~~~ AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT
TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\II 11\\ BOARD MEETING
May 17, 2018 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAY 17,2018 9:00A.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, 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 pmhibits 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.
CLOSED SESSION ITEM1
1. a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4): 3 potential cases
b. Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Subdivision (d)(l) of Section 54956.9) Lee Tyler; Winifred Mary Tyler, both Trustees of the 1994 Tyler Family Trust as amended in 2003 v. Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Tri-Dam Project; Does 4110/2017 17CV42319
c. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: General Manager & Finance Manager Employee Organization: IBEW 1245
ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 2-9
2. Consider funding approval and authorization ofTri-Dam staff to execute a professional services contract with Jacobs Engineering to start the Stanislaus River Basin Plan
3. Consider approval for OlD and SSJID to retain the services of Jason Larrabee to assist the Districts with continuing efforts in Washington DC 4. Review and approve the regular board meeting minutes of April 19, 2018 5. Review and approve April2018 financial statements and statement of obligations
a. Investment portfolio and reserve fund status
6. Consider approval of the 2018-19 Insurance Renewal
7. Purchase Authorizations
a. 2018.5.01 Replace Microwave Link between Strawberry Peak and Sandbar
8. Consideration and possible adoption of Resolution No. TOP 2018-03 authorizing staff to surplus the 2. 7 acre site, identified as APN: 061-057-001 along Connor Estates Drive, Copperopolis, California and direct Staff to proceed with implementation of the requisite process as directed by the California Government Code.
9. Consider approval to change one regular meeting location to Strawberry, CA
DISCUSSION ITEMS 10-12
10. Possible Spring Operations on the Stanislaus River
11. Discussion of Beardsley Afterbay Project
12. Discussion and update on Donnells Realignment Project
COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS 13-16
13. Staff reports as follows: a. General Manager Report b. Maintenance Report c. Operations Report d. Compliance Report 14. Generation Report
15. Fisheries studies on the Lower Stanislaus River
16. Directors' Comments
ADJOURNMENT ITEM17
17. Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting
D Items on the Agenda may be taken in any order. 0 Action may be taken on any item listed on the a~:,renda. D Writings relating to an open session agenda item that al'e distributed to members of the Board of Directors will be available for inspection at the Tri-Dam Project office, excluding writings that are not public records or are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. [I ADA Compliance Statement: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need speciHl assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Clerk at (209) 965-3996 ext 110. Notification 48 hours prior to meeting will enable the Project to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. CLOSED
SESSION Notes: STANISLAUS
RIVER BASIN
PLAN BOARD AGENDA REPORT
Date: May1,2018 Item Number: APN: N/A
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE STANISLAUS BASIN PLAN
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Scope of Work for the Stanislaus Basin Plan
BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY: On July 11, 2017 the Board approved the development of a Scope of Work for a planning document to address the legislative and legal challenges facing OlD and to provide options going forward regarding resources protection. With the interest of SSJID, that project scope has expanded to include the preparation of a Stanislaus Basin Planning document. An update of the document was provided to the Board on March 20, 2018 at a Tri Dam Board meeting and again at the last Tri Dam meeting of April 19,2018.
The Scope of Work for the Stanislaus Basin Plan is being presented to the OlD Board today for its approval as was discussed at the April 191h Tri Dam meeting. SSJID's Board will be addressing and approving this document at its meeting of May 8, 2018. If there are no further changes to the Scope of Work, a Professional Services Agreement will be on the Tri-Dam Agenda for May 17, 2018 for approval by the Tri Dam Board.
Staff recommends approval of the Scope of Work by the Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: As currently written, $885,011 over the next 18 months
ATTACHMENTS: :.- Draft of the Scope of Work for the Stanislaus Basin Plan
Board Motion:
Motion by:------Second by:------
VOTE: Orvis (Yes/No) Altieri (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) DeBoer (Yes/No)
Action(s) to be taken:
. Oakdale Irrigation District Stanislaus River Basin Plan
ask 1.1 Demand lor otO Task 3.1 Fhancial Analysis fw 010 T8$k 5.1 Develop Alternatives Task6.1 Dralt Basin Plan ask 1.2 Demand for SSJID Task 3.2 Financial Anatysis f01 SSJID Task 5.2 Develop Evaluation Toofscl Task 6.2 Final Basin Plan ask 1.3 Other Demands Task 3.3 Combined Fin Hourly .... ,_, TookU Tuk 1.3 Task 2.1 eot2.2 , ookU TeokU Took4.0 Tootl.l ookl.2 TookU ookl.4 •kl.l T• kl.2 ook7 To181 To181 ... Hrs Hrs Houra ~ _,Ootoaory H so so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so so so $0 so $0 $0 - Comonl (8C} so s s $ s s $ - $ $ - s $ $ s $ s 1.500 $ 1.500 s $3.000 ..... $ 900 s 150 $ 150 s 900 $ 150 s 300 s 150 s 150 s 900 $ 900 s 900 s 900 s 900 s 300 s 150 $ 2.1 00 $9.900 l!!!.boo-·.... $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ - $ $ s $ $0 _ $900 $ 150 $150 $900 $ 150 S300 $150 $150 $900 $900 $900 S900 $900 $1,800 $ 1.650 S2.100 $ 12,900 ...... ,011 •• ..__,'"'.... $0 so so so so so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s o so $0 __. $900 $150 $150 $900 $150 S300 S150 $150 S900 $900 S900 $900 S900 $1.t 00 $1 650 $2.100 $ 12,900 ota bvT•k _.,_ S82.833 S28.270 $17,678 $29,572 $46.710 $28 268 $14,580 S23.590 $71.532 S64 660 $02.592 $118.948 $36,832 $ 110 144 $56 242 S73.460 $885,91 1 Oil 100 '~ $82.833 0% so SO% sa.839 50% $14,786 50% $23,355 100°4 $28.268 0% so 50% $11.795 SO% $35,766 SO% S32.330 SO% $41 ,296 50'4 SS9,474 SO*-' $18,416 SO% $55,072 so~ S28 .t21 50% $36.730 S477,081 88Jil 0% so 100% $28,270 50% $8,839 50% $1 4,786 SO % $23.355 0% $0 100% $1 4,580 50% $11.795 50% $35,766 SO% $32.330 SO% $41 ,296 50'4 $59,474 SO% $18,416 SO% $55.072 SO% $28.121 50'4 $36.730 $408,830 ~ Assume 18 month duraliM. Task 1.2 and 3.2 for SSJIO assumes WBM and financ:e model developed undet separate WRMP. Note thallhe lOE doesn't iRc:tude Dan Steiners hour's {handled separately). Scope of Work Stanislaus River Basin Plan v. 4/24/2018 Introduction The purpose of this Scope of Work is to describe the tasks to develop and cooperatively implement a regional water resources basin plan for the Stanislaus River Basin (Basin Plan) to address anticipated regulatory and resource challenges, to protect water rights and support continued water use. Recognizing the need for a regional response to the state and federal issues confronting the water agencies in the Stanislaus River Basin, the Oakdale Irrigation District (OlD) and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) (Basin Partners) are collaborating to develop a coordinated and integrated approach to manage the Stanislaus River Basin's water resources. This joint Basin plan is meant to "flange" together the two Basin Partner's own district level planning priorities and determine how those add up and jointly impact/benefit the Districts' shared water rights and TriDam resources (generation). Three key assumptions and objectives are introduced to frame the planned Basin Plan effort: 1. The Scope of Work was developed with the understanding that each Basin Partner will be providing district specific information and modeling analyses to the Basin Plan. This is discussed within the scope subtasks specific to each district. 2. The Basin Plan will combine individual district service, financial, and water use priorities in order to understand the effects of these individual district priorities on the joint water rights and the Tri-Dam Project shared by OID/SSJID. 3. The Basin Plan will evaluate how the districts can utilize joint water rights to meet a multitude of state regulatory efforts and initiatives. 4. At this stage of development, the Basin Plan is not intended to include a formal stakeholder involvement component. Working through an iterative alternatives analysis process, the Basin Plan will identify and prioritize joint water resources projects that protect the District's water rights and In-district priorities, and propose solutions to the various regulatory, legislative, economic, hydrologic and infrastructure drivers that may impact water supply. Ongoing regulatory/water processes anticipated to be addressed in the Basin Plan include the following: • Phases I, II, and Ill, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) and Water Rights Proceedings • Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)/California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Operational Criteria and Plan Biological Opinion (OCAP BO), which includes New Melones Reservoir • Reclamation's development of a Long-Term Operation Plan for New Melones Reservoir • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and associated local/regional Groundwater Sustainability Plan(s) (GSP) and groundwater use/availability • California Senate Bill (SB) x7-7 and associated water measurement, pricing requirements and implementation of efficient water management practices and their impact on deliveries • Changing water demands within the basin • Infrastructure rehabilitation and modernization projects and their impacts on water demands • Water transfers (both within and out of the basin) to maximize water use, to support groundwater management needs and to provide revenue • Hydrologic changes driven by climate change Based on the range of impacts identified, the Basin Partners will then identify specific programmatic management actions and/or strategies and develop a Basin Plan to address the identified impacts. The development of the Basin Plan will be conducted over 7 tasks. The conclusion of the Basin Plan will represent the locally preferred alternative. For the SSJID portions of the work, SSJID plans to hire a contractor to complete a District-focused Water Resources Management Plan. In developing the scope and budget for this Basin Plan, it assumed that SSJID's independent contractor will provide work products such as a District-focused water balance model and financial model to CH2M for incorporation into the Basin Plan work products. 2 Scope of Work All tasks of this Scope of Work include coordination with Basin Partners including meetings and conference calls for progress reporting, information gathering/analysis, and overall management of the project. Task 1. Evaluate Basin Demand Purpose: The purpose of this task is to develop and document baseline and forecasted future no-action water demands for each Basin Partner on a 20-year horizon to 2040. It is expected that conditions of land use and irrigation technology adoption for existing irrigation service areas will be considered in the evaluation of no-action future demands. Future demands including the effects of additional in-district and regional water management actions are evaluated in later tasks. Approach: Water balances for each Basin Partner's operations will be developed to characterize baseline water demands for each basin partner and the overall Basin water demand for diversions off the Stanislaus River. These water balances will rely upon existing information as much as possible but will take efforts to standardize water balance accounting frameworks across Basin Partner operations. A common spreadsheet water balance framework that CH2M utilized recently for Modesto Irrigation District will be utilized for the basin partners. The specific tools for each basin partner will vary slightly based on system differences and data availability but will generally be very similar. METRIC remotely sensed ET data developed by ITRC covering the basin partner service areas will be evaluated against land use/cropping data and compared to current consumptive use data with updates to consumptive use factors as necessary. These data are especially important for estimating net recharge contributions to groundwater. Since each Basin Partner has a different starting point for existing information, this task is broken into separate subtasks by Basin Partner. The assumptions and approach for developing the demands for each Basin Partner is described under the following subtasks: Subtask 1.1 Demand for OlD Assumptions: • Water balance documentation and electronic files for 2005 through 2014 as presented in the 2016 Ag Water Management Plan will be provided to CH2M. • Land use forecasts presented in the 2005 OlD Water Resources Plan through 2025 will be compared against recent land use data and will be updated with forecasts to 2040 using available regional planning studies. • Updated baseline current condition OlD water demand (2005-2014) and future 2040 OlD water demand will be developed. • For the purposes of Basin planning, the demand analysis will be developed at the District level (i.e. not suitable for service area types of analysis). • It is assumed that up to two meetings will be held with OlD staff during water balance model and demand development. Subtask 1.2 Demand for SSJID SSJID is embarking on a separate Water Resources Management Plan effort. Under that effort, a water balance model for SSJID will be developed that will define their water demands. Assumptions: • The current and future demand analysis for SSJID will be developed under their separate Water Resources Management Plan and be provided to CH2M for incorporation into this Basin Plan. • The purpose of this tasl< is to post-process results as necessary and link S5JID's demand analysis to the overall Basin Plan tool set (Task 5.2). 3 • It is assumed that the SSJID water demand analysis developed under their separate Water Resources Management Plan will be based on the following: o Water balance documentation and electronic files for 1994 through 2014 as presented in the 2015 Ag Water Management Plan. o Land use forecasts within SSJID to 2040 developed using available regional planning studies and analysis of recent land use data. o Updated baseline current condition SSJID water demand (2005-2014) and future 2040 SSJID water demand. o For the purposes of Basin planning, the demand analysis will be developed at the District level (I.e. not suitable for service area types of analysis). • It is assumed that up to two meetings will be held with SSJID staff during water balance model and demand development. Subtask 1.3 Other Demands Assumptions: • In addition to OlD and SSJID, a narrative will be developed based on existing information to describe other demands for water off the Stanislaus River including Stockton East Water District. • Planning level water demands will be developed based on the narrative for use in establishing basin water demands used in the alternatives development under Task 5. Task 1 Deliverables: • One draft combined water balance model and one draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by the Basin Partners- delivered electronically • One final combined water balance model and one final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically Task 2. Forecast Basin Water Supply Purpose: The purpose of this task Is to develop and document baseline and a forecasted future range of water supply for diversion and use off the Stanislaus River given the regulatory uncertainties described above. Approach: The approach for this task is described under the following subtasks: Subtask2.1 Establish Baseline Establishing the baseline is a critical step to measure impacts and potential solutions presented in the Basin Plan. There are many complicating factors that influence the baseline including ongoing regulatory processes and the Bureau of Reclamation's annual interim operating plan for New Melones Reservoir. The basin demand baseline must consider recent land use changes and recent drought effects on demand and needs to be updated from the demand conditions used in the current version of the New Melones Operations Model. The purpose of this task is to work with Basin Partners (including Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer) to discuss, facilitate consensus, and agree to the baseline supply and demand conditions that will be used in the New Melones Operations Model for comparison against all future alternatives and scenarios. This task will be coordinated with technical basin demand work under Task 1. Assumptions: • The baseline OID-SSJID canal demands that are currently used in the model are based on 20051and use, irrigation practices, and district conveyance efficiency. CH2M will evaluate outputs from Task 1 4 and will provide canal demands parameters and time-series data to Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer for use in updating the baseline demands. • One (1) workshop will be held with the Basin Partners to discuss and agree upon the baseline conditions Deliverable: • One Draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by the Basin Partners- delivered electronically • One Final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically Subtask2.2 Bracket the Range of Future Stanislaus Water Supply The key driver for initiating the Basin Plan is to respond to the highly uncertain Stanislaus River water supply for the Basin Partners. Uncertainties are caused by SWRCB WQCP, OCAP BO, NMR Operations Plan, SGMA, changing water demands, climate change, etc. The purpose of Subtask 2.2 is to work with Basin Partners and experts to identify and bracket the range of outcomes (timing and quantity of water) from the uncertainties listed above. Approach: The team will work with Basin Partners and experts (e.g. Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer) to apply professional judgement on the on reasonable ranges of parameters that effect New Melones Reservoir operation for each regulatory driver. Hydrologic variability is a given and the team will investigate climate change in addition to regulatory scenarios and demand forecasts. Assumptions: • CH2M will work with Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer to define scenarios that will be modeled • New Melones Reservoir operations modeling results will be provided to CH2M by Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer (covered under separate contract) • CH2M will evaluate, write-up, and summarize results of water supply modeling including documentation of the updated baseline OID/SSJID canal water demands and the bracketed range of future Stanislaus Water Supply based on the identified uncertainties and conditions simulated. • Two (2) workshops will be held with the Basin Partners to review the draft and final recommendations Deliverable: • One Draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by the Basin Partners- delivered electronically • One Final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically Task 3. Financial Analysis Purpose: The purpose this task is to measure financial impacts across the range of future Stanislaus water supply scenarios and potential regulatory, legislative, or infrastructure costs. Comprehensive budget information will populate 20-yearfinancial models for OlD and SSJID. Each financial model will evaluate the impacts of district policies or basin wide actions evaluated in this plan. Models will incorporate existing capital improvement plans (CIPs), and will include the ability to evaluate rate impacts, borrowing, and alternative revenue sources. A combined financial analysis will support policy evaluation and decision making processes for all Basin Partners. Approach: The financial model quantifies the impacts of regulatory and/or policy decisions on future cash flow. The model analyzes financial risk through various external economic conditions and hydrologic scenarios. The financial model is a planning-level tool to develop and evaluate Basin Plan alternatives. The assumptions concerning future land use and hydrologic conditions will be consistent across the water balance models, New Melones Operations Model, groundwater model, and financial model. The New Melones Operation Model and the financial model linked together provide the most accurate representation of future conditions under different policy and hydrologic scenarios over the long-term planning horizon. The financial model will be developed in Microsoft Excel and is controlled through a graphical and numerical dashboard. In the dashboard, the user can adjust relevant policy variables for immediate display of future cash flow and water supply reliability. The dashboard with the main controls and graphical display of Districts' finances out to the 2040 planning horizon. The controls on the dashboard are designed to mimic the Districts as it evaluates policy decisions. The user can make changes to financial variables, such as water rates by water availability, water transfer pricing, annual target cash reserve levels, buy-in fee for annexed land, and the CIP schedule. Controls that affect water supply reliability include transfer quantities, annexed acreage, water balance scenarios, regulatory scenarios, and hydrologic conditions. Subtask 3.1 Financial Analysis for OlD Assumptions: • The existing DID financial model (updated to support the OlD Proposition 218 Rate Study in 2014) will be updated for 2018 budgets and current CIP schedule. • This analysis is intended to inform decision making considering financial Implications, however will not provide the detail that would support a district's rate analysis. Deliverables: • 20-year DID Financial Model • One Draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by OlD- delivered electronically • One Final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically • Up to 2 workshops for Financial Model development and review Subtask3.2 Financial Analysis for SSJID SSJID is embarking on a separate Water Resources Management Plan effort. Under that effort, a financial analysis of SSJID will be developed that will define their financial needs. Assumptions: • The SSJID financial model and analysis will be developed under their separate Water Resources Management Plan and be provided to CH2M for incorporation into this Basin Plan .. • It is assumed that the SSJID financial model will be made available and will be developed to a similar level of detail and time horizon as the OlD financial analysis (Task 3.1). The purpose of this task is to post-process results as necessary and summarize SSJID's financial analysis. • It is assumed that the SSJID financial analysis outputs will be based on the following; o A new financial model will be developed for SSJID based on structure and format of modeling tools previously developed by CH2M, using existing budget, revenue, and CIP information readily available. o This analysis is intended to inform decision making considering financial implications, however will not provide the detail that would support a district's rate analysis. Deliverable: • Documentation covered separately under Subtask 3.3 Subtask3.3 Combined Financial Summary for OlD and SSJID Purpose: The purpose of this task is to develop a high-level combined financial summary to support the overall Basin Plan. This analysis will summarize OlD and SSJID's individual financial analyses to define current 6 and projected revenue needs that must be taken into consideration