DESCRIPTION!OF!ALL!EXISTING!AND!PROPOSED!FACILITIES!................................................................................!6! 2.3.1! Physical-Composition,-Dimensions-and-General-Configuration-.........................................................-6! 2.3.2! Goodwin-Dam-Components-................................................................................................................................-6! 2.3.3! Proposed-Facilities-.................................................................................................................................................-7!
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coordinated Long-Term
    Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 Appendix 1E 2 Comments from Individuals and 3 Responses 4 This section contains copies of comment letters from individuals on the Draft 5 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coordinated Long-term Operation 6 of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). Each 7 comment in the comment letters was assigned a number, in sequential order. The 8 numbers were combined with the last name of the individual (example: Bartlett 9 1). The comments with the associated responses are arranged alphabetically by 10 last name, and appear in the chapter in that order. 11 Copies of the comments are provided in Section 1E.1. Responses to each of the 12 comments follow the comment letters, and are numbered in accordance with the 13 numbers assigned in the letters. None of the comments from individuals included 14 large attachments. 15 1E.1 Comments and Responses 16 The individuals listed in Table 1E.1 provided comments on the Draft EIS. 17 Table 1E.1. Individuals Providing Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 18 Statement Abbreviation Commenter Bartlett John Bartlett Brobeck 1 James Brobeck Brobeck 2 James Brobeck Cardella Nicolas Cardella Cartwright Ken Cartwright Hoover Michael Hoover McDaniel Daniel McDaniel St. Amant Tony St. Amant Todenhagen Nora Todenhagen 19 20 Final LTO EIS 1E-1 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.1 John Bartlett 2 3 1E.1.1.1 Responses to Comments from John Bartlett 4 Bartlett 1: Two of the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, Alternatives 3 and 4, 5 included modifications of the striped bass bag limits to reduce the predation 6 potential on native species, as described in Sections 3.4.5.2 and 3.4.6.2 of Chapter 7 3, Description of Alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-Dam Project
    fl1i.RI,o!IM: RROiJEcT;,~ , .. " •..• "" •• I. AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY ~~~ 11\\ BOARD MEETING July 20, 2017 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT ofTHE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT JULY 20, 2017 9:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: Tri-Dam Project 31885 Old Strawberry Rd. Strawberry, CA 95375 FLAG SALUTE - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Dale Kuil, Ralph Roos, Gail Altieri, Herman Doornenbal, Gary Osmundson, Linda Santos, Steve Webb PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages public participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the public. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 1-7 1. Review and approve the regular board meeting minutes of J nne 15, 2017 2. Review and approve June 2017 financial statements and statement of obligations a. Investment portfolio and reserve fund status 3. Consider approval of Resolution TDP 2017.07 District Distribution 4. Consider approval of Resolution TDP 2017.08 U.S. Bank Custodial Account 5. Consider approval of revisions to Tri-Dam Project Investment Policy 6. Consider approval ofCaiPERS armual lump sum payment 2017-2018 7. Consider approval of Purchase Authorizations a. 2017.07.01 Upgrade Microsoft Exchange 2007 to Exchange 2016 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubled Water of the Sierra
    Troubled Water of the Sierra By Kerri L. Timmer Edited by Joan Clayburgh Sierra Nevada Alliance www.sierranevadaalliance.org Troubled Water of the Sierra 1 Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed comments, insights, experience and hard work to this report, among them Hannah House Gilan, Lynn Sadler, Bill Center, Kris Haddad, Steve Wald, Bob Kelso, Tom Mooers, Terry Manning and Steve Frisch. Special thanks to Kathy Haberman for formatting and editing this report for publication and Cristi Bozora Creegan for providing copy editing and proofing. Thanks to Mark Russell of Amador Web Works for web page assistance. We gratefully acknowledge Peter Moyle for allowing us to reuse his biotic integrity data. We want to thank the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund which supported the work and production of the report. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Recommendations and views expressed are those of the Sierra Nevada Alliance and do not necessarily represent those of funders, reviewers or others who offered assistance to this report. About the Author Kerri Timmer, sole proprietor of Sierra Connections — Community Action Consulting, is a writer, researcher and communications specialist with 20 years’ professional experience in the fields of business communications, community outreach and government relations. For the past 11 years she has worked exclusively with community interests on natural resource assessment, communications, and organizational development projects. Kerri is trained in meeting facilitation and interest-based negotiation and has sat on a number of boards and advisory committees dedicated to collaborative problem-solving, primarily in the environmental and land use arenas. She also authored a guidebook on establishing collaborative water- shed councils in local communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuolumne-Stanislaus Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    Tuolumne-Stanislaus Integrated Regional Water Management Plan August 2013 Updated Fall 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1 Regional Features ................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 Primary Focal Points for the IRWM Plan ................................. 1-1 1.2.3 Formation of the IRWM Region ............................................... 1-4 1.3 Governance ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.3.1 Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) ....................... 1-5 1.3.2 Planning Grant Committee (PGC) ........................................... 1-7 1.4 Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach ............................................ 1-7 1.4.1 Overview of the Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach Process ................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.2 Stakeholders ........................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2.1 Municipal and County Governments ................... 1-10 1.4.2.2 Wholesale and Retail Water Purveyors,
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-Dam Project
    AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\II 11\\ BOARD MEETING December 14, 2017 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT ofTHE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DECEMBER 14,2017 9:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: South San Joaquin Irrigation District 11011 Highway 120 Manteca, CA 95366 FLAG SALUTE -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Dale Kuil, Ralph Roos, Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages public participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the public. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 1-10 1. Review and approve the regular board meeting minutes of October 19, 2017 2. Review and approve October 2017 financial statements and statement of obligations a. Investment portfolio and reserve fund status 3. Review and approve November 2017 financial statements and statement of obligations a. Investment portfolio and reserve fund status 4. 2017 FishBio presentation and review and consider approval of20 18 budget proposal 5. Review and consider approval2018 Draft Budget 6. Review and consider approval ofjob descriptions 7. Review and consider approval of performance recognition for unrepresented staff 8. Review and consider approval of Save the Stan contract amendment- MHO Group 9.
    [Show full text]