DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Wild and Scenic River Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region December 2015 Draft Wild and Scenic River Evaluation for Public Feedback on Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Relationship to the Forest Plan Revision Process ................................................................... 1 Wild and Scenic River Evaluation Requirements ................................................................... 1 Process to Identify Rivers to be Considered for Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ....................................................................................................... 3 Inventory ............................................................................................................................ 3 Results of the Inventory ..................................................................................................... 4 Process Used to Evaluate Each River in the Inventory for Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ................................................................................ 9 Process for the Review of Inventory Never Evaluated for Eligibility ................................ 9 Process for Review of Inventory Previously Evaluated for Eligibility ............................ 10 Summary of Public Input on Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................... 11 Results of the Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 15 Inyo National Forest .............................................................................................................. 15 New Inventory .................................................................................................................. 15 Review of Previously Evaluated Inventory ...................................................................... 24 Sequoia National Forest ........................................................................................................ 65 New Inventory .................................................................................................................. 65 Review of Previously Evaluated Inventory ...................................................................... 67 Sierra National Forest ............................................................................................................ 80 New Inventory .................................................................................................................. 80 Review of Previously Evaluated Inventory .................................................................... 187 Summary of Eligibility and Classification Findings ............................................................... 192 Eligibility Tables and Maps .................................................................................................... 193 Inyo National Forest ............................................................................................................ 193 Sequoia National Forest ...................................................................................................... 198 Sierra National Forest .......................................................................................................... 200 Tables Table 1. Inventory of rivers considered for eligibility on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests .................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2. Results of the initial review of the inventory for river-related values and free flow on the Inyo National Forest ...................................................................................... 17 Table 3. Results of the initial review of the new inventory for river-related values and free flow on the Sequoia National Forest ......................................................................... 65 Table 4. Kern River (lower) findings of the 1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP FEIS, Appendix E of the FEIS ................................................................................................... 67 Table 5. South Fork Kern River Findings of the 1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP FEIS, Appendix E............................................................................................................. 67 Table 6. Kings River Findings of the 1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP FEIS, Appendix E ....................................................................................................................... 68 Table 7. South Fork Kings River Findings of the 1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP FEIS, Appendix E............................................................................................................. 68 Table 8. Findings of the Kings River Special Management Area Implementation Plan 1991, Appendix B............................................................................................................. 69 Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans i Draft Wild and Scenic River Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests Table 9. Findings of the North and South Forks Kern Wild and Scenic River Final Environmental Impact Statement 1994 ............................................................................ 70 Table 10. Summary of eligible rivers Identified in past wild and scenic river evaluations on the Sequoia National Forest......................................................................................... 71 Table 11. Updated summary of eligible rivers identified in past wild and scenic river evaluations on the Sequoia National Forest, including additional outstandingly remarkable values identified by the team during the refreshed look at the past eligibility .......................................................................................................................... 79 Table 12. Results of the initial review of the inventory for river-related values and free flow on the Sierra National Forest.................................................................................... 80 Table 13. Merced River findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS ................................................................................................. 188 Table 14. South Fork Merced River findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS ..................................................................................... 188 Table 15. San Joaquin River Findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS ................................................................................................. 188 Table 16. North Fork San Joaquin River Findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS .......................................................................... 189 Table 17. Middle Fork San Joaquin River Findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS .......................................................................... 189 Table 18. South Fork San Joaquin River Findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS .......................................................................... 189 Table 19. Middle Fork Kings River Findings of the 1988 Sierra National Forest LRMP DEIS, Appendix E of the DEIS .....................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Long Valley Caldera, Mono-Inyo Craters