as water management actions are developed. Assumptions: • The combined financial analysis does not include a regional economic impact analysis. Deliverable: • One draft combined financial model and one draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by the Basin Partners- delivered electronically • One final combined financial model and one final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically Task 4. Identify and Evaluate Water Management Actions Purpose: The purpose of Task 4 is to identify implementable actions to respond to water supply challenges and regulatory uncertainties. Approach: The team will identify actions that when implemented could better achieve long-term objectives of various regulatory processes, minimize or mitigate impacts on Basin Partners. The process would include identifying actions, performing high-level evaluations and coarse screening to further develop these actions, then initial groupings of actions that would makeup analysis scenarios in Task 5. Potential actions are noted below: • Changes to NMR Operations • Conjunctive Use Projects/Operations • Infrastructure o On-farm efficiency improvements above and beyond those expected and assumed in demand forecasting (Task 1) o Conveyance system efficiency improvements above and beyond those planned by individual Basin Partners and documented in CIPs. o Other potential new infrastructure to facilitate other water management actions • Transfers o In-basin transfers, including possible inter-District infrastructure to facilitate in-basin transfers o Out-of-basin transfers, including possible inter-regional infrastructure to facilitate regional water transfers • Regional Restoration Projects o Alternative actions to meet ecosystem or habitat objectives on the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers including fish habitat enhancement, riverine habitat enhancement (e.g. restoration of floodplains and in-channel features, gravel augmentation, etc), redu.cing predation of native fishes, and the reoperation of infrastructure to optimize the timing, duration, and frequency of in-stream flows for ecosystem benefit. o Science/monitoring actions • Annexations of sphere of influence lands • Others 7 Assumptions: • Costs and potential cost allocation and water balance impacts will be developed as part of this task • One workshop will be held with basin partners to initiate this task and accumulate the initial list of potential projects • Budget will include an additional four meetings to further develop details, costs, and water impacts associated with potential regional water management actions • One workshop will be held with basin partners to review the Draft TM Deliverables: • One Draft technical memorandum (TM) for review by the Basin Partners- delivered electronically • One Final technical memorandum (TM)- delivered electronically Task 5. Development and Evaluation of Alternatives Purpose: The purpose of this task is to: 1) Develop alternatives consisting of various water management actions and infrastructure improvements; 2) Develop a planning-level water balance toolset which can be used to evaluate the impacts and benefits of various proposed actions (i.e. new annexations, State Water Resource Control Board regulations, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act responsibilities, etc), irrigation infrastructure improvements, and future changes in land use and added water demands, surface water supplies, and groundwater interactions within the Basin; and 3) Utilize the water balance toolset to evaluate the alternatives. Approach: The approach for this task is described under the following subtasks: Subtask 5.1 Develop Alternatives CH2M HILL will develop up to ten (10) alternatives for the Basin Plan consideration. Our Initial assumptions of the number and general characteristics of alternatives for use in determining level of effort are as follows: Alternative Reservoir Management Land and Water Use 1 Current conditions Current Conditions 2 Future Assumed Operations 1 Current Conditions 3 Future Assumed Operations 2 Current Conditions 4 Future Assumed Operations 1 Future Conditions 1 5 Future Assumed Operations 2 Future Conditions 1 6 Future Assumed Operations 1 Future Conditions 2 7 Future Assumed Operations 2 Future Conditions 2 8 Future Assumed Operations 1 Future Conditions 3 9 Future Assumed Operations 2 Future Conditions 3 10 TBD TBD Future assumed reservoir operations and future assumed land and water use condition scenarios are not currently defined. These will be defined as part of this task and may include best/worst case regulatory conditions, minimum/maximum demand conditions, or other potential ranges in water supply and demand conditions. To further refine and agree on a final set of alternatives, CH2M HILL will facilitate a workshop with Basin Partners. This workshop will be used to discuss and agree on the assumptions used for the alternatives, including but not limited to: the anticipated future reservoir operations based upon the most recent a ' regulatory developments, specific conditions of the future land and water use projections including efficiency projects and transfers, and assumptions for climate change evaluation. It is expected that within the alternatives evaluated, there will be one (1) existing conditions alternative, at least one (1) no action alternatives, and at least three (3) action alternatives from which one will be selected as the preferred alternative. Subtask 5.2 Develop Evaluation Toolset A monthly time step water balance model will be developed by CH2M HILL which reflects the current and expected future conditions of the Basin. The water balance will be developed to cover the irrigation service areas of OlD and SSJID. The water balance toolset will be comprised of interacting tools used to address different components of the water balance analysis and to evaluate financial implications using the financial model developed under Task 3. • Irrigated lands water balance models: The irrigated lands water balance tools developed in Task 1 will be linked to New Melones Operations Model to provide a better representation of demands for baseline and future scenarios. • New Melones Operations Model: The New Melones Operations Model is the most up-to-date Stanislaus River Operation Model accepted by Reclamation and Basin Partners and will be utilized for this evaluation process. The team will coordinate with Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer to link demand modeling and groundwater modeling to the surface water model. Post-processing tools will be developed to compare modeled diversions against demands and provide evaluation metrics such as water deliveries, water shortages frequency and magnitude, and impacts to groundwater management. • Groundwater model: The development of a basin plan requires strong technical analysis of Basin hydrogeology, land use and irrigation practices, pumping activities under varying climatic conditions, surface water/groundwater interaction, SGMA regulations and requirements. The team will apply an existing regional scale model (C2VSIM or CVHM) which will facilitate analysis of the Basin Plan. The tool will be used to define current conditions in the groundwater basin and identify impacts to groundwater conditions from changed conditions in the basin such as land use, cropping, pumping conditions, surface water operations, and climatic conditions. The model will evaluate effects on groundwater due to management actions such as groundwater extraction scenarios, managed aquifer recharge projects, on-farm or conveyance system efficiency improvements, changed streamflow conditions. Expected outputs from model include groundwater contour maps, water level hydrographs, groundwater level changes maps, streamflow effects, changes to groundwater storage, effects of droughts or wet periods. o Two regional-scale models of the entire Central Valley also exist that could be utilized to perform the groundwater analysis required to support development ofthe Basin Plan. These include the Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM) developed by the USGS, and the California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSIM) developed by the California Department of Water Resources. Once the potential water management alternatives associated with the WRP have been defined, and the potential effects of the alternatives on groundwater basin conditions defined, the regional model that provides the best platform to perform the groundwater flow analysis will be selected and utilized. Model structure and inputs will then be modified to reflect changes to the water budget that would result from implementation of the particular alternatives of interest. o The selected regional model (CVHM or C2VSIM) configuration and assumptions will be modified to simulate the effects of implementation the Basin Plan alternatives on the groundwater basins of interest. This may include refining the spatial resolution of the model grid so that changes to the groundwater system resulting from implementation of the Basin Plan alternatives can be better represented in the model. o The refined model will then be run to obtain "baseline conditions" in the OID/SSJID areas. These baseline conditions will be compared to predictive simulation results to obtain . quantitative estimates of the effects of alternative implementation on groundwater levels, stream flows, and groundwater storage conditions. Financial Model: The financial model(s) developed in Task 3 will be linked to hydrologic models (water balance, groundwater, New Melones operations) to complete the evaluation toolset for Basin Plan evaluations. Assumptions: • The New Melones Operations Model will be maintained and ran by Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer (covered under separate contract). • CH2M will work with Dan B. Steiner, Consulting Engineer to define scenarios that will be modeled. CH2M will develop pre- and post-processing tools for providing demand inputs into and extracting water supply/demand balance information out of the New Melones Operations Model. CH2M will write-up and summarize results of water supply modeling. Subtask 5.3 Evaluate Alternatives CH2M HILL will evaluate the alternatives identified as part of subtask 5.1 using the toolset developed in subtask 5.2. The evaluation will summarize the differences in the following key metrics between different alternatives: • Alignment with Pian objective • Water supply reliability (frequency and magnitude of shortages) • Applied water deliveries to existing irrigation and M&l customers • Hydropower generation • Net groundwater recharge • Financial metrics Net change in groundwater levels resulting from direct actions will be evaluated with the groundwater model for a subset of the alternatives, after other screening measures are applied. It is assumed that a baseline groundwater model will be developed and up to two future alternatives for a total of two net groundwater level change maps. CH2M HILL will coordinate a workshop with Basin Partners where the results of the alternative evaluations and comparisons between different alternatives will be presented and discussed. The results of the evaluations will then be documented in aTM. 10 Subtask5.4 Climate Change Analysis of Preferred Alternative For the one selected preferred alternative, CH2M HILL will adjust water supply and water demand hydrology for climate change conditions. One mid-range climate change emission scenario will be selected for this analysis. Assumptions: • It is expected that the recent Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Study climate change adjusted hydrology will be sufficient to use as inputs for this analysis. Deliverables: • One Draft Alternative Evaluation TM for review by the Basin Partners that documents overall evaluation approach and results • One Draft Groundwater TM for review by the Basin Partners that documents groundwater model modifications and simulation results. The typical model output that will be included in the Groundwater TM may include groundwater contour maps, groundwater level change maps, groundwater level hydrographs, and associated water budget information. Estimates of changes to surface water flows will also be reported in the Groundwater TM. • One staff workshop will be conducted as part of Subtask 5.1, including workshop materials and notes. ' • One staff workshop will be conducted as part of Subtask 5.2, including workshop materials and notes. Assumptions: • Maximum often {10) alternatives will be evaluated; groundwater modeling further limited to two (2) alternatives. • One staff workshop with 3 CH2M HILL staff to develop final list and description of alternatives • One staff workshop with 5 CH2M HILL staff to discuss the results of the alternatives evaluation • No additional workshop will be required for development of the additional alternatives • Draft Alternative Evaluation TM will be 30 pages or less • Draft Groundwater TM will be 25 pages or less • Both sets of Draft TM comments will be provided by District staff and one set of comments will be returned to CH2M HILL (electronically) • Final TMs will incorporate District comments and will be included as an appendix to the Basin Plan Task 6. Develop Basin Plan Subtask6.1 Draft Basin Plan Purpose: The purpose of this subtask is to compile a draft Basin Plan comprised of all relevant background information collected, decisions made, recommendations, and the results of the alternative evaluations. The resulting preferred package of actions and recommendations will represent the Stanislaus River Basin Plan for maximizing the beneficial use of water in the basin, protecting beneficial uses in the Stanislaus River, provide for sustainable groundwater management in the region and be financially sustainable in meeting these actions. This locally preferred solution will be used by partner agencies as a proactive effort to influence the outcome ofthe various regulatory processes identified above. 11 Approach: The draft Basin Plan will provide an executive summary of the technical analyses documented in the TMs, which will be included as appendixes to the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan Summary will lay out the recommended actions for Basin Partners to meet their goals. Deliverables: • Administrative Draft Basin Plan- 20 black and white, bound copies • Draft Basin Plan- 30 color, bound copies and 30 CD with electronic PDF files • Draft and Final Board presentation Assumptions: • Draft Basin Plan will incorporate the final version of previously identified TMs • Draft Basin Plan will be 40 pages or less excluding appendixes • Development of draft Board presentation of Basin Plan for each District's review and comment • One workshop with 3 CH2M HILL staff to discuss draft presentation and Basin Partner comments • Development of final Board presentation of Basin Plan and attendance of 2 CH2M HILL staff at each Basin Partner Board meeting (3 total) to support District staff presentations • District staff will present Draft Basin Plan at Board meetings Subtask6.2 Final Basin Plan Purpose: The purpose of this subtask is to finalize the Basin Plan based on comments received from the partner agencies and their Boards on the Draft Basin Plan. Approach: Comments will be accumulated and submitted by each partner agencies to CH2M HILL. CH2M HILL staff will prepare a response to comments (RTC) with proposed resolution of each comment. After the RTC is accepted by member agencies, CH2M HILL will proceed to finalize the report. Deliverables: • Administrative Draft Final Basin Plan- 20 black and white, bound copies • Final Basin Plan- 30 color, bound copies and 30 CD with electronic PDF files Assumptions: • One compiled set of comments will be accumulated and submitted by each partner agencies to CH2M HILL • CH2M HILL staff will prepare a response to comments and will hold a combined meeting with partner agencies to discuss resolution of all comments. Task 7. Basin Partner Board Engagement Purpose: The purpose ofTask 7 is to inform the Boards of Basin Partners (OlD and SSJID) of Basin Plan progress and to solicit input at key points during the course of the study. Approach: The CH2M HILL team will develop draft presentations (PowerPoint format) for review and input by Basin Partner management and develop final presentation for presentation to Board. 12 Deliverables: • Up to 9 Draft presentations (3 per Basin Partner) in PowerPoint format- delivered electronically. • Up to 9 Final presentations (3 per Basin Partner) in PowerPoint format- delivered electronically. Assumptions: • Up to 2 CH2M HILL staff will support Basin Partners at Board meetings for these presentations. Schedule The Work is expected to be initiated on or around June 1, 2018 and be completed over a duration of 18 months. The work will be completed in accordance with a more detailed project schedule that will be mutually developed with the Basin Partners upon project initiation. 13 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is effective as of______, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the Tri-Dam Project, a partnership between Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts each of whom are California irrigation districts governed by the provisions of Division 11 of the California Water Code (collectively, “Client”); and ______, with its principal place of business located at ______(“Consultant”). In consideration of the promises herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Services: Client and Consultant agree Consultant will perform the following general services: Planning, engineering, technical, and other water resource-related services for development of a comprehensive basin plan for the Stanislaus River basin. Services to be provided by Consultant and other work to be performed by Consultant (“Work”) are specifically described in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless amended pursuant to Section 18 or terminated pursuant to Section 19 herein. 3. Schedule for Performance. Consultant shall perform the Work as expeditiously as is consistent with generally accepted standards of professional skill and care and the orderly progress of work. 4. Compensation and Price Ceiling. The compensation to be paid by Client to Consultant for the Work shall be on a time and materials basis in accordance with the Rate and Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Rate and Fee Schedule shall be effective for the duration of performance of the Work, unless otherwise negotiated by the parties, approved by Client’s Board of Directors, and consented to in writing by Client as an amendment to this Agreement. Total compensation to Consultant for Work performed under this Agreement, including fees and expenses, shall not exceed the total price ceiling of: $______. 5. Invoicing and Payment. Consultant shall submit periodic invoices, not more frequently than monthly, for the services rendered during the preceding period. All invoices are to be sent to the Client’s Accounts Payable department with the project name listed on the invoice, and must indicate the hours actually worked by each classification as well as all other directly-related costs. Client shall approve or disapprove said invoice within ten (10) days following receipt thereof, and shall pay, within thirty (30) days’ approval, all approved invoices. Client reserves the right to withhold payment of disputed specific items and shall give notice to the Consultant, pursuant to Section 6 herein, of all such disputed specific items within ten (10) days following receipt of billing or invoices. The parties shall exercise good faith and diligence in the resolution of any disputed invoiced amounts. 1 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 6. Notices. Any notices or other communications to be given to any party pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by delivering same in writing to the parties at the addresses set forth below: “CLIENT” “CONSULTANT” Tri-Dam Project P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, California 95364-0158 Attn: Ron Berry, General Manager Telephone: (209) 965-3996 Facsimile: (209)965-4235 With simultaneous courtesy copies to: Oakdale Irrigation District South San Joaquin Irrigation District 1205 East F Street P.O. Box 747 Oakdale, California 95361 Ripon, California 95366-0747 Attn: Steve Knell, General Manager Attn: Peter M. Rietkerk, General Manager Telephone: (209) 847-0341 Telephone: (209) 249-4600 Facsimile: (209) 847-3468 Facsimile: (209) 249-4688 Notice shall be deemed given when deposited into the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties at the addresses above. Nothing shall preclude the giving of personal notice or notice by e-mail or facsimile machine provided, however, that notice by e-mail or facsimile machine shall be followed by notice deposited into the United States mail as set forth above. 7. Independent Contractor: It is understood and agreed that Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing in this Agreement should be construed to create a partnership, joint venture, or employer-employee relationship: a. Consultant, in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, is subject to the control or direction of Client as to the designation of tasks to be performed, and the work to be accomplished but not the means, methods or sequence used by Consultant for accomplishing the work. Client shall have the right to guide the Consultant’s work efforts, but not direct the results nor the manner or the means by which the work is performed. b. If, in the performance of this Agreement, any third persons are employed by Consultant, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. All terms of employment, including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring, and discharging, or any other terms of employment or requirements of law, shall be determined by Consultant. c. Consultant and Consultant's employees are not authorized to act as agent for, or make any representation, contract, or commitment on behalf of Client. d. Consultant shall not be entitled to any benefits payable to employees of Client. e. Client will not make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to Consultant under this Agreement, and will not withhold or make payments for social security; make unemployment insurance or disability insurance contributions; or obtain worker’s compensation insurance on Consultant’s behalf. 2 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 f. Consultant will be solely responsible for all tax returns and payments required to be filed with or made to any federal, state or local tax authority with respect to Consultant’s performance of services and receipt of fees under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to accept exclusive liability for complying with all applicable state and federal laws governing self-employed individuals, including obligations such as payment of taxes, social security, disability and other contributions based on fees paid to Consultant, its agents or employees under this Agreement. Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Client against any and all such taxes or contributions, including penalties and interest. g. Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds Client harmless from any and all claims that may be made against Client based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement. 8. Authority of Consultant. It is understood that Consultant is to provide information, research, advice, recommendations and consulting services to Client. Consultant shall not possess any authority with respect to any decision of Client. Client is responsible for, and shall make all policy decisions related to, the Work performed by Consultant. 9. Potential Conflicts of Interest. a. Consultant shall disclose its involvement in any projects which may be directly affected by actions taken by Client based on the services provided hereunder. Consultant shall not write a proprietary specification for material, equipment, or service from companies in which it holds a beneficial interest. b. Consultant certifies that it has disclosed to Client any actual, apparent or potential conflicts of interest that may exist relative to the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant hereby agrees to advise Client in writing of any actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest that may develop subsequent to the date of execution of this Agreement and shall give such notice pursuant to Section 6 herein, within ten (10) days of Consultant's knowledge of such conflict. District reserves the right to require Consultant to submit a financial disclosure statement. c. Consultant agrees to refrain from other engagements that may present an actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest with respect to the work covered by this Agreement. Consultant may request a waiver of these requirements from District. The request for a waiver must be in writing and shall contain a disclosure and description of the actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest and Consultant's reasons and justification for requesting such a waiver. The request shall be submitted to District pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement. 10. Ownership of Work Product. All technical data, evaluations, plans, specifications, maps, drawings, images, reports or other work product of Consultant prepared pursuant to this Agreement constitute work made for hire (“Work Product”). a. All Work Product shall be delivered to Client upon completion of the services authorized hereunder, and shall become, the property of Client, and Client shall be the copyright holder thereof. Client shall have the right to make and retain copies and use all Work Product; provided, however, the use shall be limited to the intended use for which the services and Work Products are provided under this Agreement. Client agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless if Work Product is used for other than its original intended purpose. b. Consultant retains no rights to use the Work Product and agrees not to challenge the validity of Client’s rights or ownership in the Work Product. Consultant may retain copies of the Work Product for its files and internal use. Consultant’s publication or 3 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 release of any or all of the information directly derived from work performed or data obtained in connection with services rendered under this Agreement must first be approved in writing by Client. c. If Consultant has any rights to the Client Work Product that cannot be assigned to Client, (a) Consultant unconditionally and irrevocably waives the enforcement of such rights, including all claims and causes of action of any kind against Client with respect to such rights, and agrees, at Client’s request and expense, to consent to and join in any action to enforce such rights, and (b) Consultant unconditionally and irrevocably grants to Client during the term of such rights, an exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid and royalty-free license, with rights to sublicense through multiple levels of sublicensees, to reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display by all means now known or later developed, such rights. 11. Indemnification. Consultant, by execution of this Agreement, specifically agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify District, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all actions, claims, loss, liability, damage and expense arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligent, reckless, or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant's employees or subconsultants engaged by Consultant in connection with the work of Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, excepting only such injury and harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by Client’s sole negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant exceed Consultant’s professional’s proportionate percentage of fault. Such indemnity shall extend to claims, demands, or liabilities, of every kind or nature whatsoever including, but not limited to, personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage occurring during and/or after completion of the Work. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, if Consultant is a design professional, as defined by Section 2782.8(b)(2) of The Civil Code of the State of California, or its successor, then such design professional shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, and hold Client harmless from and against any and all liabilities, losses or damages, arising out of or encountered in connection with this Agreement or the prosecution of work under it to the extent such, liabilities, losses or damages, are actually caused by the negligence of such design professional or its agents, employees, or subcontractors, or their agents or employees. Consultant’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Client, its directors, officers, employees, or authorized volunteers. 12. Insurance. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Consultant and each subconsultant retained by Consultant shall maintain at their own expense the following insurance: (1) General Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. (2) Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each accident. (3) Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with section 3700 of the California Labor Code and Employers' Liability Insurance Act, with a limit of $1,000,000 for each occurrence. Consultant shall provide a certificate of compliance in the form attached as Exhibit C. 4 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 (4) Errors and Omissions or other applicable Professional Liability coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000. Said insurance will be evidenced by certification filed with the Client as otherwise specified by this Agreement. All policies shall name “the Tri-Dam Project, the Oakdale Irrigation District, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and each of their respective directors, officers, employees and volunteers” as additional insureds on the General Commercial Liability and Automobile Liability policies. a. Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance: Consultant shall provide and maintain commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance as set forth in this Agreement. 1. Coverage: Coverage for commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following: i. Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Commercial General Liability Coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001); and ii. ISO Business Auto Coverage (Form CA 0001), covering Symbol 1 (any auto). 2. Limits: Consultant shall maintain limits no less than the following limits: i. General liability of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit or products-completed operations aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the project/location (with the ISO CG 2503, or ISO CG 2504, or insurer’s equivalent endorsement provided to Client) or the general aggregate limit and products-completed operations aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; and ii. Automobile Liability of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage each accident limit. 3. Required Provisions: The General Liability and Automobile Liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: i. “The Tri-Dam Project, Oakdale Irrigation District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and each of their respective directors, officers, employees, and authorized volunteers are to be given insured status (ISO endorsement CG 2010, CG 2033, or insurer’s equivalent for general liability coverage) as respect to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant.” The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Client, its directors, officers, employees, or authorized volunteers; 5 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 ii. For any claims related to the Services, Consultant’s insurance shall be the primary insurance, and any insurance, self-insurance, or other coverage maintained by Client, shall be non-contributory. iii. Any failure by Consultant to comply with reporting or other provisions of the insurance policies including but not limited to a breach of any warranties contained therein shall not affect coverage provided to Client, its directors, officers, employees, or authorized volunteers; and iv. Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. 4. Subrogation: Consultant shall waive all rights of subrogation against Client. b. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance: Consultant and all sub- contractors shall insure (or be a qualified self-insured) under the applicable laws relating to Worker’s Compensation insurance, all of their employees working on or about the construction site, in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act.” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any Acts amendatory thereof. Consultant shall provide employer’s liability insurance with limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each accident, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) disease policy limit, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) disease each employee. If Consultant is a Sole Proprietor, a Sole Proprietor Business Affidavit Form must be on file with the Client prior to the start of the Work or providing Services. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by Client. d. Acceptability of Insurers: Consultant shall purchase the policies of insurance required under this Agreement from insurers having a current A.M. Best Financial Strength Rating of no less than A, and Financial Size Category of no less than VII or as otherwise approved by Client. e. Evidence of Insurance: Evidence of the insurance coverage required to be maintained by Consultant under this Agreement, as represented by Certificates of Insurance and all required endorsements issued by the insurance carrier, must be furnished to Client prior to Consultant starting the Work. Such Certificates of Insurance/endorsement shall state that Client will be notified in writing thirty (30) days prior to cancellation of insurance. Timely renewal certificates will be provided to Client. f. Continuation of Coverage: If any of the required coverages expire during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall deliver all applicable renewal certificates to Client at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration date. 13. Confidentiality. Consultant shall not, either during or after the term of this Agreement, disclose to any third party, any confidential information relative to the work of Client without the prior written consent of Client. 6 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 14. Non-Discrimination in Employment. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment or volunteer because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, or physical, mental handicap or any other basis prohibited by applicable law. a. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or any other basis prohibited by applicable law. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, promotion, demotion or transfer; recruitment or advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; or selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices that Consultant shall provide an atmosphere free of harassment as prohibited by applicable law for employees, clients, and volunteers. b. Consultant shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap or any other basis prohibited by applicable law. 15. Financial Records. Consultant shall retain all financial records, including, but not limited to, documents, reports, books and accounting records which pertain to any work or transaction performed pursuant to this Agreement for four (4) years after the expiration of this Agreement. Either District or any duly authorized representative of Client shall, with reasonable notice, have access to and the right to examine, audit and copy such records. 16. Compliance With Laws; Labor Code Provisions. It is the responsibility of the Consultant and any subconsultant to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to Consultant and any subconsultant, including provisions of DIVISION 2, PART 7 of the California Labor Code, and those provisions governing the payment of prevailing wages, working hours, overtime, the employment of apprentices and record keeping requirements. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are available at District’s principal office and will be made available to any interested party on request. The following sections of the California Labor Code are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement and will be made available by District upon request: Section 1771 (prevailing wage requirement,) Section 1810 (eight hour workday,) Section 1813 (penalty for failure to pay overtime,) Section 1777.5 (apprenticeship requirements); Section 1776 (recordkeeping requirements) and Section 1771.4 (job site posting). 17. Assignment. Consultant may not assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of Client, which may be granted or withheld in Client’s sole discretion. 18. Amendments. Modification or amendments to the terms of this Agreement shall be approved by Client’s Board of Directors, and consented to in writing by Client as an amendment to this Agreement, and executed by all parties. 19. Termination. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by serving upon the other party thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of termination. The notice shall be deemed served and effective for all purposes on the date it is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to Consultant at the address indicated in Section 6. In the event of such notice of termination: 7 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 a. Consultant shall, as directed by Client or on such other mutually acceptable terms, proceed with the orderly shutdown of project activities, cease rendering further services and proceed with archiving of project materials. b. Consultant shall deliver to Client copies of all writings and other Work Product prepared pursuant to this Agreement. The term "writings" shall be construed to mean and include handwriting, typewriting, computer files and records, drawings, blueprints, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof. c. Client shall have full ownership and control of all such writings delivered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. d. Client shall pay Consultant for work performed until the effective date of termination, subject to the limitations prescribed by Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement. 20. No Rule of Strict Construction. The parties agree that this Agreement and any amendments or exhibits hereto shall be construed without regard to any presumption or rule requiring construction against the party causing such instrument or any portion thereof to be drafted, or in favor of the party receiving a particular benefit under the Agreement. No rule of strict construction shall be applied against any party. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be unenforceable, the parties shall deem the provision to be modified to the extent necessary to allow it to be enforced to the extent permitted by law, or if it cannot be modified, the provision will be severed and deleted from this Agreement, and the remainder of the Agreement will continue in effect. 21. Applicable Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Any claims or litigation arising under this Agreement shall be brought by the parties in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. 22. Survival. The ownership of work product provisions of Section 10, the indemnity provisions of Section 11, the confidentiality provisions of Section 13 and the inspection provisions of Section 15 shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. 23. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the exhibits hereto, is the final, complete, and exclusive agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and merges all prior discussions between the parties. No modification of or amendment to this Agreement, nor any waiver of any rights under this Agreement, will be effective unless in writing and signed by Client and Consultant. *****SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE***** 8 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the dates indicated below; provided, however, that the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of the Effective Date identified above. CLIENT CONSULTANT Tri-Dam Project, a partnership between [Firm Name] Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts Oakdale Irrigation District ______[name] Date [title] ______Tom Orvis, President Date Board of Directors South San Joaquin Irrigation District ______Dale Kuil, President Date ______Ron Berry, Secretary Date Tri-Dam Project 9 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF WORK 10 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 EXHIBIT “B” RATE AND FEE SCHEDULE 11 of 12 [Consultant’s Name] [date] Professional Services Agreement 2018-PSA-000 EXHIBIT “C” WORKERS COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION Labor Code section 3700 provides, in pertinent part: “Every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways: (a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this state; or (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to self-insure either and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees. . .” I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract. “CONSULTANT” By:______Dated:______ Name:______ Title:______ 12 of 12 JASON LARRABEE As you know, Jason Larrabee is no longer working at Interior and I believe he has reached out to you and explained his situation. Mr. Larrabee is very knowledgeable about SSJID and OlD from his time as Congressman Denham's Chief of Staff. He was former Congressman Doolittle's legislative Director and knows his way around Washington, DC. In addition to his work in Washington, Mr. Larrabee comes from a farming family in northern California, where his family members still farm today. He has deep ties to the farming community and understands the needs of agriculture. I've had conversations with Mr. Larrabee about his next steps and he's informed me he's considering various offers from lobbying shops in D.C., but has not accepted any offers at this time. At the moment, he's not working for any water district or irrigation district in California, so a great opportunity exists to hire him prior to others seeking his services. Mr. Larrabee's one drawback will be his cooling off period regarding direct communications with Interior for one year, but he is able to communicate with Congress and advocate on behalf of clients. He will still be able to provide strategic advice, communications and advocacy. His experience is tilted to farming, energy, and natural resources, and the republican side of the aisle, but he does have good working relationships with Congressmen McNerney, Costa, Garamendi and Senator Feinstein. In the current administration, this is a huge plus. In future administrations, his role could be diminished. My recommendation is to bring Jason Larrabee on board as the District's Lobbyist, orTDP Lobbyist. We would pay him a retainer of $10,000 per month. The Items he would be working on would be: Congressional advocacy and strategic counsel on: • The '88 Agreement and the District's use of water • New Melones Storage Report • CCWD's push to get storage in New Melones • District's request to get storage in New Melones • VSA, if it goes anywhere • CVPC federal legislation • Friant federal legislation • OCAP-BO LTO The main issue is the '88 Agreement and the District's use of water. Where do we go from here with David Murillo's letter to the Districts last week? The three-prong attack/defense is political, public relation and legal. We see this as falling under political. The Districts need help in getting our viewpoint across in Washington, DC. While the Districts can go back once or twice a year, the Districts need a daily presence in Washington, DC, and I believe Mr. Larrabee will provide this. MEETING MINUTES TRI-DAM PROJECT MINUTES OF THE JOINT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2018 Oakdale, California The Joint Boards of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District met in joint session at the office of Oakdale Irrigation District located in Oakdale, California on the above date for the purpose of conducting business of the TRI-DAM PROJECT, pursuant to the resolution adopted by each of the respective Distrtcts on July 29, 1955. President Kuil called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. OlD DIRECTORS SSJID biRECTORS DIRECTORS PRESENT: / ,.