    Geologic Map of the Long Valley Caldera, Mono-Inyo Craters

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP 1-1933 US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF LONG VALLEY CALDERA, MONO-INYO CRATERS VOLCANIC CHAIN, AND VICINITY, EASTERN CALIFORNIA By Roy A. Bailey GEOLOGIC SETTING VOLCANISM Long Valley caldera and the Mono-Inyo Craters Long Valley caldera volcanic chain compose a late Tertiary to Quaternary Volcanism in the Long Valley area (Bailey and others, volcanic complex on the west edge of the Basin and 1976; Bailey, 1982b) began about 3.6 Ma with Range Province at the base of the Sierra Nevada frontal widespread eruption of trachybasaltic-trachyandesitic fault escarpment. The caldera, an east-west-elongate, lavas on a moderately well dissected upland surface oval depression 17 by 32 km, is located just northwest (Huber, 1981).Erosional remnants of these mafic lavas of the northern end of the Owens Valley rift and forms are scattered over a 4,000-km2 area extending from the a reentrant or offset in the Sierran escarpment, Adobe Hills (5-10 km notheast of the map area), commonly referred to as the "Mammoth embayment.'? around the periphery of Long Valley caldera, and The Mono-Inyo Craters volcanic chain forms a north- southwestward into the High Sierra. Although these trending zone of volcanic vents extending 45 km from lavas never formed a continuous cover over this region, the west moat of the caldera to Mono Lake. The their wide distribution suggests an extensive mantle prevolcanic basement in the area is mainly Mesozoic source for these initial mafic eruptions. Between 3.0 granitic rock of the Sierra Nevada batholith and and 2.5 Ma quartz-latite domes and flows erupted near Paleozoic metasedimentary and Mesozoic metavolcanic the north and northwest rims of the present caldera, at rocks of the Mount Morrisen, Gull Lake, and Ritter and near Bald Mountain and on San Joaquin Ridge Range roof pendants (map A).
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 238/Tuesday, December 12, 2006/Notices

    Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 238/Tuesday, December 12, 2006/Notices

    Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 74515 service called eSubscription that allows f. Location: On the San Joaquin River, 119,940 acre-feet at an elevation of you to keep track of all formal issuances near North Fork, California. The project about 3,330 feet above mean sea level; and submittals in specific dockets. This affects 2,036 cres of Federal land one power tunnel about 7.5 miles long, can reduce the amount of time you administered by the Sierra National to convey water from Mammoth Pool spend researching proceedings by Forest. Reservoir to Mammoth Pool automatically providing you with g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Powerhouse; two small diversions on notification of these filings, document Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). Rock Creek and Ross Creek; and one 230 summaries and direct links to the h. Applicant Contact: Russ W. kV transmission line about 6.7 miles documents. To register for this service, Krieger, Vice President Power long that connects the Mammoth Pool go to http://www.ferc.gov/ Production, Southern California Edison Powerhouse to the non-project Big esubscribenow.htm. Company, 300 N. Lone Hill Ave., San Creek No. 3 Switchyard. Type of Public meetings or site visits will be Dimas, CA 91773. Phone: 909–394– Application: New—Major Modified posted on the Commission’s calendar 8667. License located at http://www.ferc.gov/ i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at (202) m. A copy of the application is EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along 502–6095, or e-mail: available for review at the Commission with other related information.
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
  • Jennie Lakes & Monarch Wilderness Detailed Trail Reports and Information

    Jennie Lakes & Monarch Wilderness Detailed Trail Reports and Information

    2015, Wilderness, Hume Lake RD, Sequoia NF Jennie Lakes & Monarch Wilderness Detailed Trail Reports and Information (trailhead names are in bold type) By: Jeff Duneman, Wilderness Ranger Hume Lake Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest Last updated: August 3rd, 2015 *NOTES: “How long will it take?! Is it a hard hike?!” Difficulty and time required depends on you, the hiker, and your condition. An experienced, strong hiker will cover 3-4 miles (or more!) an hour carrying a full pack, without stopping. Someone who doesn’t hike much (or walk much, for that matter) will cover 1-2 miles (or less!) an hour, without a big pack, with frequent stops. Know your abilities! Always carry water, always check weather conditions, always tell people where you are going, and always familiarize yourself with the area (real maps recommended, not GPS). Pay attention to your surroundings, and enjoy your wilderness! *LEAVE NO TRACE: Please take a look at the seven Leave No Trace wilderness ethics before you head out to the trail – https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles *Never leave trash or toilet paper behind! Pack it all in, pack it all out. *When campfires are allowed (check with the forest service on current fire status), always completely drown your campfire so that it is completely out! Jennie Lakes Wilderness (JLW) 1) Big Meadows Trail (#?)/Weaver Lake Trail (#30E09) Big Meadows trailhead up to Weaver Lake: At about 3.5 miles one-way, this is one of the easiest and most popular hikes in the JLW. The trail winds through Lodgepole Pines near the trailhead, climbs slowly (with a nice view into Kings Canyon) into Red and White Firs, with another slight ascent once you are getting closer to the lake.
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
  • The Impacts of the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts

    The Impacts of the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts

    THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER ———————— A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ———————— In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in History ———————— by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER A Thesis by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharron A. Barrios, Ph.D.____________ APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: _________________________________ Michael F. Magliari, Ph.D., Chair______ _________________________________ Jesse A. Dizard, Ph.D._______________ _________________________________ Timothy G. Sistrunk, Ph.D._________ __ TABLE OF CONTENTS ——————————————————————————————————————— PAGE List of Figures ........................................................................................................... iv Abstract ..................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 I. Planning for the Future, The Water Bank of California: 1957-1972 .............. 12 II. The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Fight to Preserve the North- Coast Rivers: 1968-1972 ............................................................................
  • Jordan Toll Trail by William F

    Jordan Toll Trail by William F

    Jordan Toll Trail By William F. (Bill) Jordan In the year of 1860, there was a lot of verbal and political activity about the matter of building roads across the Sierra Mountains. In April, 1860, the Tulare County Supervisors appointed a committee to view a road and pack trail from Visalia to Mono. On January 30, 1860, the Visalia Delta announced that a company had been formed and application was made to the legislature to build a toll road from Visalia to Owens Lake. S. G. George, H. L. Mathews. S. Sweet, Henry Bostwick, John Jordan, and W. F. Jordan. About or before that time, the large Coso Silver and Gold Mines opened up. They were located southeast of Owens Lake up in the Coso Range of mountains, east of Owens Valley. The mines are what attracted all of this excitement. While all this talk and legislative action was going on, John Jordan and his son, William F. Jordan, were apparently going ahead with a toll trail project under the authority given by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. The Jordan petition is on file at the Tulare County Courthouse and reads as follows: Saturday, March 30, 1861. whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County have this day passed a resolution instructing our Senator and Representative in the Legislature of the State of California, authorizing said County of Tulare to levy an additional road tax of 10 cents on each $100.00 worth of taxable property in said County. Now, therefore, if the Legislature shall pass the Act aforesaid, it is, by this Board ordered that all the taxes arising from the aforesaid special Act for one year, shall be applied to building and constructing a certain wagon road leading from San Luis Obispo County to Coso by the way of Visalia.
  • Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek

    Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek

    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RESTORATION OF THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, KERN PLATEAU, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1966-2004, WITH REFERENCE TO GOLDEN TROUT CREEK By E. P. (Phil) Pister, Inland Deserts Region, Retired CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT Central Region Administrative Report No. 2008-1 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2 The Beginning..................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WARNINGS ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 6 WATERSHED RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 8 THE FIRST FISH BARRIER AND EARLY BROWN TROUT CONTROL....................... 8 1976 – THE MAJOR PROJECT BEGINS..................................................................... 10 TEMPLETON AND SCHAEFFER BARRIERS............................................................. 12 1977 -1979 – HOLDING THE LINE .............................................................................. 16 1980 -1983 – MAJOR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS AND BEGINNING
  • Inyo National Forest Visitor Guide

    Inyo National Forest Visitor Guide

    >>> >>> Inyo National Forest >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Visitor Guide >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> $1.00 Suggested Donation FRED RICHTER Inspiring Destinations © Inyo National Forest Facts “Inyo” is a Paiute xtending 165 miles Bound ary Peak, South Si er ra, lakes and 1,100 miles of streams Indian word meaning along the California/ White Mountain, and Owens River that provide habitat for golden, ENevada border between Headwaters wildernesses. Devils brook, brown and rainbow trout. “Dwelling Place of Los Angeles and Reno, the Inyo Postpile Nation al Mon ument, Mam moth Mountain Ski Area National Forest, established May ad min is tered by the National Park becomes a sum mer destination for the Great Spirit.” 25, 1907, in cludes over two million Ser vice, is also located within the mountain bike en thu si asts as they acres of pris tine lakes, fragile Inyo Na tion al For est in the Reds ride the chal leng ing Ka mi ka ze Contents Trail from the top of the 11,053-foot mead ows, wind ing streams, rugged Mead ow area west of Mam moth Wildlife 2 Sierra Ne va da peaks and arid Great Lakes. In addition, the Inyo is home high Mam moth Moun tain or one of Basin moun tains. El e va tions range to the tallest peak in the low er 48 the many other trails that transect Wildflowers 3 from 3,900 to 14,494 feet, pro vid­ states, Mt. Whitney (14,494 feet) the front coun try of the forest. Wilderness 4-5 ing diverse habitats that sup port and is adjacent to the lowest point Sixty-five trailheads provide Regional Map - North 6 vegetation patterns ranging from in North America at Badwater in ac cess to over 1,200 miles of trail Mono Lake 7 semiarid deserts to high al pine Death Val ley Nation al Park (282 in the 1.2 million acres of wil der- meadows.
  • Terr–14 Mule Deer