~". " (' '.,':,~:.:>- GAIL ALTIER! / ,BOB HOLMES LINDA SANTOS /: DAVE KAMPER TOM ORVIS . /JOHN HOLBROOK BRAD DE BOER DALE KUIL HERMAN DOORNENBAL RALPH ROOS DIRECTORS ABSENT: Also, Present: . . . . . Ron Berry, General Manager and Secretary, Tri-Dam Project; Rick Dodge, Finance Manager, Tri Dam Project; Genna Modrell, Finance Assistant, Tri-Dam Project; Brian Belitz, Ops Supervisor, Tri-Dam Project (arrived 9:28am); Peter Rietkerk, General Manager, SSJID; Sere Lindley, Assistant General Manager, SSJID; Mia Brown, Counsel, SSJID; Steve Knell, General Manager, OlD; Tim Wasiewski, Water Counsel, O'Laughlin & Paris; Whitney Crockett, Maze & Associates; Dave Ward, lnterWest Insurance PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Ward, lnterWest Insurance, presented the insurance renewal process, including a discussion of the current insurance market, Tri-Dam's coverages, premiums, and deductibles. Mr. Ward responded to various questions regarding Tri-Dam's coverage. ITEM #1 Review and Approve Minutes of the March 15, 2018 Regular Meeting President Kuil presented the March 15, 2018 minutes of the Regular Board meeting. Director Kamper moved to approve the March 15, 2018 minutes of the Regular Board meeting. Director Doornenbal seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM 3 #Consider approval of 2017 audited financial statements- Maze & Associates Whitney Crockett from Maze & Associates presented Tri-Dam Project's 2017 audited financial statements, noting that her firm has issued an unqualified opinion. Ms. Crockett advised that there were no difficulties or issues encountered during the audit and that the Project's accounting Page 1 TDP April19, 2018 records are very clean, with no other material or significant issues. Director Doornenbal moved to accept Tri-Dam's 2017 audited financial statements as presented. Director Holbrook seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. Recess to Tri-Dam Power Authority Director Holbrook moved to recess to the Tri-Dam Power Authority Board of Commissioners meeting at 9:17a.m. Director Orvis seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. The Tri-Dam Project meeting resumed at 9:28 a.m. after the Tri-Dam Power Authority meeting adjourned. . / ITEM #2 Financial Matters a) Review and Approve the Financial StateJTlents Finance Manager Dodge reviewed the March 2018 financial statements, noting net revenue of $96,000 for the month. Dodge also discussed various expense accounts and responded to questions. Director Dodrnenbal expressed concern over the Project's high level of expenses during the prior year. Doqge acknowledged the high level of expenses, but reminded the Board of the sign)ficantroad damage incurred during 2017, as well as the large non-cash -pension expense recorded because of GASB 68. b) Review Investment Portfolio and Reserve Fund Status Finance Manager Dodge preserited the monthly activity and securities held in each of the Project's reserve. funds. c) Review and Approve the Statement 9tObligations Finance Manager Dodge reviewed the monthly statement of obligations and responded to questions. . ·· Director Rqos moved to approve the financial s'tatements and statement of obligations as presented, Direc\or•Santos seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM#4 tonsider approval of purchase authorizations a. 2018.4.01 Do'nnells realignment project- Kingsbury, Inc. GM Berry disc~~sed the recent Donne lis generating unit bearing failure that occurred during start up testing of the realignment project, providing details on the suspected reasons for the failure, timeline of the repair, and actions taken to mitigate a recurrence. Mr. Berry also answered questions from the bbard regarding the cause of the failure and the qualifications of the third party personnel involved with the project. After a lengthy discussion, Director Holmes moved to approve PA 2018.4.01 as presented. Director Altieri seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM #5 Discussion of the Stanislaus River Basin Plan GM Rietkerk presented the scope of work for the Districts' proposed Stanislaus River Basin Plan. Mr. Rietkerk explained that the plan is a joint effort between OlD and SSJID that prioritizes and Page 2 TDP April19, 2018 describes the tasks necessary to develop and cooperatively implement a regional water resources plan for the basin to address anticipated regulatory and resource challenges, protect the Districts' joint water rights, support continued water use, and identify potential water transfers. CH2M will assist in developing the plan, with funding likely to be through Tri-Dam. After much discussion, the board generally acknowledged that the plan should provide value in several areas, regardless of the response or acceptance from the various state and federal agencies. A proposal is expected to be brought before the Board at the May 17, 2018 regular meeting. A member of the public, John Mills, representing Chicken Ranch Casino in Jamestown, stated that the casino believes the plan is necessary and that they strongly support this undertaking. ITEM #6 Staff Reports In addition to the written reports, GM Berry also advised the Board that staff is still working on the Beardsley A-Bay Dam repair plan, and hopes to provide an update in May.. ITEM #7 Generation Report No discussion. ITEM #8 Fisheries Studies on the Lower Stanislaus River No discussion. ITEM #9 Directors Comments Director Holbrook thanked .staff for a positive audit report. Director Santos commented that Tri-Dam is stressing over down time, but we have people on top of it and minimizing the loss of generation. Director Roos stated he was glad to be back. Director Holmes state.d that considering the recent lost revenues maybe we should bring back the budget for review. ITEM #10 Closed Session GM Berry announced before closed session that the following items would be discussed: a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiator: General Manager & Finance Manager Employee Organization: IBEW 1245 b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4): 1 potential case President Kuil announced out of closed session that no reportable action was taken. Page 3 TDP April19, 2018 ADJOURNMENT Director Kamper moved to adjourn the Tri-Dam Project Board of Director's Meeting. Director Doornenbal seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. President Kuil adjourned the meeting at 11 :56 a.m. The next regular board meeting is scheduled for May 17, 2018, at Tri-Dam Project in Strawberry, California beginning at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: Ron Berry Secretary, Tri-Dam Project Page 4 TDP April 19, 2018 FINANCIAL MATTERS Tri-Dam Project Balance Sheets (unaudited) A(1ril 30, 2018 March 31, 2018 A(1ril30, 2017 Assets 2 Cash $ 6,935,332 $ 6,932,523 $ 15,399,770 3 Investment Securities & Money Market 12,204,258 12,257,838 11,360,419 4 Accounts Receivable 2,279,918 1,114,455 5,168,748 5 Prepaid Expenses 94,715 138,781 89,539 6 Capital Assets 105,386,991 105,203,385 102,247,834 7 Accumulated Depreciation (48, 166,4 79) (48,019,319) (46,509,915) 8 Intangible Assets 8,213,938 8,213,938 8,213,938 9 Accumulated Amortization -Intangibles (1 ,752,889) (1,733,428) (1,519,357) 10 Other Assets 46,728 29,499 3,949 11 Deferred Outflows 12 Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 13 14 15 Liabilities 16 Accounts Payable 525,277 427,383 117,855 17 Other Current Liabilities 505,193 519,345 429,456 18 Long-Term Liabilities 6,164,420 6,164,420 5,302,736 19 Deferred Inflows 277,700 277,700 296,517 20 Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows 7,472,590 7,388,848 6,146,563 21 22 Net Position 23 Net Position- Beginning of Year 89,349,897 89,349,897 85,852,439 24 Contributed Capital - Districts 602,963 602,963 602,963 25 Distributions (13,712,000) (13,712,000) (12,134,000) 26 YTD Net Revenues 3,027,826 2,006,727 15,264,308 27 Total Net Position 79,268,686 78,247,587 89,585,710 28 29 30 Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 86 741,276 $ 85 636 435 $ 95 732,273 Tri-Dam Project Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending April 30, 2018 Percent of Current YTD YTD YTD Budget 2018 2018 Budget Month Actual Budget Variance Budget Remaining Operating Revenues 2 Power Sales $ 1,930,957 $ 6,045,502 $ 10,557,960 $ (4,512,459) $ 31,673,880 81% 3 Headwater Benefit 87,000 116,269 (29,269) 348,806 75% 4 Total Operating Revenues 1,930,957 6,132,502 10,674,229 (4,541 ,727) 32,022,686 81% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 178,013 628,227 778,237 (150,010) 2,334,712 73% 8 Benefits and Overhead 103,477 454,947 607,388 (152,441) 1,822,163 75% 9 Operations 15,880 38,982 51,943 (12,961) 155,830 75% 10 Maintenance 165,532 319,733 1,232,513 (912,780) 3,697,540 91% 11 General & Administrative 307,518 1,178,894 1,692,442 (513,547) 5,077,325 77% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 166,620 663,641 672,888 (9,247) 2,018,664 67% 13 Total Operating Expenses 937,040 3,284,425 5,035,411 (1,750,986) 15,106,234 78% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 993,916 2,848,077 5,638,817 (2,790,741) 16,916,452 83% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 18 Investment Earnings 23,696 86,201 76,563 9,638 229,688 62% 19 Change in Market Value of Investments (54,779) (123,871) (123,871) NA 20 Water Sales 28,000 37,488 (9,488) 112,464 75% 21 Equipment Rental 2,200 8,800 8,800 26,400 67% 22 Gain/(Loss) on Asset Disposal NA 23 Reimbursements 5,610 43,634 66,811 (23,177) 200,434 78% 24 Other Nonoperating Revenue 50,455 136,985 27,251 109,734 81,754 -68% 25 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 27,183 179,749 216,913 (37, 164) 650,740 72% 26 27 Net Revenues $ 1,021,099 $ 3,027,826 $ 5,855,731 $ (2,827,905) $ 17,567,192 83% 28 29 30 Current YTD YTD YTD Budget 2018 31 Memo: Month Actual Budget Variance Budget 32 Capital Expenditures $ 183,606 $ 262,210 $ 638,333 $ (376,123) $ 1,915,000 33 Major Repairs- Hells Half Acre Rd $ $ 1,002 $ 95,000 $ (93,998) $ 285,000 34 Major Repairs- Tulloch Unit 3 Access Rd $ $ $ 300,000 $ (300,000) $ 900,000 General Ledger Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund User: rdodge Printed: 05/08/18 11:40:05 r=~ ~ ~~ Period 04 - 04 Fiscal Year2018 l~1!A~ ~~O~t~! - --~~ -- - - - Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encombered Available %Available 1 Corporate 1 Bank Fees & Charges 18,000.00 902.02 5,804.58 12,195.42 0.00 12,195.42 67.75 1 Performance Incentive Exp 43,200.00 -10,716.82 83.18 43,116.82 0.00 43,116.82 99.81 1 Corporate 61,200.00 -9,814,80 5,887,76 55,312.24 0,00 55,312.24 90.38 1 Operations 1 LaborExpME 1,258,729.00 91,761.19 341,944.48 916,784.52 0.00 916,784.52 72.83 1 Oper Super & Englli OH 940,871.20 47,513.81 175,331.66 765,539.54 0.00 765,539.54 81.36 1 Interconnection Exp 3rd Unit 2,000.00 0.00 504.84 1,495.16 0.00 1,495.16 74.76 1 Power House & Dam Util 19,600.00 7,129.73 9,151.86 10,448.14 0.00 10,448.14 53.31 1 Darn Monitoring 5,500.00 0.00 3,650.00 1,850.00 0.00 1,850.00 33.64 1 Operations Office Supplies 2,540.00 814.36 1,586.73 953.27 0.00 953.27 37.53 1 Darn Supplies 10,300.00 286.73 867.79 9,432.21 0.00 9,432.21 91.57 1 Furnishings & Misc. Equipment 15,000.00 616.66 1,196.81 13,803.19 0.00 13,803.19 92.02 I Safety Supplies & Related 18,090.00 -70.39 6,598.59 11,491.41 0.00 11,491.41 63.52 1 Site Utilities 31,800.00 2,728.84 8,931.79 22,868.21 0.00 22,868.21 71.91 1 Resource Mgmt USFS Beardsley 108,000.00 0.00 0.00 108,000.00 97,852.00 10,148.00 9.40 1 Travel & Conference 31,000.00 4,207.41 5,827.00 25,173.00 4,509.70 20,663.30 66.66 1 Schools & Training 18,000.00 0.00 0.00 18,000.00 0.00 18,000.00 100.00 1 Trustee Fees Operations 2,000.00 166.66. 666.64 1,333.36 0.00 1,333.36 66.67 1 Small Tools 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00 I Depreciation 1,785,131.88 147,159.45 585,797.06 1,199,334.82 0.00 1,199,334.82 67.18 I FERC Relicense Amortization 83,099.88 6,924.99 27,699.96 55,399.92 0.00 55,399.92 66.67 1 Beardsley Recreation Amort 150,432.24 12,536.02 50,144.08 100,288.16 0.00 100,288.16 66.67 1 Operations 4,484,094.20 321,775.46 1,219,899.29 3,264,194.91 102,361.70 3,161,833.21 70.51 1 Maintenance I Comms & Security Labor 1,056,347.99 85,325.89 282,864.46 773,483.53 0.00 773,483.53 73.22 I Comms & Security OH 823,230.00 30,009.30 129,578.06 693,651.94 0.00 693,651.94 84.26 1 Project Maintenance Operation 1,500.00 79.85 232.28 1,267.72 0.00 1,267.72 84.51 1 Safety Supplies & Related 17,500.00 617.14 1,105.14 16,394.86 0.00 16,394.86 93.68 I Maint & Repairs - Structures 153,699.70 595.72 3,780.54 149,919.16 0.00 149,919.16 97.54 1 Maint & Repairs - Facilities 841,000.00 70,713.86 104,604.66 736,395.34 176,897.08 559,498.26 66.53 I Maint & Repairs - Plant 340,000.01 34,939.30 65,415.08 274,584.93 46,151.56 228,433.37 67.19 I Electronic Expense Tulloch 50,200.00 114.94 8,114.94 42,085.06 0.00 42,085.06 83.83 1 Site Improvements 7,000.00 0.00 19.89 6,980.11 0.00 6,980.11 99.72 I Mise Hydro Expense 95,999.99 2,981.67 6,782.94 89,217.05 10,352.78 78,864.27 82.15 I ComputerMicro Repair Replace 15,300.00 2,432.53 3,137.27 12,162.73 0.00 12,162.73 79.49 GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018- 11:40 AM) Page 1 Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encmnbered Available %Available 1 Radio Repair & Replace 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 1,646.42 8,353.58 83.54 1 Power Line Repair & Maint 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 1 Comms & Security Sys 84,140.00 8,333.66 18,197.11 65,942.89 841.45 65,101.44 77.37 1 Routine Road Maintenance 609,000.00 0.00 14,385.03 594,614.97 0.00 594,614.97 97.64 1 Donnells Extended Repair 0.00 18,983.72 18,983.72 -18,983.72 104,754.00 -123,737.72 0.00 1 Travel & Conference 14,700.00 0.00 0.00 14,700.00 0.00 14,700.00 100.00 1 Schools & Training 23,200.00 0.00 0.00 23,200.00 0.00 23,200.00 100.00 1 Reservoir Management 6,200.00 14,069.41 15,520.44 -9,320.44 784.00 -10,104.44 -162.97 1 Rolling Stock MaintRepair 70,000.00 2,700.53 12,282.62 57,717.38 2,293.29 55,424.09 79.18 1 Shop Supplies 15,000.00 1,352.70 4,302.30 10,697.70 0.00 10,697.70 71.32 1 Small Tools 15,000.00 1,841.83 4,073.58 10,926.42 0.00 10,926.42 7284 1 Miscellaneous Equipment 11,900.00 4,005.38 7,817.87 4,082.13 0.00 4,082.13 34.30 1 Disposal Expense 6,000.00 313.09 963.52 5,036.48 0.00 5,036.48 83.94 1 Fuel and Fuel Tax 95,000.00 1,449.05 28,364.84 66,635.16 0.00 66,635.16 70.14 1 Equipment Operation & Maint 15,200.00 40.76 647.39 14,552.61 0.00 14,552.61 95.74 1 Major Road Repairs 285,000.00 -33.16 1,002.12 283,997.88 26,699.46 257,298.42 90.28 1 Tulloch Spillway Road Repairs 900,000.00 0.00 0.00 900,000.00 2,216.44 897,783.56 99.75 1 Maintenance 5,577,117.69 280,867.17 732,175.80 4,844,941.89 372,636.48 4,472,305.41 80.19 1 Administrative 1 Administrative Labor 19,635.00 926.06 3,418.39 16,216.61 0.00 16,216.61 82.59 1 Administrative OH 14,861.80 36,670.69 149,953.80 -135,092.00 0.00 -135,092.00 -908.99 1 Office & Administrative Expens 26,600.00 3,925.27 13,273.59 13,326.41 1,000.00 12,326.41 46.34 1 Prof. Organizations & Subscrip 7,200.00 96.00 1,723.95 5,476.05 0.00 5,476.05 76.06 I Utilities Straw 33,500.00 2,393.51 9,661.36 23,838.64 0.00 23,838.64 71.16 1 Travel & Conference 35,500.00 4,920.00 5,997.37 29,502.63 0.00 29,502.63 83.11 1 Meals 3,000.00 94.16 628.82 2,371.18 0.00 2,371.18 79.04 1 Drug Testing & Physicals 1,500.00 0.00 168.00 1,332.00 0.00 1,332.00 88.80 1 Computer Supplies & Support 20,500.00 0.00 4,256.33 16,243.67 0.00 16,243.67 79.24 1 Schools & Traiuing 5,500.00 0.00 0.00 5,500.00 780.72 4,719.28 85.81 1 Telephone Expense 20,000.00 1,852.51 5,302.57 14,697.43 0.00 14,697.43 73.49 1 Data Communications Services 3,100.00 0.00 3,566.50 -466.50 .o.oo -466.50 -15.05 1 Website Internet & Network 28,300.00 2,095.00 10,309.00 17,991.00 16,820.00 1,171.00 4.14 1 Legal Fees 118,500.00 18,909.30 25,936.80 92,563.20 0.00 92,563.20 78.11 1 Reservoir Management 55,500.00 0.00 5,000.00 50,500.00 3,447.88 47,052.12 84.78 1 Auditing Services 14,260.00 0.00 8,556.00 5,704.00 5,704.00 0.00 0.00 1 Accounting & PR Software & Svc 9,400.00 797.37 3,189.48 6,210.52 0.00 6,210.52 66.07 1 FERC Part 12 Inspections 55,000.00 29,946.76 80,765.76 -25,765.76 31,424.75 -57,190.51 -103.98 1 Stategic Communication PR 36,000.00 450.00 2,550.00 33,450.00 83,900.00 -50,450.00 -140.14 1 License Condition Implement 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 15,351.60 19,648.40 56.14 1 Shoreline Erosion Mgmt Plan 500,000.00 0.00 4,431.25 495,568.75 0.00 495,568.75 99.11 1 Tulloch Rec Plan - Article 409 325,000.00 0.00 0.00 325,000.00 3,499.69 321,500.31 98.92 1 Tulloch Shoreline Mgmt Plan 57,500.00 0.00 0.00 57,500.00 0.00 57,500.00 100.00 1 Mussel Risk, lnsp & Monitor 15,500.00 0.00 1,097.00 14,403.00 0.00 14,403.00 92.92 1 FERC Cultural Resource Tulloch 25,500.00 0.00 0.00 25,500.00 0.00 25,500.00 100.00 1 FERC Cultural Res - DonnBeard 170,500.00 1,639.19 2,996.39 167,503.61 156,297.33 11,206.28 6.57 1 Fish Study Publications 100,000.00 7,225.00 35,280.00 64,720.00 64.720.00 0.00 0.00 1 USBR Pin of Opr & SWRCB 420,000.00 22,916.67 91,666.68 328,333.32 0.00 328,333.32 78.17 1 Lower River Non-native Investi 1,000,000.00 83,333.33 333,333.32 666,666.68 0.00 666,666.68 66.67 1 Adult Chinook Life Cycle 550,000.00 43,750.00 175,000.00 375,000.00 0.00 375,000.00 68.18 GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018- 11:40 AM) Page2 Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encmnbered Available %Available I Reliability Consulting 40,000.00 2,200.00 2,200.00 37,800.00 32,800.00 5,000.00 12.50 I Labor Relations Negotiation Co 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100.00 I Haz Mat Business Plan 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 I Legal Fees Fish Studies 100,000.00 1,160.00 16,400.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 0.00 0.00 I Liability Insurance 420,025.00 30,356.31 131,039.80 288,985.20 0.00 288,985.20 68.80 I Property and Use Taxes 13,000.00 0.00 9,527.00 3,473.00 0.00 3,473.00 26.72 I Dam Safety Fees 160,100.00 11,477.17 45,908.68 114,191.32 19,876.00 94,315.32 58.91 I State Water Rights Fees 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 I PERC Admin & Land Fees 195,000.00 16,250.00 65,000.00 130,000.00 57,196.26 72,803.74 37.34 I Streamgaging 74,400.00 6,200.00 24,800.00 49,600.00 31,000.00 18,600.00 25.00 I Streamgaging Cert USGS 49,540.00 4,351.73 16,790.64 32,749.36 0.00 32,749.36 66.11 I PERC USER HWB Tulloch 90,400.00 7,643.00 30,572.00 59,828.00 0.00 59,828.00 66.18 I USFS Permit Fees 11,000.00 983.51 3,934.04 7,065.96 0.00 7,065.96 64.24 I PERC EAP PMF Security Plan 58,500.00 0.00 0.00 58,500.00 9,000.00 49,500.00 84.62 I Relicense Special Consultants 5,000.00 1,650.00 2,227.50 2,772.50 0.00 2,772.50 55.45 1 Administrative 4,983,821.80 344,212.54 1,326,462.02 3,657,359.78 616,418.23 3,040,941.55 61.02 1 Capital Exp Fixed Asset I Rep! Micro Link to SP Labor 71,100.00 0.00 0.00 71,100.00 0.00 71,100.00 100.00 1 Rep! Micro Link to SP OH 47,400.00 0.00 0.00 47,400.00 0.00 47,400.00 100.00 I 300kW Diesel Generator 72,000.00 0.00 0.00 72,000.00 75,396.75 -3,396.75 -4.72 1 Rebuild pressure relief valve 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 100.00 1 16000# Tilt Trailer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I One Ton Truck 55,000.00 0.00 0.00 55,000.00 0.00 55,000.00 100.00 I Tech All Wheel Van 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I Technician Trailer 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 100.00 I Res inductor for pwr factor eq 21,000.00 0.00 0.00 21,000.00 0.00 21,000.00 100.00 I Operator Truck 66,500.00 0.00 0.00 66,500.00 30,845.31 35,654.69 53.62 I Excavator 178,000.00 0.00 0.00 178,000.00 177,391.50 608.50 0.34 I Grader 274,000.00 0.00 0.00 274,000.00 273,551.62 448.38 0.16 I 34 ton maint truck 34,500.00 0.00 0.00 34,500.00 0.00 34,500.00 100.00 I Loader 163,000.00 0.00 0.00 163,000.00 162,823.22 176.78 0.11 I Rep! Micro Link to SP 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 0.00 120,000.00 100.00 I Replace DVR's (9) 85,500.00 0.00 0.00 85,500.00 0.00 85,500.00 100.00 I Dell 720R Server 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 100.00 I 5' X 10' EZ Dock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I Upg phone system CPUsoftware 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 100.00 1 DVR replacement 9,500.00 0.00 0.00 9,500.00 595.07 8,904.93 93.74 I Megger Infrared Tester 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 0.00 9,000.00 100.00 I Battery Test Set Equip 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 100.00 I Office Remodel - designd.rain 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 100.00 I Repeater (voice radio) 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 21,860.80 18,139.20 45.35 I Flag & Flag Pole 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 100.00 I 60kW propane gen- gate house 19,500.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 0.01 19,499.99 100.00 I 2.4Gbz radio replacement 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 1 Skimmer Gate Actuator 55,000.00 0.00 0.00 55,000.00 0.00 55,000.00 100.00 I Install radio link BPH to SPH 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100.00 I Upgrad GenTrans Protect I & 2 178,000.00 0.00 0.00 178,000.00 136,854.13 41,145.87 23.12 1 Upgrade SCADA RTURTAC 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 100.00 1 ISO Metering DonnBeards 70,000.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 14,114.46 55,885.54 79.84 GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018- 11:40 AM) Page3 Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encumbered Available %Available I Fire Suppression Sys Unit 1&2 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100.00 I Fire Suppression System Beards 60,000.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00 1 Capital Exp Fixed Asset 1,915,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,915,000.00 893,432.87 1,021,567.13 53.35 Expense 17,021,233.69 937,040.37 3,284,424.87 13,736,808.82 1,984,849.28 11,751,959.54 0.69 Total I Tri Dam Project 17,021,233.69 937,040.37 3,284,424.87 13,736,808.82 1,984,849.28 11,751,959.54 69.04 Expense 17,021,233.69 937,040.37 3,284,424.87 13,736,808.82 1,984,849.28 11,751,959.54 0.69 Total GL ·Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018 • 11:40 AM) Page4 Tri-Dam Project Reserve Funds /Investment Portfolio @liluJaimiN9l April 30, 2018 1 1. Revenue I Operating Fund Moody's Purchase Maturity Purchase Yield to Average 2 CUSIP Issue Date Description Rating Date Date Price Face Amount Principal Market Value Gain/(Loss) Coupon Maturity Life 3 78012KFU6 7/30/2015 Royal Bank of Canada Aa3 1/31/2017 7/30/2018 100.209 295,000 295,617 294,555 {1,062) 1.80% 1.66% 0.25 4 3134G74S7 11/27/2015 FHLMC Bu ll et US Agency 10/26/2017 8/27/2018 99.672 315,000 313,968 314,083 116 1.00% 1.40% 0.33 5 3130AAPV4 1/24/2017 FHLB Bullet US Agency 9/14/2017 2/15/2019 99.972 610,000 609,829 605,761 (4,069) 1.32% 1.34% 0.80 6 3133EHUK7 8/14/2017 FFCB Bullet US Agency 8/16/2017 8/14/2019 99.955 610,000 609,725 602,174 (7,551) 1.40% 1.42% 1.29 7 3134G8JT7 2/24/2016 FHL MC Bullet US Agency 8/29/2017 2/24/2020 100.063 400,000 400,253 392,928 (7,325) 1.50% 1.47% 1.82 8 3130ADN32 2/9/2018 FHLB Bullet US Agency 3/15/2018 2/11/2020 99.651 210,000 209,267 208,568 (699) 2.13% 2.31% 1.79 9 3133EFBF3 8/27/2015 FFCB Bu ll et US Agency 8/17/2017 8/27/2020 100.188 610,000 611,147 596,611 (14,536) 1.65% 1.59% 2.33 10 313376XNO 2/8/2012 FHLB Bu ll et US Agency 10/12/2017 2/8/2021 101.144 610,000 616,978 601,606 (15,372) 2.10% 1.74% 2.78 11 313378JP7 3/5/2012 FHLB Bullet us Agency 10/12/2017 9/10/2021 101.959 610,000 621,950 603,388 (18,562) 2.38% 1.85% 3.37 12 3135GOS38 1/9/2017 FNMA Bu ll et US Agency 10/26/2017 1/5/2022 99.911 600,000 599,465 583,446 (16,019) 2.00% 2.02% 3.69 13 3130AC5A8 8/15/2017 FHL B Bullet US Agency 8/17/2017 8/15/2022 99.862 610,000 609,160 585,387 (23,774) 1.85% 1.88% 4.30 14 3135GOT94 1/23/2018 FNMA Bullet US Agency 3/21/2018 1/19/2023 98.278 ____;6:..;:1.;;_0 ,"'0.;;_00;:_____ 5;;.;9:..;:9.:...,4...;;9 _7___ ..:,5.;;_96;;.:.,.;;_64 __ 7__ ___; (c..;2:..:;,8..:.5""0)'--_ __;2_;;.3..:.8__% ___ 2_ .7....:6_%___ 4._7.:....3 15 6,090,000 6,096,856 5,985,152 (111,704) 1.82% 1.79% 2.54 16 31846V203 NA First Am Govt Ob li gation MMF AAAm NA NA 10o.ooo _ __..::6-=cO,c:::1.::.so=----,----'6:..:o:.c:,1:.:5-=o ___ -=.6o::.!,.::.1s:..:o:...._-,------=1.:..:.2c:..7.:..:% __ __:1:.:.:.2:.:.7c.c%:....__-=.o .-=o.=...o 17 Total- Revenue I Operating Fund $ 6,150,150 $ 6,157,005 $ 6,045,302 $ (111,704) 1.81% 1.78% 2.51 18 19 2. Maintenance Fund Moody's Purchase Maturity Purchase Yield to Average 20 CUSIP Issue Date Description Rating Date Date Price Face Amount Principal Market Value Gain/(Loss) Coupon Maturity Life 21 3134G74S7 11/27/2015 FHLMC Bullet us Agency 10/26/ 2017 8/27/2018 99.672 600,000 598,034 598,254 220 1.00% 1.40% 0.33 22 3130AAPV4 1/24/2017 FHLB Bullet US Agency 9/14/2017 2/15/2019 99.965 590,000 589,791 585,900 (3,891) 1.32% 1.35% 0.80 23 3133EHU K7 8/14/2017 FFCB Bullet US Agency 8/16/2017 8/14/2019 99.955 600,000 599,729 592,302 (7,427) 1.40% 1.42% 1.29 24 3134G8JT7 2/24/2016 FHLMC Bullet US Agency 8/29/2017 2/24/2020 100.063 600,000 600,379 589,392 (10,987) 1.50% 1.47% 1.82 25 3133EFBF3 8/27/2015 FFCB Bullet US Agency 8/17/2017 8/27/2020 100.188 600,000 601,128 586,830 (14,298) 1.65% 1.59% 2.33 26 3133EJHD4 3/22/2018 FFCB Bullet US Agency 3/22/2018 3/22/2021 100.000 625,000 625,000 620,619 (4,381) 2.48% 2.48% 2.90 27 313378JP7 3/5/2012 FHLB Bullet US Agency 10/12/2017 9/10/2021 101.959 600,000 611,754 593,496 (18,258) 2.38% 1.85% 3.37 28 3135GOS38 1/9/2017 FNMA Bullet us Agency 10/26/2017 1/5/2022 99.911 600,000 599,465 583,446 (16,019) 2.00% 2.02% 3.69 29 3130AC5A8 8/15/2017 FHLB Bullet US Agency 8/17/2017 8/1S/2022 99.862 600,000 599,174 575,790 (23,384) 1.85% 1.88% 4.30 30 3135GOT94 1/23/2018 FNMA Bullet US Agency 3/21/2018 1/19/2023 98.278 ____:: 6:.::2.::.5,c:::0.::.00=---___6::.;1:..: 4:.c:, 2:::3.::.9_ __..::6.::.11::!'.::.31:..:9:...._ _ __:(c=2!.:,9..::2.::.0l__:_--=2=.3-=8.:..:%__ __:2:.:.:. 7..::6.:..:%:....__--,:.4 ·--7=-3 31 6,040,000 6,038,693 5,937,347 {101,346) 1.80% 1.83% 2.57 32 31846V203 NA First Am Govt Obligation MMF AAAm NA NA 10o.ooo ____: 2::::1.::.5,:.:..7.::.82=------2::.:1:::S:.c:,7..::8:.::2___ ..:: 2.::.1s::.<,.:..:78:..:2=--______.....::1:.=.2c:..7.:..:% __ __: 1:.:.:.2:.:.7.:..:%:....__-=.o.-=o.=...o 33 Total- Maintenance Fund $ 6,255,782 6,254,475 6,153,129 $ (101,346) 1.78% 1.81% 2.48 34 35 Total - Both Funds $ 12,405,932 $ 12,411,480 $ 12,198,431 $ (213,049) 1.80% 1.80% 2.49 36 37 Other Monthy Activity- Revenue I Operating Fund: None ~R 39 Other Monthy Activity - Maintenance Fund: None 40 41 Market values provided by U.S. Bank Monthly Review VINING ·· SPARKS April 2018 [ \ I \' : , (' \ ) I ' 1 - ~ ·~ ; ( ~ '· ; I ) i t , , '; ; j , : \ ' \ : ' Record close: eoow es&P 500 eNAS DAQ ...... Previous Mont h's Closing Yield 10-Year Treasury Note Yield -April 2018 Shaded Areas Represent 9am-Spm EST 3 05 ' White House detailed President Trump Core PCE Joint strike by U.S., ~ ------, 1,300 Chinese imports asked trade officials I inflation rose to France, and the U.K. that could be subject to ex plore another 10-year yield 1.9% YoY to tariffs carried out in Syria 3.00 $100B of Chinese cracked 3.00% for imports for possible th e first time since China tariffs 2014 responded with ~------:~---: Impacted somewhat by Retail sales rebound ed r 2.95 a proposal for o I tariffs on $SOB weather, t otal payrolls of 103k in March after a three Initial jobless : of U.S. imports missed estimates; the month hiatus claims of 209k _ _ I unemployment rate held at were the lowest I 4.1% but hourly earnings since 1969 2.90 firmed 0.3% MoM, 2.7% YoY ------I ~ I : Economy grew 2.3% in President Trump ,,_, • ------1 1Q18, down from 2.9% 2.85 tweeted warning to ~ I in 4Q17, as slower : ' - 1 Ru ssia that Syria missile ~ consumer (weakest : 1 • strike was coming Commodities rally became since 2013), business, 1 • \ .,.)~ 1 the latestfactorto spark andgovernment : I( ~ • -- 1 , • ------" inflation fears; oil rallied on spending offset better 2.80 : 1 China sai~-i: ' \ • ~::::~~~~:~~~ the : :~:~~:~s~;~~~so~~~ -s. ~,:~eon invrories and would spare no ~ missile strike was : com~en t s; ~eta l s rose on ---- -• 2.75 ...... - ~~,:~n.:;~~-s.i~~-~ ...... ':-.:::::: ...: .: .; ..... ~~~~~~...... l...... ~~ ~~:~ .~~ ~.~~.~~·s· ...... j...... ------: Base effects President Trump Employment cost index rose 2. 7% ------, N.Y. Fed announced boosted core CPI to nominated Clarida YoY In 1Q18 as private workers' 2.70 S&P 500 sold off, closed below John Williams will 2.1% but underlying for Vice Chair, wages grew by 2.9%, both were the its 200·day moving average replace William trend was less Bowman for Fed best of the cycle and show wage after China announced tariffs Dudley in mid-June alarming Governor pressures are firming on $3B of U.S. imports 2.65 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 2S 26 27 30 A Strong Start to Corporate Earnings Season Helped Keep the M ajor Indexes Positive, Despite Treasury Yields Rising to Multi-Year Highs Markets: U.S. equities improved despite several points along the Treasury curve touching the highest levels in years. The 2-year yield reached as high as 2.48% (highest since September 2008}, the 5-year yield rose to 2.80% (August 2009}, and the 10-year yield crossed 3.00% for the first time since January 2014. All three added more than 20 bps on the month. A mid-month commodities rally became the latest force to bolster expectations inflation would firm. The S&P 500 and Dow both gained 0.3%, with the latter now having improved in every April since 2005. Corporate earnings started strongly. According to FactSet, 79% of the 53% of companies that reported through April 27 beat estimates, on pace for the best quarter since they began tracking in 2008. As rates rose, the Dollar firmed 2.1% in its best month since the 2016 election. Consumer: As expected based on weaker retail sales to start the year, consumer spending grew in the first quarter at the slowest rate since 2013 based on the initial GOP estimate. However, retail sales and personal spending data both picked back up in March, supporting expectations for a bounce-back in the coming months as the effects of the tax cuts take hold. Confidence indicators were mixed but remained strong. Hiring was disappointing in March {103k and -SOk in revisions) but average hourly earnings remained stable. Firmer wages were also a big driver of the employment cost index increasing 2. 7% YoY, its fastest pace of the cycle. Over the next severa l months, the labor data, specifically anyt hing related to wages (inflation indicator), will be a major focus for the Fed. Private Investment: Fixed investment slowed in the first quart er with housing activity unchanged and business spending on equipment providing less of a boost. Weaker equipment was consistent with slower capital goods activity in recent months. However, overall business spending remained steady as outlays on structures and intellectual property increased. Small business confidence cooled to a five-month low but the number business citing taxes as their single biggest problem dropped to its lowest level since 1982. Home sales surprised to the high side of estimates in March, showing consumers continued to weather tight inventories, rising prices, and higher mortgage rates. However, home builder confidence inched down for a fourth month indicating the data could remain choppy amidst those headwinds. Ext ernal Trade: The goods trade deficit shrank for the first time in seven months in March as imports weakened. Import weakness was largely responsible for trade adding to lQ growth after dragging significantly in the final three months of 2018. Looking ahead, a soft patch in the global data, a stronger Dollar, and expectations for better domestic activity could weigh on trade in the coming months. Inflation: Inflation reached the Fed's 2% target in the March readings as base effects boosted both the CPI and PCE metrics. Headline CPI moved from 2.2% to 2.4% and core rose from 1.8% to 2.1%. Headline PCE moved from 1.7% to 2.0% and core increased from 1.6% to 1.9%. Because of the noise in the YoY metrics caused by those base effects, monthly results and shorter-term momentum indicators will be more meaningful. Monetary Policy: The Fed's March Minutes echoed the earlier optimism from the Statement and updated projections. All officials believed the outlook had strengthened, there was more confidence in the inflation outlook, and the majority supported gradual rate increases. In other Fed news, San Francisco Fed President John Williams was tapped to take over the New York Fed when Dudley retires mid-June and the President an nounced two more Fed nominees. Richard Clarida was nominated to be Fed Vice Chair and Michelle Bowman was picked to fill a Fed Governor vacancy. The Bank of Japan and European Central bank both met and elected to leave policy unchanged. While they continued to sound optimist ic, they showed little urgency in moving away from ultra-accommodative monetary policy. 2-Year Treasury Note Yield- April 2018 5-Year Treasury Note Yield- April2018 2.55 .... ••••• Pre-~ oos Month 1 tlos•nc Yield 2.85 • • • • • • • • • •• ••••••• •• •••••••• ;::: ·;:; ~ rr ~Y1Pl'.' . ':r'\ Highest Since September 2008 Highest Since August 2009 2.50 2.80 2.45 2.75 2.40 2.70 2.35 2.65 2.30 2.60 2.25 2.55 2.20 2.50 2 9 16 23 30 2 9 16 23 30 2-Year Treasury Note Yield - last 12 Months 5-Year Treasury Note Yield - last 12 Months 1 ••••• • • •• Yield lZ Months Ago 2.50 .••••••• • •••• •••••• ••••• • ••••••••• •• • • : :: :·:: :: ! !~ ~.~~~~~~~~~F~ 2.90 2.40 Highest Since September 2008 2.80 Highest Since August 2009 2.30 2.70 2.20 2.60 2.10 2.50 Yield axis conge wfdc!!ed by 20 2.00 2.40 bp• re/atiw tt>Januory's 1.90 2.30 Monthfv Review 1.80 2.20 1.70 2.10 1.60 2.00 1.50 1.90 1.40 ;....1\....A...... - . . 1.80 1.30 A~~- ~ ...... ~~ ...... 1.70 1.20 1.60 4-30-17 7-31-17 10-31-17 1-31-18 4-30-18 4-30-17 7-31-17 10-31-17 1-31-18 4-30-18 2-Year Treasury Note Yield- Last 5 Years 5-Year Treasury Note Yield- last 5 Years 2 .40 Highest Since September 2008 2.80 Highest Since August 2009 2.20 2.60 2.00 2.40 YtCfd q!is rqnqe widened by 10 Yi~d OXI! ranqt! wident!d by 10 bas c(lallvr tp January's 1.80 bps (f/ 1.40 1.80 1.20 1.60 1.00 1.40 0.80 1.20 0.60 1.00 0.40 0.80 0 .20 0.60 4-30-13 4-30-14 4-30-15 4-30-16 4-30-17 4-30-18 4-30-13 4-30-14 4-30-15 4-30-16 4-30-17 4-30-18 Tri-Dam Project Statement of Cash Flows Period Ending April 30, 2018 Current Year Month to Date 1 Net Income $ 1,021,099 $ 3,027,826 2 Depreciation & Amortization 166,620 663,641 3 Decrease I (Increase) in Generation Receivables (1,139,449) 1,231,123 4 Decrease I (Increase) in Other Receivables (26,014) 328,138 5 Decrease I (Increase) in Market Value Securities 54,779 123,871 6 Decrease I (Increase) in Prepaid Expense 44,066 112,459 7 Decrease I (Increase) in Capital Assets (183,606) (262,210) 8 Decrease I (Increase) in Other Assets (17,228) 22,851 9 Increase I (Decrease) in Accounts Payable 97,894 ' (150,486) 10 Increase I (Decrease) in Other Current Liabilities (14,152) 42,620 11 Increase I (Decrease) in Long-Term Liabilities 12 (District Distributions) (13,712,000} 13 Net Change in Cash & Investments $ 4,009 $ (8,572,167) 14 15 Cash & Investments 4130118 $ 19,352,640 16 Cash & Investments 12131117 27,924,807 17 YTD Net Change in Cash & Investments $ (8,572,167} 18 19 20 Net Change in Cash & Investments- 2018 21 January $ (11,423,192} 22 February 1,604,361 23 March 1,242,655 24 April 4,009 25 May 26 June 27 July 28 August 29 September 30 October 31 November 32 December 33 Total $ (8,572,167} Tri-Dam Project Total Generation - MWh 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec • 2017 • 2018 • Historical Tri-Dam Project Generation Revenue $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec • 2017 • 2018 Tri-Dam Project Storage AF - Donnells & Beardsley 160,000 100% 90% 140,000 80% 120,000 70% 100,000 60% 80,000 50% 40% 60,000 30% 40,000 20% 20,000 10% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec • 2017 • 2018 Tri-Dam Project Statement of Obligations Period Covered April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018 TRI-DAM PROJECT STATEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS Period Covered April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018 One-Half Oakdale Irrigation District $ 423,859.43 One-Half South San Joaquin Irrigation Distict $ 423,859.44 Total Obligations $ 847,718.87 CERTIFICATION OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Tom D. Orvis John Holbrook Gail Altieri Robert A. Holmes Linda Santos Dave Kamper Herman Doornenbal Ralph Roos Brad DeBoer Dale Kuil Each ofthe undersigned certifies that he is President or Secretary of his respective District; That the amounts designated above have been properly incnrred as an obligation of the Tri-Dam Project; that checks for payment of said amounts have been drawn on a Tri-Dam Project account at Oak Valley Connnunity Bank, Sonora, California. OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT, Tom D. Orvis Dale Kuil SECRETARY, SECRETARY, Steve Knell Date Peter M. Rietkerk Date Tri Dam Project Statement of Obligations Period Covered From To April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018 No. Chks. Amount Vendor Check Register Report (Please see attached Check Listing) 103 $633,801.35 Payrolls - Net Charges Pay Date Payroll Amount 5-Apr-18 Regular $ 121,828.28 19-Apr-18 Regular $ 92,089.24 Total Net Payroll $ 213,917.52 $ 213,917.52 Total Disbursements for the Period $847,718.87 Distribution Between Districts - Oakdale Irrigation District $ 423,859.43 South San Joaquin Irrigation District $ 423,859.44 Total Districts $ 847,718.87 Project April Checks by Amount (l!RI·DAM PROJECT'j Check Number Vendor N! Vendor Name Check Date Description Amount 124253 10294 FISHBIO Environmental LLC 04/18/2018 Fish Studies 63,152.34 124246 10813 ACWA Joint Powers Insurance Authority 04/18/2018 Health Benefits 56,091.25 124296 11176 Smith-Root, Inc. 04/27/2018 2- Ecat 18ft Boats 51,031.08 124258 11074 Sage Engineers 04/18/2018 Tulloch Generator Relay Replacement 37,808.44 124245 10907 Steves Chevrolet- Buick 04/18/2018 2018 Crew Cab - Technician Truck 34,311.69 124254 10347 HDR Engineering. Inc. 04/1812018 FERC Part12D Inspections 31,585.95 124269 10441 Megger, States- A Div of 04/!912018 Resonator Inductor 30,340.97 124299 10133 CA Dept. Water Res Report Total: $ 633,801.35 2018·2019 INSURANCE RENEWAL PURCHASE AUTHORIZATIONS PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION Date: May 17,2018 Item Number: 2018.05.01 SUBJECT: Replacement of the Microwave Link from Strawberry Peak to Sandbar RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Nokia to replace the current microwave system BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY: Replace microwave link from Strawberry Peak to Sandbar: Tri-Dam's microwave system allows Tri-Dam to communicate and control machinery from a central location at Tri-Dams Strawberry operations center. The microwave link is iii need of replacement for the following reasons. 1.) When cell phones are turned on near the Sandbar or Strawberry Peak microwave dishes they interfere with the microwave signals which causes a loss of communication to Sandbar. 2.) The repair of the microwave radios is no longer supported by the manufacturer. 3.) The current microwave radios at Sandbar do not have redundancy which would allow the microwave radio to keep operating if a failure was detected. In the proposed microwave replacement all of the issues above have been addressed. The proposed microwave replacement will be more robust and reliable. FISCAL IMPACT: :» Budgeted -$120,000.00 1-8-10-28-62801 ATTACHMENTS: :» Nokia Quote includes tax and freight $119,003.17 :» Aviat Quote plus tax and freight $326,502.00 :» lnfinitiwireless Quote plus tax $ 83,051.86 (used equipment) :» lnfinitiwireless Quote plus tax $ 87,943.86 (used equipment) Board Motion: Motion by:------Second by: ______ Action(s) to be taken: Detailed Pricing Summary NOKIA Tridam Project Nokia of America Corporation Microwave system Replacement 2018 Proposal# 18us809971 .02 May 7, 2018 NASPO Pricing Contract Item Category Item Description Extended Price 1.00 HARDWARE/SOFTWARE 1.01 9500MPR Radio Microwave Packet Radio $41 ,646.68 1.02 Racks and Accessories Accessories $1,489.00 1.03 9500MPR Radio Spares $14,934.50 1. 04 Antenna Materials Antenna Materials $29, 156.92 HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SubTotal: $87, 227.10 FCC LICENSING $930.00 TRANSMISSION ENGINEERING SERVICES SubTotal: $2,630.00 4.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 4.01 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PMO $3,783.00 4.02 9500 MPR Tech Support Gold (3 Years) $660.00 4.03 9500 MPR Standard Repair (3 Years) $2,010.00 4.04 9500 MPR Software Subscription Plan (3 Years) $525.00 4.05 9500 MPR Web based Training $719.58 ENGINEERING SERVICES SubTotal: $7,697.58 5.00 Adjustments 5.01 Management Adj - Microwave Equip -$6,000.00 5.02 Management Adj - Outside Purchase Equip -$4,000.00 5.03 Management Adj - Services -$5,047.07 Project Total before Taxes & Freight: $110,479.20 6.00 Taxes & Freight 6.01 Taxes Hardware only (7.25%) $6,323 .96 6.02 Freight Shipping & Handling $2,200.00 Taxes & Freight SubTotal: $8,523.96 Project Total: S119,003.17 E-Mail PO to [email protected] and reference the Proposal# on cover sheet. Noki a Propriet ary/Confidential Information 1 of 3 Pricing Notes: 1. The budgetary planning pricing included above provided by Nokia of America Corporation is indicative only, solely to inform Tridam Project of Nokia of America Corporation's current estimate of prices for the relevant item(s) to enable Tridam Proj ect to evaluate its potential interest. 2. The terms and conditions, including planning pricing, of the items provided under this Proposal or subsequent agreements are subject to future negotiations and future agreement on the terms and conditions which would any sale. There are no penalties, liquidated damages or other remedies associated with changes to t he pricing. 3. Prices are valid for 60 days. 4. This pricing is valid only for the equipment, equipment features, and services explicitly described within this proposal. Any equipment item, equipment feature, installation item , or service not explicit ly described in t his bid is not included in this pricing, and any addition of such will require a revised proposal with modif ied pricing. Please review all sections of this bid carefully for details as to what this proposal includes, and what assumptions have been made. 5. Pricing is based on attached Scope Of Work, Assumptions, Detailed Equipment List and/or Design Configurations. 6. Taxes, transportation, ancillary material, travel and living expenses are excluded. 7. Typical equipment lead time is approximately 8 weeks or sooner After Receipt of Purchase Order with valid frequencies based on equipment availability. Lead time can be confirmed After Receipt of Purchase Order and order scheduling. Nokia Proprietary/Confidential Information 2 of 3 Protect Numbet NA180.24-4J.434 Project Date 41241fl018 A Aviat U.S., Inc::. Issue No 860 N. McCaMy BlVd TemloryManager AIHirsa Mipllas, CA 95035 System Engineer Sales Engineer Jake Manus Terms NET 30 Company Tri..O am P roJect Delivery 7-9WksARO Attn BHI Tullar Address 31885 Old Strawberry Rd Expiration 90 days Strawberry, CA 95375 Currt~nc::y USD Frelghl Prepaid and Bled d yiat N•nxorl!;.f Copfidentiml and Proerletary Information f.OI.II'MtNTtt5' PI!OOli~T COOt u~ 1 r SY!UfM PARI NUMIIPk UTY ~IUCl UIY "UI DtSCRIPll 1 JOOO - ~rs~~~=~l~.;:- UNIT 2RU, INC IOCE, FAN, NCCV2, HIGH $2,560.00 $1,280.00 $1,280.00 1,2010 OUTPUT EXX.000-204 $ 1, 280.00 2 $ 16.00 $8.00 1 $8.00 1,2020 KIT BRACKET 2RU (179-530064-001_R001) 179-530064.001 $8.00 2 $798.00 4 $3,192.00 $1,596.00 2 $1,596.00 1.2030 RAC 70, QPSK-40960AM, NO XPIC, ACM EXR-701).001 $3,600.00 $1,800.00 2 $1,800.00 1.2040 OAC GE3 GIGASIT ETHERNET SWITCH CARD E.XD-1 81-002 $900.00 4 4 $1.264,00 $632.00 2 $632.00 1.2050 ECLPSE, OAC 16XE1/0S1 V3, PROTECTABUE EX0-161-002 5318.00 S252.00 2 $252.00 1.2060 ECUPSE INU POWER SUPPLY 24V IN 56V OUT '2fXIN PCC (CS2560L) EXP-024 5128.00 4 SSO•tOO 2x HDR-€50 TOY JOIN TO 24AWG FREE END 3.5M (HDR-€SOMSG1-Y· 4 $368.00 $184.00 $184.00 1.2070 03M_REVB) 037- 579408-003 S92.00 $14.00 528.00 $14.00 $14.00 1.2080 CABLE PROT I BRIDGEING GE3, DIRECT FIT, 1M (747420001) 037-579461.001 2 $568.00 $284.00 $284.00 1.2090 NODE PROTECTION CARD, HIGH OUTPUT EX&-002 $284.00 2 1.2100 ECLIPSE, BLANK PANEL ASSY. StNGLE SLOT EX..X-001 sr.oo GtG ETH SFP. OPT SMF 1310nm LC 1000BASE-U(. <10 KM (LS3S..C3S-TC.. 1.2110 N) 079-42265&-001 $23.00 1.2 120 SIMPLEX 3M SM LC TO LC (037-57i131~1_REV004) 037·579131...001 ss.oo 2 $2,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,200,00 1.2130 NODE SW LICENSE, 150 Mbps TOTAL RADIO PAYLOAD CAPACITY EZE-118003 $1,200.00 $2,000.00 1.2140 NODE SW LICENSE, 200 Mbps TOTAL RADIO PAYLOAD CAPACITY EZE-08004 1.2150 NODE SW LICENSE, 300 Mbps TOTAL RADIO PAYLOAD CAPACITY EZE-118005 $3,000.00 1.2Hi0 NODE SW LICENSE, 400 Mbps TOTAL RADIO PAYLOAD CAPACITY EZE-118006 $4,000.00 1.2170 NODE SW LICENSE, 1.2 Gbps TOTAL RADIO PAYLOAD CAPACITY EZE-08008 $5,400,00 $180.00 1.2180 LAYER 1 LINK AGGREGATION NODAL ON DAC GE I DAC GE3 EZF-01 $2,400.00 1.2190 IRU600 600 Nodal High power opbon 2 X RFU ~2 $4, 800.00 1.2200 IRU600 600 Nodal High power opbon 4 x RFU EZF-64 $600.00 2 $1,200.00 $600.00 S600.00 1.2210 ADAPTIVE MODULATION NODAL RAC6016X/60E/5XEI70 EZF-02 EZF-06 $180.00 1.2220 RADIUS CLIENT, NODAL CENTRAI..IZEO USER ACCT MGMT $10.00 037- 579124-002 $5.00 4 $20.00 $10.. 00 1.2230 ETHERNET CABLE, RJ45 CAT 5/CAT So, 2m 16.5') (037·579124- l lOOO ~ ~ P.,.., Srea...,• ~ D$Jt - RACK ASSY. NO RACK, NO CRATE, 1 SREAKER PNL W/10 SLANK $629.00 - $629.00 2 $1.258.00 $629.00 1.3010 COVERS AND NO BREAKERS 119-530307-9910 DS1 JACKFIELD. FIXED. NO INTERNAL CROSS-CONNECT, LOADED 28 OS1 , 1 RU, 19" OR 23'W. 9"0, FRONT RJ48X INCLUDES AUTOMATIC LOOP BACK FUNCTION, REAR WlREWRAP, NO PCM/ER INPUT (097.0128 0006 T1 DEMARCATION CUSTOMER INTERFACE PANEL EOUIVAUENT $518.00 NSM..[)SX-28P--RJ26 $518.00 2 $1,036.00 $518.00 1.3020 (DSX·28P-RJ28) $79,00 $79.00 2 $158.00 $79.00 1.3030 COMMON BREAKERS & SLANKING PLUGS PER RACK PER DRAWING COMMON-BREAKERS·RACK ~ • ANTENNA, 5.925-7.125GHZ. I.BM/6FT,- HP, SNGL POL. CPR137G, WHT $4,477.00 $4,417.00 4 $17,908.00 S4.41n.oo $8,954.00 2.0010 TEF RAD (HPS-59W.P3AIC} AND-HP6-59W.P3A/C LEG MOUNT,UP TO 6 FEET ANTENNA DIAMETER,UP TO 8 INCHES $2,13 41 .00 $1 ,067.00 179-530147-001 $1,067.00 4 $4.268.00 $1,067.00 2.0020 DEPTHIAMETER LEG (MTC3513LMS) INBOARD SIDE STRUT KIT FOR 6FT MICROWAVE ANTENNAS: 10.5 FT $278.00 $139.00 AND-520570-10 $139.00 4 $556.00 $139.00 2.0030 (520570-10) $9,132.00 $4 ,566.00 ANQ..MTC35856 $4,566.00 4 $18,264.00 $4 ,566.00 2.0040 ICE SHIELD,FOR 6 FEET ANTENNA (MTC35856) l-"* S543.00 $543.00 0!1!! AN!HiARDWARE-KIT - $543.00 3 $1,629.00 $543.00 2.1010 HARDWARE-KITwo;;;-- -~ (ONE KIT -=PER 100fT) ELLIPTICAL WAVEGUIDE STANDARD, 5.925-7.125 GHZ. BLACK PE $735.00 130 $910.00 AND-€W63-l' S7.00 345 52.415.00 110 $770.00 105 2. 1020 JACKET, PER FOOT (EW63-F) $941.00 $941.00 AND-€W631NSTALL-KIT $941.00 3 $2,823.00 $941.00 2. 1030 EW631NSTALL-KIT (ONE KIT PER WAVEGUI DE RUN) (EW631NSTAU-KIT) $288.00 $288.00 VLT -8REW632-K $48.00 18 $864,00 $288.00 2.1040 WAVEGUIDE CUSHION HANGER, KITS, EW63, 2-HOLE (BAG OF 5 KITS) $31.00 VLT -BAEW632 $31.00 2 $62.00 $31.00 2.1050 ENlRY BOOT, KIT, FOR EW63, 4', 2-HOLE (8AEW632) $31.00 VLT -8AEW903 $31.00 2 $62.00 $31.00 2.1080 ENlRY SOOT, KIT, FOR EW90 AND EWP90, 4", 3-HOLE (BAEW903) 540.00 $410.00 2 $60.00 $410.00 2. 1070 ENTRANCE PANEL, SINGLE (204673-2) AND-204673-2 ~•.IS Uii•U ·q&,.;u.t!cn 11\0 1n'l re~!.!~ r-" Cl.:::f.Clr.cf ~oc-r ( ~C:C:!!r"' ) 1re tut-j•cc to "'""'t U tTOtc::"l.1o ~unoat.1 t -t""'5 -~ r.:f'~u=nt ct u le 1 ~cc:rDIJCN-) wrucr. are 5.. ':111llt :e. It 11~ r,)(lOO.Iflll ~:ell f •tf: 413012018 - 3:27 PM t:::.r;:J(·... "ll l>oftrdr-· ~ I ~ AUTOMATIC DEHYDRATOR, W/\.P ALRM; 0.2 SCFM,120V 2.2010 60HZ,320W,380VA,MODEL APD20-0 (APD20-0-35XHOROOSO) RFS-APD20·0 $1,6 H .OO 2 $3,234.00 1 $1,617.00 1 $1,617.00 GAS DISTRIBUTION MANIFOLD KIT; 0·15 PSIG GAUGE, FOUR PORT, 2.2020 MOOELGOM_. RFS-920204 $361 .00 2 $722.00 1 $361.00 1 $361.00 2.2030 WALL SHELF FOR RFS DEHYDRATORS APD-0 SERIES (SHELF-APD-0) RFS..SHELF-APD-0 $100.00 2 $200.00 1 $100.00 1 $100.00 OESSICATOR,BOTILE,STATtC 1-PORT,1 PORT,WITH UV FILTER.POLE 2.2040 MOUNTING ANO.SD·003UV $80.00 2 $160.00 2 $160.00 s ...... - ~ RFU, MP, IRU600v3, U6 GHz, 6400-7125 MHz, Gen 2 ERM-U63-303 $6,150.00 1 S6, 150.00 1 so. 150.00 3.0020 RFU, MP, IRU600113, L6 GHz, 5925-0450 MHz, Gen 2 ERM4.63-303 S6, 150.00 ECLIPSE, INTELLIGENT NODE UNIT 2RU, INC IOCE , FAN, NCCV2, HIGH 3.0030 OUTPUT EXX.Q00.204 $1,280.00 1 $1 ,280.00 1 $1,280.00 3.0040 NODE PROTECTION CARD. HIGH OUTPUT EXS-002 $28 4.00 1 $284.00 1 $284.00 3.0050 RAC 70, QPSK.. 0960A M, NO XPIC, ACM EXR-700.001 $798.00 1 $798.00 1 $798,00 3.0060 AUX, AlARM 110 CARD EXA-001 $250.00 1 S250.00 1 $250.00 3.0070 DAC GE3 GIGABIT ETHERNET SWITCH CARD EXD-181-002 $900.00 1 $900.00 1 $900.00 3.0080 ECLIPSE, DAC 16XE1/0S1 V3, PROTECTABUE EX~161~ $318.00 1 5316.00 1 $316.00 3.0090 ECLIPSE INU POWER SUPPLY 24V IN 56V OUT200W PCC (CS2560L) EXP-024 $126.00 1 $126.00 1 $126.00 3.0100 CABLE PROT /8RIDGEING GE3, DIRECT FIT, 500mm (58671JJ01) 037-579461-500 $12.00 1 $12.00 1 S1 2.00 OESSICATOR,BOTTLE,STATIC 1-PORT,1 PORT,WITH UV FILTER. POLE 3.0110 MOUNTING ANO.SD-003UV $80.00 2 $160.00 2 $160.00 • ProVlslon W~ndows Server, up to 1,000 SLV, Entry Level, Tower 4.0010 (POWER EDGE PE860) 814-100140-001 $3,082.00 1 $3,082.00 1 $3 ,082.00 <4 .0020 PROVISION SOLUTION PACK· 20 NODES 814-225010-002 $6,030.00 1 $6,030.00 1 $6,030,00 4.0030 PROVlSION GOS FELO INTERGRATION 61~-GO SFIELDINT $1,675.00 PROVISION GOS PACKAGE, C&D SAGENET POWER SUPPLY 4.0040 CONTROllER 614-700040.001 $3,350.00 4.0050 PROVISION SUPPORT, 24 MONTHS, 1-20 NODES. 