    Terr–14 Mule Deer

    TERR–14 MULE DEER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2001 and 2002, the literature review, a camera feasibility study, the Mammoth Pool migration study (observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study), and a hunter access study were completed. A map of known mule deer summer and winter ranges, migration corridors, and holding areas was created based on the literature review. The camera feasibility study was conducted in the fall of 2001 to test the remote camera system for the spring 2002 remote camera study. The cameras were successful at capturing photographs of 82 animals, including photographs of six deer, during this testing period. The Mammoth Pool migration study consisted of an observation study, boat survey, and remote camera study. The study focused on documenting key migration routes across the reservoir and relative use, identifying potential migration barriers, and documenting any deer mortality in the reservoir. The observation study consisted of two observers positioned with binoculars at two observation points on Mammoth Pool at dusk and dawn in order to observe migrating deer. There were no observations of deer using the dam road. Two observations of deer were made out of a total of 51 observation periods. One observation consisted of a single deer that swam from the Windy Point Boat Launch area to the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch area. The other observation was of one group of five adult deer approaching the reservoir near the observation point by the Mammoth Pool Boat Launch, but turning back up the hill. There was no sign of difficulty in the deer swimming or exiting the reservoir and no obvious disturbance to the deer that turned back.
  • SCE Petition for Declaratory Order

    SCE Petition for Declaratory Order

    Troutman Sanders LLP 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-2134 troutman.com Charles R. Sensiba [email protected] June 17, 2019 Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: Southern California Edison Company; Petition for Declaratory Order and Request for Expedited Consideration; Project Nos. 67-__, 120-__, 2085-__,2086-__, 2174-__, 2175-__ Dear Secretary Bose: As set forth in the enclosed Petition for Declaratory Order (“Petition”), Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) respectfully requests the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) to declare on an expedited basis that the California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) has waived authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA”) for failure to act on SCE’s requests for water quality certification (“WQC”) within the statutorily prescribed one-year time period for all six projects within the Big Creek Hydroelectric System (collectively referred to as the “Big Creek Projects”) that are pending for relicensing before the Commission. For purposes of this Petition, the Big Creek Projects consist of Big Creek Nos. 2A, 8, and Eastwood Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 67); Big Creek No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 120); Mammoth Pool Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2085); Vermilion Valley Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2086); Portal Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2174); and Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2175).2 The Commission’s relicensing of the Big Creek Projects has been delayed for well over a decade—and in some instances for nearly 20 years—due in large measure to SWRCB’s consistent annual direction that SCE submit a withdrawal-and-resubmittal letter for the express purpose of attempting to provide SWRCB another year to act on SCE’s WQC requests.
  • December 11, 2012- Board of Supervisors

    December 11, 2012- Board of Supervisors

    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS ACTION AGENDA SUMMARY DEPT: Chief Executive Office BOARDAGENDA#~*B~-~6~ _ Urgent 0 Routine ~ AGENDA DATE December 11,2012 CEO Concurs with Recommendation YES 4/5 Vote Required YES 0 NO ~ (Infor SUBJECT: Approval to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Efforts of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta Counties Coalition on Water Management Actions of Value to Stanislaus County FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this item. A member of the Board of Supervisors is appointed by the Governor to represent Stanislaus County on the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. Board members also have an opportunity to become engaged through the work group structure. County staff provides technical support to Board members based on their work and involvement on an as needed basis within approved departmental bUdgets. BOARD ACTION AS FOLLOWS: No. 2012-597 On motion of Supervisor Withrow , Seconded by Supervisor _J;;bi~~q _ and approved by the following-Yote,- ----------------- -. Ayes: Supervisors:_Ct*~~a,_WithJ9w.J1l19_nJeLtb~D_e_ MqaLnj .smd_ C_h_ajCI119Il_ OJ~cieD _ Noes: Supervisors: ~,to_n_~ _ Excused or Absent: Supervisors: None Abstaining: Supervisor: --Nofle--- -----------------------------------------------------------------