24 X 7 SWVV.fJV24GlX.X2499 $4,824.00 1 $4,824.00 1 $4,124.00 I "'""""" - RADIO INTEGRATION SVCS-'N-SIPO-RI- $4,1.. 1 $4,141.00 1 54,141.00 5.0010 1.00 5.0020 VENDOR INTEGRATION SVCS..W.SIPO-VI $991.00 1 $991.00 1 $991.00 5.0030 CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE TESTING SVCS4N-SIPO-AT $2,527.00 1 1 $2,527.00 5.0040 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SVCS-IN.PM-PM $8,057.00 1 :::~~;:: 1 $8,057.00 5.0050 NETWORK/SYSTEM ENGINEERING SVCS.PN-EN-SE $9,162.00 1 $9,162.00 1 $9, 162.00 5.0060 CONFIG ENG I OOCUMENTATtoN I DRAFTING SVCS-IN-SS..CEOFT $'3,71 5.00 1 $3,715.00 1 $'3,715,00 5.0070 TRANSMISSION ENGINEERING SVCS.PN-EN-XE $11,529.00 1 $11,529.00 1 S1 1,529.00 5.0080 LICENSE APPliCATIONS SVCS.PN-EN-XE-tA $4,507.00 1 $4,507.00 1 $4,507.00 5.0090 PROJECT/SITE ENGINEERING svcs-tN-SS-PE $7,392.00 , $7,392.00 1 $7,392.00 ANTENNA SYS INSTALlATION (lnludhg antennas. antenna ITlOU'll$, WG and 5.0100 let~ shield) SVCS·IN-IC·AS $84,809.00 1 $64,809.00 1 S64,809.00 5.0110 FIELD INSIALLATION (including radios and Provision) SVCS-IN-IC-FI $26,972.00 1 $26,912.00 1 $26,972.00 5.0120 Equ1pment Removal-AnteMas SVCS-IN-IC-AS $5.148.00 1 $5,148,00 1 55,148.00 5.0130 Equ.pment Removal- Radios SVCS-IN-41:-FI $4,111.00 1 $4,11 1.00 1 $4, 111.00 6 - ECLIPSE I, M & 0 TRAINING 3 DAY,CUSTOMER LOCATION INSTRUCTOR 6.0010 LED NORTH AMERICA, WITH EQUIPMENT TRN-WW-ECL-01D $18,850.00 1 $18,850.00 1 $18,850,00 ,, ...... WARRANTY PLUS WV • NA&C, 36 MONTHS. ECLPSE. including 7><24 7.0010 technical support, •dvanc:e replacement SNA-SNWXA1003630 $757.00 4 $3,028.00 2 $1.514.00 2 $1 ,51 4.00 8.0000 FREIGHT FREIGHT $8,520.00 1 $8 ,520.00 1 $8,520.00 ' : . . : $23,165.00 $49,417.00 $204,843.00 ' ...... $49,277.00 oetio":'~:.. ...-"""". ,..,...,. ,_...... -· ...... Emergency Onshe Ground Crew - 4 Hoor Emergency Onsite SLA (Critical 9.0010 Alarms), year 1 SNA.CM4HL1001299 $4,200.00 1 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 Emergency Ont.ISe Ground Crew- 4 Hour Emergency Onsite SLA (C~k:al 9.0020 Alarms), year 2 SNA.CM4HL 1001299 $4,330.00 1 $4,330.00 $4,330.00 Emergency Onsite GfOI.rld Crew - 4 Hot.r Emergency Onsite SLA (Crtical 9.0030 Alarms), year 3 SNA.CM4HL 1001299 $4,464.00 1 $4,464.00 $4,464.00 Emergency Onsite Ground Crew - 4 Hour Emergency Onslte SLA (Critical 9.0040 Alarms), year 4 SNA.CM4HL1001299 $4,602.00 1 $4 ,602.00 $4,602.00 Emergency Onsil:e Groood Crew. 4 How Emergency Onslte SLA (Cntical 9.0050 Alarms), yearS SNA.CM4HL1 001299 $4,744.00 1 $4,744.00 $4,744.00 ~ ,m __ _,-...... ,.n 10.0010•• EXTEN-DED W ARRANTY-NA&C, 12 MONTHS, IRU.SOO,year .4 SNA-EWXXA1001238 5196.00 4 $784.00 $392.00 $392,00 10.0020 EXTENDED W ARRANTY-NA&C, 12 MONTHS, IRU.SOO,year 5 SNA-EWXXA1001236 $196.00 4 $784.00 $392.00 $392.00 .. . ' • t : • • S784.00 S7a4.00 $22.340.00 Tl'.!~ s alt~ c;:..toU"~•r.:= sn 1 rt:Jt.At.~ (u!;lc:r.t• etc:r~·Cf'U41,.-) lift- SUO!Ietto t.\llnri~• .-e-u JIIMt •dle''"'ll~l:n!:tiCI~ cf Jilt: t"~u cr.!:-1 f'l'lfrJ\ Itl •~••tte To: Bill Tullar Tri -Dom Strawberry, CA Salesperson Email FOB Lead Time Payment Terms Ship p ing Method Chris Sayles [email protected] Sacramento 8-10 weeks ARO Nel 30 TBD Refurbished Alcatei-Lucent MDR8000 16DS1 Radio Hop Sandbar to Strawberry Peak Qty Port Number Description Pri ce Line Total Refurbished Alcatel Lucent MDR8000 Microwave Radio System, fully redundant transmit/receive 1.00 MDR8706-16-MHS $ 18,564.00 $ 18,564.00 configuration(MHS), using the upper 6GHz FCC licensed frequency band. Equip p ed with 16DS 1' s 4.00 HP8-65-P3A Commscope High Performance 8ft antenna U6 $ 9,291 .00 $ 37, 164.00 4.00 520570-3 CommScop e Outboard strut kit for 8ft antenna $ 338.63 $ 1,354.50 4.00 520570-5 CommScope Bottom strut kit for 8ft antenna $ 315.00 $ 1,260.00 180.00 EW63 Elliptical Waveguide 5.925-7.1 25 GHz Standard ($/ft) $ 21.38 $ 3,847.50 4.00 55001-137 Waveguide pressure window $ 82.13 $ 328.50 4.00 F137CCB3 36" Flex twist waveguide section $ 547.50 $ 2,190.00 4.00 244106A-70 WR137 Flex Twist Hanger Assembly $ 73.00 $ 292.00 8.00 163SE Fixed Tuned Conn for EW63 $ 270.75 $ 2,166.00 1.00 APD20-D-35XHOROOSO RFS waveguide dehydrator 0.2 CFM, 120V, 3-5Psig $ 1,785.00 $ 1,785.00 1.00 6600D-2 0-15 psig 2-Port Gas Dist Manifold lnclds 2/Tubing $ 179.06 $ 179.06 1.00 SD-003-KIT3 STATIC DESICCATOR w-1 I 4 NPT $ 76.88 $ 76.88 8.00 220498 EW 63 Ground Kit $ 3 1.26 $ 250.10 3.00 24312A Hoisting Grip EW63 $ 32.60 $ 97.80 4.00 42396A-7 Standard Hanger Kit for EW63, EW65, 10/Pkg $ 36.75 $ 147.00 4.00 EWSH-63 EW63 Snap-In Hanger Kit w/ Insert, 10 / Pkg $ 118.50 $ 474.00 2.00 SA-38 3-Way Snap-In Hanger Stand-off Adapter, 10/Pkg $ 25.59 $ 51.1 8 2.00 294561 2" Standoff Adapter, 3/8" Hole 10/Pkg $ 37.18 $ 74.35 2.00 FCC-1 /2 FCC License, path coordination, and 601 form filing $ 1.250.00 $ 2,500.00 1x MDR8000 certified tech two day's onsite for radio 1.00 FCS-1/2 test I instalL 1x MDR8000 certified tech two day's $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 onsite for radio setup and turn up. 3 copies o f training material provided on USB thumb 1.00 TRN-8000 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 d rive Subtotal $ 80,551.86 Estimated Shipping 2,500.00 Total $ 83,051 .86 1. Shipping costs is not included 2. Pricing is confidential between IWI and County of Sacramento 3.PRODUCT THAT IS RETURNED UNAUTHORIZED WILL BE REFUSED AND RETURNED AT THE CUSTOMER'S EXPENSE. Return Material Authorization is required prior to shipping. Authorized material returned after 15 days may or may ~~:t~kf~~~~ed and wm be subject to a 20% Thank you for your business! 1700 North Market Boulevard Sui te # 101 Sacramento. CA 95834 Phone: 916-928-6000 Fax:916-928-6060 S,Z infinitiwireless·· Dote: April 27, 20 18 The leader in wireless network services Expiratio n Dote: June 11. 2018 Quote Number: 6792 To: Bill Tullar Tri-Dam Strawberry, CA Salesperson Email FOB Lead Time Payment Terms Shipping Method Chris Sayles [email protected] Sacramento 8-IOweeks ARO Net30 TBD Refurbished NOKIA MPR-9500 Ethernet Radio Hop Sandbar to Strawberry Peak Qty Part Number Description Price Line Total Refurbished NOKIA MPR-9500 Microwave Radio System. fully redundant transmit/receive configuration(MHS), using the upper 6GHz FCC 1.00 NOK-U6-32T/E-MHS $ 23.456.00 $ 23.456.00 licensed frequency band. includes: 160mb radio capacity, 32 Tl Nokia jack field, all required cabling and plumbing. 4.00 HP8-65-P3A Commscope High Performance 8ft antenna U6 $ 9,29 1.00 $ 37.164.00 4.00 520570-3 CommScope Outboard strut kit for 8ft antenna $ 338.63 $ 1.354.50 4.00 520570-5 CommScope Bottom strut kit for 8ft antenna $ 315.00 $ 1,260.00 180.00 EW63 Ellip tical Waveguide 5.925-7. 125 GHz Standard ($/ft) $ 2 1.38 $ 3,847.50 4.00 55001- 137 Waveguide pressure window $ 82.13 $ 328.50 4.00 F137CCB3 36" Flex twist waveguide section $ 547.50 $ 2, 190.00 4.00 244106A-70 WR 137 Flex Twist Hanger Assembly $ 73.00 $ 292.00 8.00 163SE Fixed Tuned Conn for EW63 $ 270.75 $ 2, 166.00 1.00 APD20-D-35XHOROOSO RFS waveguide dehydrator 0.2 CFM, 120V, 3-5Psig $ 1.785.00 $ 1.785.00 1.00 66000-2 0-15 psig 2-Port Ga s Dist Manifold lnclds 2/Tubing $ 179.06 $ 179.06 1.00 } SD-003-KIT3 STATIC DESICCATOR w-1/4 NPT $ 76.88 $ 76.88 8.00 220498 EW 63 Ground Kit $ 31.26 $ 250.10 3.00 24312A Hoisting Grip EW63 $ 32.60 $ 97.80 4.00 42396A-7 Standard Hanger Kit for EW63, EW65, 10/Pkg $ 36.75 $ 147.00 4.00 EWSH-63 EW63 Snap-In Hanger Kit w/ Insert, 10/Pkg $ 118.50 $ 474.00 2.00 SA-38 3-Way Snap-In Hanger Stand-off Adapter, 10/Pkg $ 25.59 $ 51.18 2.00 29456 1 2" Standoff Adapter, 3/8" Hole 10/Pkg $ 37. 18 $ 74.35 2.00 FCC-1/2 FCC License, path coordination, and 601 form filing $ 1.250.00 $ 2,500.00 1x 9 500 MPR certified tech two da y's onsite for radio 1.00 FCS- 1/2 test I install. lx 9500 MPR certified tech two day's $ 7.500.00 $ 7,500.00 onsite for radio setup and turn up. 3 copies of training material provided on USB thumb 1.00 TRN-9500 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 drive Subtotal $ 85.443.86 Estimated Shipping 2.500.00 Total $ 87,943.86 1. Shipping costs is not included 2. Pricing is confidential between IWI and County of Sacramento ).PRODUCT THAT IS RETURNED UNAUTHORIZED WILL BE REFUSED AND RETURNED AT THE CUSTOMER'S EXPENSE. Return Material Authorization is required prior to shipping. Authorized material returned after 15 days may or may not be accepted and will be subject to a 20% restocking fee. Thank you for your business! 1700 Nortll Market Boulevard Suite# 101 Sacramento, CA 95834 Phone: 916-928-6000 Fax:916-928-6060 RESOLUTION TOP 2018.03 SURPLUS PROPERTY Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Susan Larson Re: Tulloch Recreation Properties BACKGROUND: Tri-Dam's FERC license for Tulloch (February 2006) requires Tri-Dam to develop a public day use recreation side on the north shore of the reservoir. Currently, the only dedicated and improved public access facility on the reservoir is the South Shore Marina & Campground. That site is actually owned by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, and leased to the County of Tuolumne. Tuolumne County then enters into a concessionaire's agreement with an operator of the facility, which includes a 6-lane launch ramp, parking area, campsites, and marina facility. The FERC license at Tulloch requires Tri-Dam to develop a public access, day use recreational site on the Calaveras side of the reservoir. The actual license requirement states as follows: Reservoir Recreation Plan. Within three years of license issuance or one year of procuring an appropriate site, whichever occurs first, the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a reservoir recreation plan that provides public day use recreational opportunities at Tulloch reservoir. The plan will include the following: (I) detailed design dn1wings that depict the following: (a) the locations of up to I 5 picnic tables; (b) a beach area; (c) a natural area; (d) a car-top launch area for non-motorized boats; (e) access road(s) and parking areas; and (I) any stream, wetland, and upland habitats (i.e., cover types) that will be influenced by proposed construction, operation, and maintenance activities; (2) proposed protective measures for the habitats depicted in item (1)(1); (3) site-specific erosion and sedimentation control measures that are proposed for implementation during construction and operation ofthe facility; (4) proposed maintenance and patrol procedures for the facility; (5) any fees that Tri-Dam proposes to implement for public use.ofthis facility; and (6) a schedule for construction ofthis facility. This facility shall be constructed within five years of license issuance. Accordingly, the licensee shall submit progress reports on a semi-annual basis, beginning 60 days from the date of this license order and continuing until a site is procured, describing in detail the status of procuring an appropriate site for this facility. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), California Department of Parks and Recreation (Cal Parks and Rec), and Calaveras County and Tuolumne County (Counties). The licensee shall include with the reservoir recreation plan that it files with the Commission, documentation of consultation with the Water Board, Cal Parks and Rec, and the Counties, copies of comments and recommendations made in connection with the plan, and a description of how the plan accommodates the comments and recommendations. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the Water Board, Cal Parks and Rec, and the Counties to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on project-specific information. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the proposed plan. The plan shall not be implemented until the licensee is notified that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes required by the Commission. Tri-Dam's original proposal to FERC, submitted even in advance of the license issuance included the development of a public access day use area on a 14-acre site administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) located within the Black Creek Arm of the reservoir. The conceptual plan for the site included picnic tables, beach area, restrooms and a landing zone for boats. Unfortunately however, after the initial direction to develop a plan on the BLM site, vehicular access to the BLM site was not available, thus the site could only be developed as a "boat in" only facility. FERC then directed Tri-Dam to search for alternative sites that would be accessible by cars from the landward side and also provided acicess to the reservoir. At the Board's direction, two sites were purchased, 2.7 Acres along Connor Estates Drive and the second site on O'Bymes Ferry Road near the Tulloch Bridge crossing. In August 2015, the Board authorized staff to hire HDR to prepare conceptual plans of both sites, for further review and discussion. Many of the components of Site #1 (2.7 Acre Site) were prepared with input obtained from local area meetings of adjacent landowners. Site 2 (O'Byrnes Ferry Road) has two (2) concepts-one with a potential fishing pier and the other showing potential boat docks (similar to · a ·configuration of the former public marina developed at that site). The Board then directed staff to proceed with an application for development of the O'Byrnes Ferry Road site, using the plan entailing the FERC required items noted in the license to include picnic tables, beach area, car-top launch facility, restroom, parking area and fishing pier (copy attached). FERC issued an order approving the Recreation Plan on March 6, 2018 to develop the O'Byrnes Ferry site, and required Tri-Dam to complete the day use park area in 2019. Given FERC's directive approval of the Recreation Plan for development of the O'Byrnes Ferry Road site, staff is seeking Board direction regarding possible disposition of the 2.7 Acres adjacent to the Calypso l;lay Subdivision, located along Connor Estates Drive. The 2.7 Acre site was purchased on December 15, 2014 for $603,910.00. It was purchased after negotiations on the O'Byrnes Ferry Road site resulted in the cancellation of a prior escrow, and FERCtdirected Tri-Dam to specifically target the subject property. Ultimately, however, the O'Byrnes Ferry escrow was re-opened in 2015, and closed escrow on November 25, 2015 for $704,516.00. As noted above, FERC adopted the development plan for 'O'Byrnes Ferry Road, thus the second site is not required by license provisions. DISCUSSION: As a local agency as defined by Callforni,a Government Code section 54221, subdivision (a), Tri-Dam is subject to the,Surplus Land Act. The Surplus Land Act, set forth at California Government Code section 54220 et seq. (the "Act"), requires that surplus land owned by a local agency b~ disposed of according to certain procedures. (Gov. Code, § 54222.) The Act requires,that "[a]ny local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to disposing of that property, a written offer to sell or lease the property as follows: (a) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low-and moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined by section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located. (b) A written offer to sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or open space purposes shall be sent: (1) To any park or recreation department of any city within which the land is situated. (2) To any park and recreation department of the county within which the land is situated. (3) To any regional park authority having jurisdiction within the area in which the land is situated. (4) To the State Resources Agency or any agency that may succeed to its powers. (Gov. Code, § 54222.) The statute goes on to require an offer be tendered to all school districts which the property is located, but only if the land is "suitable for school facilities construction or use by a school district for open-space purposes." (ld., at§ 54222, subd. (c).) Once notice has been provided to the appropriate governmental agencies, those agencies have a sixty (60) day period to respond and notify Tri-Dam in writing that it intends to purchase or lease the property. (Gov. Code,§ 54222, subd. (f).) If one of the governmental agencies responds within the sixty (60) day period, then Tri-Dam must engage in good faith negotiations for a period of not less than sixty (60) days. If the price or terms cannot be agreed upon after a good faith negotiation period of not less than 60 days, the land may be disposed of without further regard to [the Surplus Land Act)."' (Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cai.App.4th 603, 613- 14, reh'g denied (Jan. 31, 2012) [quoting Gov. Code,§ 54223].) Therefore, in order to market the Property, Tri-Dam must first send a letter offering the Property to the following public agencies: 1. County of Calaveras 2. California Department of Housing and Community Development 3. California Housing Finance Agen9y 4. California Natural Resources Agency 5. Mark Twain/Bret Harte School District. Tri-Dam must wait sixty (60) days after sending these letters to see if any of the public agencies expresses any interest in purchasing the Property. If any of the above agencies Indicates an interest in the Propef"\y, Tri-Dam staff can discuss the property with the agencies and bring back any offers for Board consideration in a closed session meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54956.8.) ' lf none of the above agencies show any interest, Tri-Dam can dispose of the property without further regard to the Act. ACTION: Consideration and possible adoption of Resolution No. TDP 2018-03 authorizing staff to surplus the 2.7 acre site, identified as APN: 061-057-001 along Connor Estates Drive, Copperopolis, California and direct Staff to proceed with implementation of the requisite process as directed by the California Government Code. RECREATION JI.CCESS EXISTING RETAI N if~G WAll NUN·MOlOAIZtD BOAT WATER ACCESS RETAININGW ALl t RAILING 8WIIPlES - RETAIN!t\'G WA11. -- 5 PI CNIC SHEUEAS ===- EXISTitJG WAJ l · - liA~illll\ll :___~=....::...... :.-,--- ASH INGP IER ____.....;.::...;;;;.;::;=--=:.=--_;__- AlTf!ltJATIVE LOCAliOIJ 30___ ...J60 ~ 0 15 2-STAll UNISEX IIESTROOM 1"=30'·0" NON·I.~OTORIZED ~OAT AC CESS EXAMPLES TULLOCH RECREATIO ACCESS SITE DESIGN ·51 'iN ~ I; TRI-DAM PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. TOP 2018-03 RESOLUTION OF THE JOINT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONDUCTING BUSINESS OF THE TRI-DAM PROJECT RESOLUTION REGARDING DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY WHEREAS, Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District operating as the Tri-Dam Project ("Tri-Dam") is the owner of approximately 2.7 acres of real property located along Connor Estates Drive, California (Assessor's Parcel No. 061-057-001) (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on or about December 15, 2014 Tri-Dam purchased the subject Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Tri-Dam's FERC license for the Tulloch Project, the subject property was to be considered for development of a required public access day-use facility; and WHEREAS, the Tri-Dam Project secured another property located at 7430 O'Byrnes Ferry Road on or about November 25, 2015; and FERC has approved development of the Recreation Site required by license requirements on March 6, 2018; and WHEREAS, Tri-Dam has determined that the Property is no longer necessary for Tri Dam's use; and WHEREAS, the Property is currently suitable to be declared as surplus, and would be disposed of in conformance with California Government Code Sections 54220-54232. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Joint Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, conducting business of the Tri-Dam Project hereby declares the Property as surplus. 2. The Joint Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, conducting business of the Tri-Dam Project hereby authorizes and directs the General Manager to coml')'lence the procedures for disposing of surplus land pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54220-54232. 1444589.1 3. Tri-Dam staff is authorized and directed to proceed with the requisite procedures to provide for disposition and transfer sale of the subject property, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 54220-54232. 4. This resolution and its directives shall be effective upon the date of its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Thomas D. Orvis, President Dale Kuil, President Steve Knell, Secretary Peter M. Rietkert, Secretary ATTEST: Ron Berry Secretary to the Board 1444589,1 Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Ron Berry Re: Strawberry Regular Board Meeting Although the May board meeting has been moved to Oakdale Irrigation District we have in the past held a board meeting in Strawberry. This is allowed pursuant to Water Code 21377.5: Tri-Dam may hold no more than four regular board meetings annually at the Tri-Dam Project offices located in Strawberry, California. The upcoming meeting dates to select from are listed below. June21,2018 July 19, 2018 August 16, 2018 September 20, 2018 STANISLAUS RIVER UPDATE BEARDSLEY AFTERBAY ·PROJECT Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Ron Berry Susan Larson Re: Beardsley Abay Maintenance Project Background The Beardsley Afterbay Dam consists of a timber crib structure that impounds water to form the Afterbay of Beardsley Reservoir. The construction of the dam started in the fall of 1956 and was reported as completed on May 28, 1957 (as documented by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD)). Recent data collected as part of an October 2015 fish study indicated that the Abay Dam was leaking at a rate of approximately 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) at that time (full reservoir level). Staff completed a review of operational logs and determined that as far back as 2001 the documented leakage was approximately 38 cfs at full reservoir level. Following consultation with DSOD, although the dam continues to appear structurally sound, DSOD in its letter dated January 20, 2016, required that Tri-Dam complete a thorough evaluation and submit a plan and schedule for performing any required remediation A maintenance investigation plan and report, along with fee was required by DSOD so that they could review the seepage study methodology and program. DSOD further specified that until the dam remediation is completed, the reservoir is restricted to elevation 3129.00, which is 6.5 feet below the spillway crest. Following Board authorization, Tri"Dam hired Condor to prepare a Seepage Investigation Report and Maintenance Repair report, under the guidelines of study requirements issued by DSOD. Tri-Dam filed the investigation work plan with DSOD/FERC in May 2016, and received approval in August 2016. The Beardsley Afterbay Dam Seepage Investigation Report and maintenance plan was finalized and submitted to DSOD and FERC in February 2017. In March 2017, DSOD issued a letter concurring with Condor's findings and supporting the maintenance program to consist of repairs to the right abutment wall, the dam's top decking and finally the left abutment cutoff wall. The work was to be done in three (3) phases, with the first phase to begin in the fall of 2017, and the final phase in 2019. Due to the significant storm events and high water levels, Staff obtained concurrence from DSOD to conduct phases 1 and 2, in 2018, with the final phase in 2019. Project Condor has completed the final plans and specifications for the maintenance work, and the submittal package was transmitted to DSOD by Tri-Dam on April 26, 2018. Attached is an overall schedule, with engineer's cost estimate. Costs associated with the project reflect the use of redwood material, to replace the existing redwood and the complexity of proceeding with a maintenance program. In addition, staff is proceeding with required environmental review pursuant to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), as well as NEPA (National Environmental Quality Act), given that both California and National environmental guidelines must be met given the need to obtain permits from State and Federal Agencies, as well as coordination with the US Forest Service. An environmental consultant, preparing biological assessments is currently working as a sub-consultant to Condor (Monk & Associates), as a number of State and Federal agencies require that special plant surveys and detailed analyses be prepared as part of their respective agency permits. Condor has also tasked Gary Jernigan to assist with onsite project management to assist in the successful management of the project construction. While the placeholder budget amount of $538,000.00 was included in last year's budget based upon an engineer's preliminary projection, it is apparent that the project to complete the maintenance repairs in accordance with DSOD and FERC directives will be significantly higher, thus this matter is brought to the Board for additional direction regarding funding from TOP power sale revenue or whether the money should be transferred from the Maintenance Reserve account. The schedule is aggressive, as noted on the attached timeline and estimate prepared by Condor, but is needed to achieve the directives to move forward with phase 1 and 2 this year, and to complete the far side abutment work in 2019. Action: Discussion and potential action to approve the project work program, timeline and funding. CON DOR EARTH 21663 Brian Lane, P.O. Box 3905 Sonora . C/\ 95370 209.532.036 1 Fax 209.532.0773 CONDOR www.condorearth.com MEMORANDUM T O: Ron Berry and Susan Larson T ri-Dam Project COPY: Gary Jernigan and Andy Kositsky, Condor FROM: Scott Lewis DATE: May 9, 2018 PROJECT NO.: 7262/Task 38 SUBJECT: Beardsley Afterbay Construction Cost Estimate DISCUSSION As requested, Condor Earth (Condor) has prepared an Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs (Cost Estimate) for the Beards ley Afterbay Maintenance Project. The Cost Estimate is based on the Maintenance Project Drawings prepared by Condor and dated April 9, 20 18, and other accumulated information. The Cost Estimate includes the fol lowing construction elements: • Add rock ri p rap over the existing rip rap buttress downstream of the A bay crib wall • Temporarily remove rip rap buttresses at the upstream and downstream sides of each abutment' s tim ber cutoff wall • Temporary shore existing vertical timber cutoff and crib end walls at each dam abutment after rip rap removal • Dri ve sheet pi les along the upstream sides of the existing cutoff and end walls at each dam abutment • Replace ri p rap buttresses at upstream and downstream sides of each dam abutment as the shoring is being removed • Remove the two layers of redwood deck boards • Backfill voids and compact soil beneath the deck boards • Replace the deck boards with two layers of deck boards, crest timber and sheet piles The maintenance project scope wi ll be completed during the September and October time periods in 2018 and in 2019, as agreed to by DSOD. Condor has included a detailed Project Execution Plan and Project Schedule, prepared by Gary Jernigan (attached), whi ch provides additional basis fo r the Cost Estimate. Beardsley Aft crbay Construction Cost Estimate Tri- Dam Project Page 2 CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE The Cost Estimate was prepared by Michael Gowri ng in coordination and assistance with Gary Jernigan and other Condor staff. Attached you will fi nd a Preliminary Budget Estimate summary table. Cost Estimate detail s and backup information is available upon request. The contractor construction costs for the Beardsley Afterbay Maintenance Project are itemized in the attached documents and summari zed by Project Year as fo ll ows. Note that redwood lumber purchase and deli very costs, planned to be made by TDP di rectly, are included. 2018 No1t h Abutment and Decking Cost $1 ,285,646 20 19 South Abutment Cost $454,868 Contractor Profit $26 1,077 Contractor Construction Estimate $2,001,591 Budget Contingency ( I 0%) $200. 159 Recommended Contractor Construction Budget $2,201,750 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATE The construction management (CM), constructi on phase engineeri ng and quality assurance (QA/QC), and environmental monitoring (if any) cost estimate is based on anticipated costs that would be incurred by Condor or similarly qualified firm(s). These estimated costs are based on a percentage of the Cost Estimate (25% for year I and 35% for year 2). 2018 North Abutment and Decking $32 1,4 12 20 19 South Abutment $159,204 Recommended CM/QA Construction Budget $480,616 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Based on the above, the project costs (rounded to the nearest $ 1OOK ), not including TDP staff costs, are estimated as foll ows: Recommended Contractor Construction Budget $2,200,000 Recommended CM & QA Construction Budget $500,000 Recommended Project Construction Budget $2,700,000 Pl ease contact us with any questions or comments. Attachments Appendix A Contractor's Construction Cost Estimate Summary Appendix B Project Execution Plan and Schedules X:\ProJect\?OOO_prJ\7262 Tn-D:un\7262 Beardsley\Da1a\Cons1rucuon Cos1 Est\GJ & MG Ftles\i\-120180509 CCE Summary docx CONDOR~ APPENDIX A CONDOR~ BEARDSLEY AFTERBAY DAM Preliminary Budget Estimate Probable Project Cost Estimate Beardsley Afterbay Maintenance Project Work Work Description Operation Total Operation 1000 Initial mobilization- 2018 $ 23,600.00 1010 Set up trailer and laydown area China flat $ 6,200.00 1020 Construct ramp to riprap area $ 34,000.00 1030 Environmental protection riprap area $ 7,600.00 1060 Environmental protection right abutment $ 6,950.00 1070 Improve access to D/S right abutment $ 21,000.00 1080 Construct road across D/S toe of dam and build up riprap $ 36,900.00 1090 Environmental protection D/S $ 7,600.00 1100 Remove riprap right abutment and form work pad $ 16,500.00 1110 Drive piles right abutment $ 85,296.19 1120 Remove existing decking from crest and haul away $ 82,832.67 1130 Replace voids in cribbing with select backfill $ 26,112.50 1140 Replace redwood decking $ 485,054.01 1150 Replace riprap after pile driving $ 20,000.00 1170 Clean up, remove environmental material $ 6,800.00 1180 Demobilize - 2018 $ 18,600.00 2000 Overhead - 201 8 $ 337,000.00 2010 Cost of permits $ 63,600.00 Estimate for 2018 Costs $ 1,285,645.37 3000 Remobilize- 2019 $ 17,600.00 3010 Set up trailer and 1aydown area China flat $ 6,200.00 3020 Environmental protection left abutment $ 6,950.00 3040 Construct ramp to left abutment $ 37,000.00 3050 Remove riprap left abutment and form work pad $ 31,500.00 3060 Drive Piles left abutment $ 119,267.31 3070 Replace Riprap after Pile Driving $ 30,000.00 3080 Reinstate ramp to riprap ares $ 13,500.00 3090 Clean up, remove environmental material $ 5,100.00 3100 Demobilize 2019 $ 12,000.00 4000 Overhead 2019 $ 175,750.00 Estimate for 2019 Costs $ 454,867.31 Budget estimated cost $ 1,740,512.67 Profit- 15% $ 261,076.90 Engineer's Budget Estimate $ 2,001,589.57 10% Contingency $ 200,158.96 Total Contractor Construction Budget $ 2,201,748.53 2018 CM/QA During Construction $ 321,411.34 2019 CM/QA During Construction $ 159,203.56 Total CM/QA Construction Budget $ 480,614.90 Total 2018 & 2019 Estimated Budget $ 2,682,363.43 X:\Project\7000_jlrj\7262 Tri-Dam\7262 Benrdsley\Data\Construction Cost Est\GJ & MG Files\Benrdsley uftorbay estimate 050920\S.xlsx APPENDIXB CONDOR~ GARY E. JERNIGAN, REG. P.E. Jernigan Consulting Services 3070 Joshua Tree Circle • Stockton, CA 95209 • [email protected] • 209-518-4653 Beardsley Afterbay Maintenance Project Execution Plan INTRODUCTION Tri-Dam Project (TDP) retained Condor Earth (Condor) to investigate the leakage at the Beardsley Afterbay Dam (Abay). It was concluded degradation of the timber cutoff walls is the primary cause. Also, it was concluded by the investigation that seepage occurs through the timber decking of dam during periods of overflow. Once the investigation was completed, TDP retained Condor to design the necessary maintenance repairs to the dam as described in the Design Report, and shown on the maintenance Project Drawings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The maintenance project will consist of the following components: • Add rock rip rap over the existing rip rap buttress downstream of the Abay crib wall • Temporarily remove rip rap buttresses at the upstream and downstream sides of each abutment's timber cutoff wall • Temporary shore existing vertical timber cutoff and crib end walls at each dam abutment after rip rap removal • Drive sheet piles along the upstream sides of the existing cutoff and end walls at each dam abutment • Replace rip rap buttresses at upstream and downstream sides of each dam abutment as the shoring is being removed • Remove the two layers of redwood deck boards • Backfill voids and compact soil beneath the deck boards Beardsley Afterbay Maintence Project Dam No 62-7 Page 2 • Replace the deck boards with two layers of deck boards, crest timber and sheet piles The project scope will be completed during the fall, near the end of two water seasons. The work will start in 2018 and will be completed in 2019. Work for 2018 will be completed at the right abutment, the dam downstream toe area, and along the full deck length of the dam. The access to the work areas will be critical to achieving the schedule. In order to minimize the schedule duration, a coordinated effort of the work activities is essential. The work will be divided into four distinct areas; the borrow pit for rock rip rap, the right abutment area, the deck area of the dam, the toe of the dam. Some of the activities will be performed concurrently while some can only start once other activities have been completed. Due to the amount of rock rip rap needed for this project, it will be critical to construct the access to the rip rap borrow area as soon as possible. The Preliminary Schedule shows this activity starting on September 21, 2018, but this can start as early as September 18, 2018. The initial work will be to construct an access road and start stockpiling or hauling to the dam to construct the existing road extension. These two activities are critical to opening access to the dam and completing the project on schedule. Once the access to the dam has been completed, three work areas can be started. Those areas are: the right abutment, the road at the toe of the dam, and removal of the bolts holding down the deck planks. Work at the right abutment with rip rap removal and constructing a pad for the pile driving equipment to operate. Concurrently, the construction of the road at the toe of the dam will continue to the left abutment. Also concurrently, small equipment will be placed on the dam to facilitate the removal of the lag bolts holding down the deck planking (to the extent the existing deck boards are not too deteriorated). These are three independent work activities with only one access. The contractor must coordinate these activities as not to impede the schedule. The right abutment area has two major work activities, i.e., the rip rap removal and replacement, and the pile driving. The rip rap removal will consist of removing the rip rap and using this to build a pad for the pile driver. Concurrently as the pad is being built, the pile driving crane and equipment will be mobilized. Once the pad has been constructed and the shoring installed, the pile driving rig will be situated and the diving operation started. Simultaneously, as the work on the right abutment progresses, the work constructing the toe bench will be progressing. The work at the toe will consist of removing approximately two to three feet of rip rap. The rip rap will be used for the additional rip rap for the buttress of the dam. However, the rip rap removed from the toe of the dam will not be a sufficient quantity for the buttress and will require rip rap to be imported from the borrow area. Care must be taken to insure the weight of the rip rap is not less than 2 tons each. As the work on the toe continues, the work on the deck will be divided into three areas to facilitate a timely project completion. The work will consist of bolt removal, deck planks removed, crib area backfilled to the top of the crib and compacted, and new redwood planks laid out, drilled and bolts installed. Beardsley Afterbay Maintence Project DamNo 62-7 Page 3 Monitoring of the work in these major work areas will be essential for Condor and contractor to meet the schedule completion. Daily Progress Reports will be issued to TDP and Condor from the field identifying the progress, potential schedule conflicts, and identified work items that could impact the schedule. POTENTIAL IMP ACTS • The schedule is based on having the permits available on or before September I 0, 2019 to start construction on September 17, 2018. In particular the Streambed Alteration Permit is critical in meeting the schedule. Especially for the borrow area. • There are some small trees in the buttress area at the toe, ifthere is a tree survey required then this needs to be completed prior to the start of the construction. • The redwood lumber is a special order delivery after the order is received by the vendor and payment made. Delivery time is a minimum of 6-8 weeks after payment. We understand that TDP plans to procure the lumber in advance. • Sheet piling may have price increases due to tariffs, sales tax increases and fuel tax increases. • Pricing of sheet piling was based on used sheet piling and not coated. The life expectancy is 50 years. • The backfill rock for the crib is 3/4" minus. It was assumed for the estimate this rock would come from George Reed in Jamestown. X:\Prnject\7000_JJrj\7262 Tri-Dam\7262 Beardslcy\Data\Conslruction Cost Est\GJ & MG Filcs\201 80509 Project Exe~:ution Plan.d(IC COndor Earth Technologies Tri-Dam Project Prelimin~ry Project Schedule Prpjectn62 Beardsley Aferb sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Oper Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Operation SMTWTFSSMTW T F 5 S M T W T F 5 S M T W T F S S M T W T F 5 S M T W T F 5 $ Number Description 22232425262728293012 3456789WllUUMUBDmmmnDDMBBD·3·ll1 SOUTH SIDE- 2019 -~ .3000 Mobilize . .3010 Set Up Laydown at China Flat 3020 Environmenta Protection at Pit 3030 Clear and Grub Trees Lt/Abut. ~- .3050 Remove Rip Rap Lt/Abut...... 3040 Construct Road & Pad for Pile Driving Eq 3060 Install/Remove Shoring Lt/Abut .3060 Drive Piling Lt/Abut .3070 Replace Rip Rap & Two Tie Backs .3080 Reinstate Rip Rap and Laydown Areas v>~_- .3090 Remove Environmental Protection Mat. 1 3100 Demobiize ~~~ DONN ELLS REALIGNMENT PROJECT STAFF REPORTS GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT TRI-DAM PROJECT of the Oakdale & South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts Board of Directors Meeting May 17, 2018 Safety • 972 Days without a lost time or disabling injury or avoidable auto accident. Staff plans to reward our employees once they reach 1,000 days. Project Activities • GM Berry and staff met with the USFS to discuss the road repairs to Donnells powerhouse outlining the steps as how to proceed with the permanent re alignment. • Tri-Dam and the USFS held there annual meeting on Friday May 11 in accordance with our FERC License. Some of the items discussed include, Beardsley/Donnells Recreational Plans, Road Maintenance Agreement, and Cultural Resource Monitoring at Beardsley, Water Year Type, and other topics. • GM Berry and Finance Manager Rick Dodge have been working on the Projects insurance renewal and a recommendation will be made at the May 17 meeting. • Donnells unit may have suffered a bearing failure on May 8 at 5:50am. The unit has been on line for 11 days running at various loads. I say the unit may have suffered a bearing failure, but at this time, we are unsure and have contacted an Engineering firm known as Hydro Consulting & Maintenance Services Inc. (HCMS) to be onsite with our Mechanical Engineer that oversaw the bearing replacement and alignment completed on April 27. Both Engineers will be onsite Monday May 14 to evaluate and document the Donnells unit thrust bearing being disassembled in order to determine the cause of the bearing temperature spike on the above date and time. I will be update the Board during the meeting on May 17. • GM Berry and staff continue to work with Condor on the Beardsley Abay repair project answering questions and filling request for information. Tulloch Reservoir • GM Berry continues to correspond with Tim Wasiewski (OLP) concerning matters at Tulloch unit #3 roadway. • Susan Larson continues to report to GM Berry with updates to FERC required conditions of our license. • GM Berry and Susan Larson are working with attorneys concerning the house on Lake Tulloch with the slide. • Staff continues to process permits as they are received. FERC and Related Proceedings • Staff continues to submit reports and respond to FERC information requests to meet compliance requirements in FERC license conditions at Donnells, Beardsley, and Tulloch. Other Noteworthy Activities • Next Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for June 4, 2018 • Operations staff continues close coordination with Silicon Valley Power (SVP) and PG&E concerning generation scheduling and water management. • 2018 Annual Hydro Related Conferences: HydroVision conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, June 25-28, 2018 Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Troy Hammerbeck Re: Maintenance Report Tulloch • Low level outlet valve calibration test. • Replace and realign buoys. • Yard work cottage #1 • Weekly tree inspection and maintenance per FERC. • Strange Resource Mgmt. completed our biannual inspection of trees per FERC. Donnells • Work on ditches and culverts on road to dam. • Cut up fallen trees. • Sent #3 cooling water pump out to be rebuilt. • Install new 3-way mixing valve to regulate cooling water. • Completed unit realignment, generator ran flawlessly for 11 days until thrust bearings failed unexpectedly on May 8 for no obvious reason. Will start disassembly to determine failure. Sandbar • Acquire quotes for new microwave path. Misc. • Service vehicles and equipment. Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Brian Belitz Re: Operations Report April 30, 2018 End of Month Reservoir Data (A/F) Storage Storage Change Acre-Feet Used Spill/Bypass Donnells 58,210 24,244 3,171 56,531 Beardsley 90,871 51,098 36,736 10,944 Tulloch 58,849 1,734 121,202 482 New Melones 2,061,882 43,006 113,668 57,305 Donnells generator was returned to service on April 27th after the Realignment Project (86 hours, 54 minutes). Beards lev generator remained on line during the entire month of April, with the exception of a PG&E line outage on April 26th (711 hours, 42 minutes). Sandbar generator remained on line during the entire month of April, with the exception of a PG&E line outage on April 26th (711 hours, 31 minutes). Tulloch Unit 1 generator was online for the entire month of April (720 hours). Unit 2 generator was online for 714 hours, 4 minutes. Unit 3 generator was online for 712 hours, 3 minutes. New Melones Inflow: The total inflow to New Melones as of April 30th was 541 ,091 A/F. District Usage: Total District usage for the water year 2017/18 through April 30th is approximately 89,441 A/F. Precipitation: Total for the month was 3.70 inches. Other Activities: • Coordinated PG&E line outage on 4/26/18 for DPH, BPH and SPH. • After conducting 7 interviews for the open Operator position, a candidate was chosen and has accepted an offer of employment. He should be starting work by the end of May. Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: 5/17/18 To: Board of Directors From: Brian Belitz Re: Safety and Environmental Report SAFETY: Working on an Annual Site Specific Training schedule • Provided training on Safe Chemical Handling and Hazardous Materials Business Plan • Continued work on draft of TDP Confined Space Program YTD/TOTAL APR.a SAFETY DATA MONTHLY TOTALS s 12 MONTH ROLLING AVERAGE Recordable Injury Rate 0 0.00 0.00 Recordable Injuries 0 0 0 Days Worked Since Last Recordable Injury 30 959 NIA Day Worked Without a Lost Time Accident 30 964 NIA Employee Hours Worked (Plant+ Temp) 5027.25 16543.00 52737.00 Number of Safety Event Reports Submitted 0 0 NIA % of Online Training Completed 0.00% 0.00% NIA % of Site-Specific Training Completed 0.00% 0.00% NIA ENVIRONMENTAL: • Submitted Hazardous Materials Business Plans to CERS website for each site • Opertions Department completed Universal Waste Training • Removed Universal Waste items YTD APR.a ENVIRONMENTAL DATA MONTH LIMIT/GOAL TOT/AVG Notice of Violation (NOVs) 0 0 0 Deviation from Regulatory Requirements 0 0 0 Environmental Incidents (e.g., non-reportable spill) 0 0 0 BEARDSLEY PRECIPITATION YEAR J UL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL 1958-59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 1.39 1.40 1.04 0.00 11.23 1959-60 0.00 0.03 3.09 0.00 0.00 1.92 5.74 8.38 4.68 2.45 0.35 0.00 26.64 1960-61 0.05 0.00 0.44 0.63 5.33 2.43 1.60 3.04 4.96 1.49 1.84 0.29 22.10 1961-62 0.21 1.12 0.77 0.70 3.39 2.98 2.04 15.32 6.13 1.12 1.04 0.02 34.84 1962-63 0.30 0.16 0.35 2.98 1.05 2.66 5.91 8.37 6.08 8.24 3.70 0.74 40.54 1963-64 0.00 0.44 0.59 2.63 7.81 0.81 5.84 0.21 3.02 2.01 2.44 1.64 27.44 1964-65 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.08 7.40 17.93 5.90 1.34 2.44 5.27 0.32 0.29 43.31 1965-66 0.00 1.47 0.60 0.47 12.38 4.59 1.68 2.33 1.00 2.39 0.43 0.10 27.44 1966-67 0.13 0.00 0.28 0.00 7.55 8.48 8.77 0.67 10.02 10.25 2.04 1.05 49.24 1967-68 0.00 0.39 0.90 0.54 2.47 3.35 4.94 4.81 3.48 0.73 1.44 0.02 23.07 1968-69 0.10 0.65 0.00 2.12 6.22 8.28 19.45 8.35 1.88 3.39 0.21 0.39 51.04 1969-70 0.00 0.00 0.55 3.41 2.98 6.46 17.06 3.11 3.43 2.50 0.00 3.17 42.67 1970-71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 10.71 8.44 2.83 1.16 4.87 1.49 1.80 0.77 32.98 1971-72 0.00 0.02 0.29 1.22 6.22 10.31 2.39 2.78 1.01 4.03 0.10 1.62 29.99 1972-73 0.00 0.58 0.17 1.85 6.27 5.57 12.08 12.06 5.31 1.11 0.72 0.74 46.46 1973-74 0.05 0.18 0.07 3.65 9.88 9.10 5.08 1.84 8.18 5.15 0.02 0.07 43.27 1974-75 2.57 0.10 0.00 2.82 2.38 4.95 4.25 10.16 9.90 5.41 0.84 0.63 44.01 1975-76 0.03 2.02 0.15 6.75 2.04 0.74 0.49 3.03 2.66 2.42 0.91 0.05 21 .29 1976-77 0.10 2.43 1.00 0.93 1.54 0.24 2.50 2.68 2.06 0.25 4.65 0.38 18.76 RECORD LOW 1977-78 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.24 4.76 9.72 10.85 8.31 8.67 7.97 0.19 0.23 51 .52 1978-79 0.08 0.00 3.98 0.07 3.17 4.43 8.45 7.60 6.05 1.86 2.88 0.02 38.59 1979-80 0.17 0.03 0.00 4.66 4.63 5.22 14.62 13.03 3.61 3.09 4.33 0.77 54.16 1980-81 0.43 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.58 3.04 8.05 2.69 6.26 1.67 1.42 0.00 24 .90 1981-82 0.06 0.00 0.15 5.27 8.76 8.39 6.08 8.08 11.23 8.19 0.12 1.34 57.67 1982-83 0.03 0.02 4.02 8.78 11 .30 7.32 10.83 14.34 12.86 6.29 0.74 0.12 76.65 RECORD HIGH 1983-84 0.01 0.09 3.86 1.35 16.44 12.75 0.27 5.51 3.56 2.70 0.84 1.31 48.69 1984-85 0.00 0.05 0.73 3.97 10.28 2.58 1.52 3.13 5.84 0.86 0.07 0.28 29.31 1985-86 0.30 0. 12 2.64 3.09 7.71 4.52 4.70 21.98 8.43 2.37 1.58 0.00 57.44 1986-87 0.02 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.49 0.73 3.42 5.89 5.21 0.79 1.63 0.15 20.51 1987-88 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 2.22 5.79 5.42 0.88 0.73 3.15 1.66 0.79 22.83 1988-89 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 6.96 4.29 1.45 2.73 10.08 1.41 0.74 0.02 27.80 1989-90 0.00 0.33 3.28 4.30 3.02 0.00 4.75 3.40 2.75 1.66 3.46 0.21 27.16 1990-91 0.00 0.11 0.59 0.41 1.62 1.30 0.40 1.79 16.08 1.74 2.54 1.54 28.12 1991 -92 0.17 0.10 0.32 5.54 2.32 3.10 1.97 7.68 4.58 0.45 0.45 1.66 28.34 1992-93 3.26 0.35 0.00 3.05 0.44 9.61 12.19 8.74 6.29 2.07 1.24 2.43 49.67 1993-94 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.11 1.97 2.93 7.08 0.86 3.71 2.22 0.00 22.13 1994-95 0.00 0.00 0.77 2.82 7.92 3.68 18.32 1.14 18.76 6.98 6.72 1.02 68.13 1995-96 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 9.13 10.32 11 .17 6.81 3.94 5.51 1.24 48.52 1996-97 0.05 0.01 0.23 2.55 7.14 16.19 18.16 0.80 0.53 0.82 0.51 1.24 48.23 1997-98 0.17 0.00 0.33 1.39 4.99 3.70 12.86 16.30 6.69 4.94 6.46 1.35 59.18 1998-99 0.00 0.00 2.84 0.49 5.12 3.13 8.93 9.71 2.63 3.03 1.28 1.03 38.19 1999-00 0.00 0.13 0.18 1.05 3.51 0.51 11 .68 14.13 2.58 3.70 2.72 1.06 41.25 2000-01 0.00 0.07 0.96 3.17 1.01 1.59 4.69 4.70 3.08 5.39 0.00 0.07 24.73 2001-02 0.02 0.00 0.60 1.17 6.97 9.75 2.56 2.13 6.88 2.29 2.02 0.00 34.39 2002-03 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 7.42 11 .17 1.12 3.50 3.81 9.36 2.69 0.00 39.16 2003-04 0.09 1.32 0.06 0.00 2.88 9.97 2.79 8.52 1.07 0.17 0.55 0.02 27.44 2004-05 0.02 0.00 0.19 7.66 2.93 6.67 10.52 6.95 9.35 3.35 5.76 0.80 54.20 2005-06 0.00 0. 11 0.71 1.70 3.34 17.72 7.75 5.26 10.14 10.55 1.97 0.10 59.35 2006-07 0.08 0.00 0.01 1.53 3.56 5.25 2.08 8.70 1.30 2.61 1.33 0.10 26.55 2007-08 0.01 0.17 0.34 1.02 0.95 5.01 10.15 6.69 0.87 0.26 2.85 0.00 28.32 2008-09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 6.17 5.08 5.88 6.98 6.78 1.97 3.37 0.79 38.67 2009-10 0.00 0.10 0.00 4.37 1.31 5.89 7.97 5.86 4.92 6.66 3.65 0.06 40.79 2010-11 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.67 7.15 14.21 2.15 5.76 15.22 1.94 2.94 3.21 61 .25 2011-12 0.00 0.00 1.56 3.13 1.77 0.00 6.25 1.62 5.96 4.76 0.37 0.92 26.34 2012-13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 5.78 12.56 0.64 0.93 3.26 1.11 1.48 0.80 27.83 2013-14 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.56 1.80 1.22 1.59 9.23 6.17 3.43 0.98 0.05 25.75 2014-15 0.52 0.03 1.03 0.15 3.72 7.25 0.13 4.49 0.43 3.08 2.75 0.80 24.38 2015-16 0.39 0.00 0.11 2.26 5.36 9.74 9.53 1.74 9.19 3.13 1.82 0.34 43.61 2016-17 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.26 3.19 8.30 22.25 20.47 5.49 8.06 0.59 0.46 76.07 2017-18 0.00 0.09 1.44 0.50 7.34 0.42 5.20 0.76 14.50 3.70 33.95 Current Year Average 0.16 0.22 0.74 2.28 4.77 6.06 6.63 6.37 5.62 3.47 1.85 0.66 38.84 2017-18 +/- (0 .16) (0.13) 0. 70 (1.78) 2.57 (5.64) (1.43) (5.61) 8.88 0.23 (1 .85) (0.66) (4.89) AN NUAL AVERAGE 38.84 INCHES+/- ANNUAL AVERAGE (4.89) STANISLAUS RIVER BASIN SNOW WATER RECOVERY May 2, 2018 DRAINAGE DRAINAGE WATER WATER RECOVER'' RECOVERY RECOVERY RECOVERY RECOVERY RECOVERY AREA AREA IN CONTENl AT AT AT AT AT AT SQ. MILES ACRES FEET AC-FT 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% NO. FORK NEAR A VERY 163 104,320 1.390 145,005 108,754 101,503 94,253 87,003 79,753 72,502 SO. FORK 67 42,880 1.390 59,603 44,702 41,722 38,742 35,762 32,782 29,802 MIDDLE FORK AT DONNELLS 230 147,200 1.390 204,608 153,456 143,226 132,995 122,765 112,534 102,304 MIDDLE FORK AT BEARDSLEY 309 197,760 1.390 274,886 206,165 192,420 178,676 164,932 151,188 137,443 TOTAL 344,960 479,494 359,621 335,646 311,671 287,697 263,722 239,747 MELONES DRAINAGE AREA 904 578,560 MELONES INFLOW TO DATE 547,135 May 2, 20 18 PROJECTED SNOW RliNOFF 287,697 Projected April to July runoff (60% RECOVERY) STORAGE ON May 2, 2018 MAXSTOR DIFFERNCE l iPSTREAM STORAGE RETENTION 50,000 NEW MELONES 2,009,600 2,419,523 (409,923) DONNELLS 57,864 64,325 (6,461) PROJECTED MELONES IN FLOW 784,832 on September 30,2018 BEARDSLEY 90,543 97,802 (7,259) NEW SPICER 144,670 189,000 (44,330) T OTAL 293,077 351 ,127 (58,050) Tri-Dam Project Meeting Date: May 17,2018 To: Board of Directors From: Susan Larson Re: Regulatory Affairs/Compliance Report FERC Compliance • Final work on FERC Part 120 inspections with TOP staff and HDR, and submittal to FERC on Apri113, 2018 to meetthe FERC deadline. • Working with the USFS regarding Hells Half Acre Road and the by-pass section in terms of the long-term roadway plan. Scheduled to meet with the USFS on May 11, 2018 to define what might be required to change the classification of the road from temporary to permanent given that there appear to be no feasible alternatives. In addition, once the scope of work is defined, Tri-Dam will work with the USFS to ensure that the required level of environmental documentation is prepared. • Work on Beardsley Abay maintenance project. Tri-Dam is performing the initial study, and environmental clearance needed to obtain permits from the USACE, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, etc. An environmental consultant (Monk & Associates} is assisting by conducting the required plant and animal surveys needed to obtain these permits. Coordination with the USFS is also a part of the work underway. An overview of the updated project, including timeline and budget is scheduled for the May 2018 TOP meeting. Final plans were to DSOD in accordance with the work plan already approved by DSOD. As previously discussed with the Board, the first two phases of work will begin in the fall of 2018. • Working on FERC recreation plan requirements for the O'Byrnes Ferry Road site, and specific technical mapping of the project area. Permit and Other Assignments • Tyler litigation coordination and review/update documents as needed. • Work on permits, site review and compliance questions for various properties at Tulloch. Respond to daily inquiries from the public. • Continuing to work on the FEMA/OES reimbursement. Tri-Dam received two checks from FEMA/Cal OES totaling $921,598.00 on May 4, 2018. Year to date, our FEMA receipts total $1 ,005, 741. Work on additional reimbursements is stili in progress. GENERATION REPORT Tri-Dam Project Generation & Revenue Report 2018 Donnells Beardsley Tulloch Project Total Average 2018 Net Avoided 2018 Average 2018 Net 2018 Average 2018 Net 2018 Average 2018 Net 2018 Generation Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy (1958-2017) (kWh) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2017) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2017) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2017) (kWh) Revenue JAN 17,405,814 16,440,507 - $1,183,717 3,143,628 3,535,221 $254,536 4,251,358 5,503,490 $396,251 24,800,800 25,479,217 $1,834,504 FEB 17,340,980 10,547,315 - $759,407 2,941,779 2,086,227 $150,208 4,975,579 7,984,954 $574,917 25,258,337 20,618,496 $1,484,532 MAR 23,385,784 4,163,145 - $299,746 3,602,497 2,490,886 $179,344 7,634,665 4,342,220 $312,640 34,622,946 10,996,251 $791,730 APR 32,148,154 4,009,493 1,019,220 $362,067 4,681,257 6,889,911 $496,074 10,742,874 14,900,224 $1,072,816 47,572,285 25,799,628 $1,930,957 MAY 41,746,950 -- $0 5,758,684 - $0 12,032,967 - $0 59,538,601 - $0 JUN 43,239,822 - - $0 6,311,532 - $0 12,034,298 - $0 61,585,652 - $0 JUL 36,662,848 - - $0 6,603,124 - $0 12,607,319 - $0 55,873,291 - $0 AUG 27,789,309 - - $0 6,268,321 - $0 11,852,234 - $0 45,909,864 - $0 SEP 20,385,274 - - $0 5,266,138 - $0 8,567,790 - $0 34,219,203 - $0 OCT 12,572,067 -- $0 3,788,231 - $0 4,617,929 - $0 20,978,227 - $0 NOV 12,061,580 -- $0 2,814,056 - $0 2,484,366 - $0 17,360,002 - $0 DEC 14,472,739 - - $0 3,747,474 - $0 3,319,982 - $0 21,540,195 - $0 Total 299,211,320 35,160,460 1,019,220 $2,604,937 54,926,721 15,002,244 $1,080,162 95,121,361 32,730,888 $2,356,624 449,259,403 82,893,592 $6,041,722 Note: 2018 Price per MWh is $72.00 2019 Price per MWh is $75.00 Tri-Dam Power Authority -Sand Bar Average 2018 Net 2018 PG&E Total Generation Generation Energy Coordination Revenue (1987-2017) (kWh) Revenue Payment JAN 4,653,080 4,991,459 $359,385 $0 $359,385 FEB 4,005,658 2,115,982 $152,351 $0 $152,351 MAR 5,357,317 3,203,619 $230,661 $0 $230,661 APR 6,779,865 9,786,475 $704,626 $0 $704,626 MAY 7,955,373 - $0 $0 $0 JUN 8,800,176 - $0 $0 $0 JUL 9, 123,143 - $0 $0 $0 AUG 8,508,340 - $0 $0 $0 SEP 7,163,815 - $0 $0 $0 OCT 5,054,929 - $0 $0 $0 NOV 3,164,291 - $0 $0 $0 DEC 5,701,490 - $0 $0 $0 Total 76,267,477 20,097,535 $1,447,023 $0 $1,447,023 CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS • May 4, 2018 • No. 1486 • Page 4 WESTERN PRICE SURVEY [10] Renewables Records Set Again in CAISO Territory Average Peak Power Prices Thurs., 04/26- Thurs., 05/03 California renewable generation records continued 40 falling throughout April based on a combination of installed capacity increases, plentiful solar and wind, and low seasonal demand. 30 The California Independent System Operator ~ ~--- ~ - -. on April28 set a new record of 72.7 percent for the 20 ..·. :Y~--; · .. : instantaneous portion of demand served by renew ...... abies. This surpasses the previous 70.5 percent record, 10 set Feb. 18. On the same day, a new peak for maximum demand 0- - - served by solar and wind was set, when 63.8 percent of load was met by those somces. Demand on the CAISO 4/26 4/27 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 grid peaked at 28,466 MW May 3. Total renewables on the CAISO grid reached • • • ·Mid-Columbia - cos 15,856 MW April27, supplying roughly 58 percent • -- SP15 - Palo Verde of demand. There are now 21,893 MW of installed renewables on the CAISO grid. Roughly 268 MW of solar generation came on line between Tanuary and April, according to the grid Average Off-Peak Prices operator. More than 5.5 MW of wind and 350 kW of Thurs., 04/26 - Thurs., 05/03 biofuel generation were also added over that time 25 frame. Another 1,954.47 MW should come on line 20 before year-end. National natural gas storage refills started fol 15 lowing three weeks of atypical withdrawal activity 10 (see CEMNo. 1485 [10]). 5 Working natural gas in storage was ~,343 Bcf as ...... - .. "' .. of April 27, according to U.S. Energy Information 0 ' . . . .. Administration estimates. This is a net increase of ·5 ~~_L~~~~~~-L~--L-~ 62 Bcf compared to the previous week. Storage levels are now 40.2 percent less than a year 4/26 4/27 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 ago and 28.4 percent less than the five-year average. Henry Hub natmal gas spot prices dropped 12 cents, • • • - Mid-Columbia - cos ending at $2.69/MMBtu in April 26 to May 3 trading. -., • SP15 - Pa lo Verde Among Western hubs, Alberta natural gas lost the most value in trading, down $1.42 to 12 cents/MMBtu. El Paso-Permian natural gas added 19 cents to reach $1.68/MMBtu. Average Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) Western peak power prices fell by as much as $13.65 by May 3. Palo Verde lost the most value, Th.,04/26 Tue., 05/01 Th.,OS/03 down $13.65 to $18.50/MWh. Henry Hub 2.81 2.75 2.69 Nighttime power values moved even lower. Mid Sumas 1.78 1.50 1.33 Columbia posted trades with no value on consecutive days; however, California-Oregon Border lost the most Alberta 1.54 0.22 0.12 value in the trading period, down $12 to $ 7.25/MWh. Malin 2.03 1.88 1.79 In April, average natural gas prices were less Opal/Kern 1.93 1.80 1.76 compared with 2017 (see "Price Trends," next page). Stanfield The average high price last month at Henry Hub was 1.80 1.73 1.58 $2.84/MMBtu, 38 cents less than last year. Among PG&E CityGate 2.74 2.79 2.79 Western gas hubs, PG&E CityGate lost 97 cents year SoCal Border 2.10 2.00 1.95 over year, with an average high price of$2.41/MWh. SoCal CityGate 3.01 3.41 3.04 Average Western peak power prices in April were higher than in 2017 by between roughly $1.90 EP-Permian 1.49 1.46 1.68 and as much as $5.85. South of Path 15 gained EP-San Juan 1.86 1.83 1.73 the most, up $5.85 year over year to $40.85/MWh. -Linda Dailey Paulson Power/ gas prices courtesy Ener{ax Copyright© 2018, Energy NewsData Corpo ra tion. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Ending At Midnight - May 7, 2018 CURRENT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS LEGEND Capacity Hlstoncal (TAF) Average 2448 2000 % of Capacity I%of Hostoncal Average 1000 0 Trinity Lake Folsom Lake 79% 194% 92% 1120% 2420 2000 2030 1000 1000 0 0 Don Pedro Reservoir 1025 93% 1126% 0 Lake McClure 90% 1147% 2039 1000 0 San Luis Reservoir 83% 195% 1000 52: ] 0 ---- Pine Flat Reservoir Millerton Lake 87% 1137% 83% 111 5% 50: j~ ~~!::::. Lake Perris Castaic Lake 76% 1 90% 87% 1 97% Graph Updated 05/08/2018 02:15PM FISHBIO ------~F&HBIO ______ 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 May 7, 2018 Tri Dam Project Ron Berry P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364 Re: April 2018 Invoices Dear Mr. Berry: Enclosed are invoices for consulting services provided by FISHBIO during April. Services provided for each project are summarized below. L~[ecvcle monitoring Rotary screw trap (RST) monitoring at Oakdale continued through April, and an update of latest trapping results is provided in the enclosed San Joaquin Basin Field Report. Activities during April also included off-season maintenance of the weir site and equipment, and post-project monitoring at Honolulu Bar. As many juvenile salmon had been observed in the side-channel, this site and sites nearby in the main river channel are being sampled to compare fish densities in the restored, off-channel area to the main river channel. Consulting During April we participated in the monthly Stanislaus River Forum conference call and reviewed flow schedules developed by the Stanislaus Operations Group. Non-Native Investigation/ Predator Study The public comment period for our Section 10 research pem1it ended in April and no comments were received. The draft biological opinion has been completed and is being routed for review May 7. NOAA Fisheries expects the permit to be issued in mid-May to allow sampling to occur before the 2018 season ends. CDFW is also still processing a Memorandum of Understanding for the project which is required by the California Endangered Species Act. The electrofishing boats were picked up from the manufacturer on April 10. The rafts were assembled in our shop, tested on the water, and are being outfitted with necessary gear and accessories for sampling to begin as soon as pe1mits are in hand. Publications During April, work continued on manuscripts presenting fmdings of the annual summer 0. mykiss abundance smveys and how the population has responded to implementation of the Biological Opinion and the recent drought. ------~RSHBIO ______ 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakclale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-"1925 B u dlf!et S ummary Life-cycle 2018 Monitor in!( Publica/ions Consultinl( Non-natives TOTAL Jan $46,281.69 $9,165.00 $15,005.00 $ 19,365.00 $89,816.69 Feb $36,205.17 $ 18,890.00 $23 5.00 $8,21 3.6 1 $63,543.78 Mar $51,978.42 $7,225.00 $ 1,160.00 $2,788.92 $63,152.34 Apr $30,030.53 $3,940.00 $165.00 $19,187.73 $53,323.26 TOTAL $164,495.81 $39,220.00 $16,565.00 $49,555.26 $269,836.07 Estimated 20 18 $550,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $100,000.00 $1 ,000,000.00 $ 1,750,000.00 Remaining $385,504.19 $60,780.00 $83,435.00 $950,444.74 $1,480,163.93 Sincerely, ~~~ Andrea Fuller ~ FISHBIO SJB April Field Report Juvenile Outmigration Monitoring The Calaveras River rotary screw trap (RST) operated 17 days during the month of April, with 290 young-of-the-year (YOY; <100 mm) and 12 Age 1+ 0. mykiss captured during the month, increasing the combined season total to 501 (Figure 1A). A total of 50 0. mykiss have been implanted with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags this season, and two tagged fish have been recaptured in the trap. One trap efficiency release was also conducted during April using photonic-marked wild YOY 0. mykiss. The resulting efficiency was 10.7% at a flow of 42 cfs at New Hogan + Cosgrove Creek. Additionally, 2,469 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured during April, increasing the season total to 4,856 (Figure 1B). Daily Chinook catch during the month ranged from one to 552 fish, with peak catch observed on April 26 coinciding with a flow increase. A total of five trap efficiency releases were conducted using wild juvenile Chinook salmon captured in the trap during the month of April. Recapture rates ranged between 7% and 40.3% at flows ranging between 28 cfs and 181 cfs at New Hogan + Cosgrove Creek. 100 Calaveras River Rotary Screw Trap 0. mykiss Count 3,000 (Shelton Road) (i) .!:. 80 2,400 ...... u .£. 11:1 3= u .2 V) L1.. V) 60 1,800 ... ~ Q,) ~ > E C2 0 40 1,200 1/1 11:1... ~ Q,) 11:1 > 0 11:1 11:1 20 600 u 0 0 1-Nov 21-Nov 11-Dec 31-Dec 20-Jan 9-Feb 1-Mar 21-Mar 10-Apr 30-Apr Daily Catch - NHG + COS Flow - Bellota No Sample Figut·e lA. Daily 0. mykiss catch at the Calaveras River rotary screw trap at Shelton Road and Calaveras River flow at New Hogan Dam (NHG) and Bellota (MRS). 1 ~ FISHBIO 1,000 Calaveras River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Count 3,000 (Shelton Road) C/1 .J:: 800 2,400 - (J (J - -co ~ u 0 ~ 600 1,800 Ll.... 0 Q) c: > .J:: u C/1 ~ 400 1,200 "...co co Q) c > ..!!! co 200 600 u 0 0 1-Nov 21-Nov 11-Dec 31-Dec 20-Jan 9-Feb 1-Mar 21-Mar 10-Apr 30-Apr Daily Catch - NHG + COS Flow - Bellota No Sample Figure I B. Chinook catch at the Calaveras River rotary screw trap at Shelton Road and Calaveras River flow at New Hogan Dam (NHG) and Bellota (MRS). The Stanislaus River RST at Oakdale (RM 40) operated continuously during the month of April and a total of 7,139 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 54,411 (Figure 2). Daily Chinook catch ranged from five to 1,689 fish. Catch began to decrease in mid-April and remained relatively low the remainder of the month. A total of four trap efficiency releases were conducted with wild (one group) and Merced River Hatchery (MRH; three groups) juvenile Chinook salmon during the month of April. Recapture rates ranged between 2.5% and 5% at flows ranging between 1,402 cfs and 1,507 cfs at Goodwin and between 1,333 cfs and 1,524 cfs at Orange Blossom Bridge. The Stanislaus River RST at Caswell (RM 9) operated continuously during the month of April and a total of 281 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 3,456 (Figure 3). Daily Chinook catch ranged from zero to 43 during the month. Two trap efficiency releases were conducted with MRH juvenile Chinook salmon during April. The resulting recapture rates were 0.4% and 1.4% at river flows of 1,402 cfs and 1,544 cfs at Ripon, respectively. 2 ~ FISHBIO Stanislaus River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count 15,000 (Oakdale) 3,000 -~ .s:: 12,000 2,400 ..:::... (.) 3: ('(I 0 (.)- u.. ..:.:: 0 9,000 1,800 Q:; 0 > c: a:= .s:: (.) Ill 6,000 1,200 ~ ~ '(ij .!!? c: c ('(I 3,000 600 (/)- 0 0 1-Jan 14-Jan 27-Jan 9-Feb 22-Feb 7-Mar 20-Mar 2-Apr 15-Apr 28-Apr ...... ,. Dai ly Catch - Goodwin Ou tflow - OBB Flow No Sample Figure 2. Daily Chinook salmon catch at the Stanislaus River rotary screw trap at Oakdale and Stanislaus River flow at Goodwin Dam (GDW) and Orange Blossom Bridge (OBB). 1,000 Stanislaus River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count 3,000 (Caswell State Park) 800 2,400 --n .s:: (.) -3: ('(I 0 (.)- ..:.:: 600 1,800 u..... 0 Q) 0 c: > .s:: a:= (.) 400 1,200 ~ ~ .!2 '(ij Ill c c: 200 600 .s C/) 0 ~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~ 0 1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27 -Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr ~ D aily Catch - Goodwin Outflow Ripon Flow • No Sample Figure 3. Daily C hinook salmon catch at the Stanislaus River rotary screw trap at Caswell and Stanislaus River flow at Goodwin Dam (G DW) and Ripon (RIP). 3 ~ FISHBIO The Tuolumne River RST near Waterford (RM 30) operated continuously during April and 943 Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 4,798 (Figure 4). Catch fluctuated during the month and ranged from one to 132 Chinook salmon. Three trap efficiency releases were conducted with MRH juvenile Chinook salmon during April. Recapture rates ranged between 1.1% and 3. 9% at flows ranging between 1,510 cfs and 4,5 06 cfs at La Grange. The Tuolumne River RST near Grayson (RM 5) operated 29 out of 30 days during April and 280 Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 318 (Figure 5). The traps were temporarily raised for re-positioning on April 23 due to changing flow codnitions. One trap efficiency release was conducted with MRH juvenile Chinook salmon during April. The resulting recapture rate was 1.5% at a flow of 3,260 cfs at Modesto. Tuolumne River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count (Waterford) 500 5,000 (i) ~ J::: - (J 3: 400 4,000 Ill 0 (.)- u: ..:.:: .... 0 C1) 0 > c: 300 3,000 ii: J::: C1) (.) c: E ~ 200 2,000 ..2 'iii 0 c :::l 1- 100 1,000 0 ~...... ,., ...... flolilt.AII 0 1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr Daily Catch - La Grange Outflow - Modesto Flow o No Sample Figur·e 5. Daily Chinook salmon catch at the Tuolumne River rotary screw trap at Waterford and Tuolumne River flow at La Grange (LGN) and Modesto (MOD). 4 ~ FISHBIO Tuolumne River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count (Grayson) 50 5,000 ~ ~ .I: (.) 40 4,000 3: (1) .2 u- u. ~ ... 0 Q) 0 > c: 30 3,000 0:: Q) u.I: c: E 2:- 20 2,000 :I (1) 0 0 :I 1- 10 1,000 0 ~~~------~----~~-m~~--~~MW 0 1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr Daily Catch - La Grange Outflow - Modesto Flow • No Sample Figure 6. Daily Chinook salmon catch at the Tuolumne River rotary screw trap at Grayson and Tuolumne River flow at La Grange (LGN) and Modesto (MOD). Juvenile Chinook salmon survival through the San Joaquin River Delta, 2010-2015 A recently published article in the Journal of Fisheries Management summarizes six years (20 10-20 15) of acoustic telemetry research on juvenile Chinook salmon 1 migrating out through the San Joaquin River (SJR) and south Delta • These studies were conducted from 2006 to 2011 as part of the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program (VAMP), in 2011 through the South Delta Temporary Barriers Study, and from 2012 to 2015 under the South Delta Chinook Salmon Survival Study. This analysis focused on the last six years of survival data, 2010-2015, because the previous studies either did not track fish survival down to Chipps Island or used coded wire tags rather than acoustic tags. This study confirms that survival of SJR basin fish migrating through the Delta has been extremely low in recent years and did not find evidence to indicate that survival may be improved by higher Delta inflow from the SJR, or by how quickly juvenile salmon migrate through the Delta. Finally, these consistently low survival rates suggest the SJR-basin component of the Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon population is not self-sustaining which has implications for the entire population offall-run Chinook salmon in the Central Valley. 1 Buchanan, R. A., P. L. Brandes, and J. R. Skalski. 2018. Survival of juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon through the San Joaquin River Delta, 2010-2015. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. https://onl inelibrmy .wiley.com/doi/pdf/1 0.1002 /nafm. l 0063 5 ~ FISHBIO Each year, between 950 and 1,918 juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon from Merced or Mokelumne River hatcheries were surgically implanted with acoustic tags and were released in the SJR at Durham Ferry in multiple groups in April, May, and/or June. Tagged fish were tracked using an array of stationary acoustic receivers. Annual estimates of the probability of survival from Mossdale to Chipps Island were low for all years, ranging from 0 to 0.05 (Table 1), including a high flow year in 2011 when the probability of survival was estimated at 0.02 (standard error <0.01). Over half of the fish surviving through the Delta during the six-year study were actually salvaged at the CVP water project and transported to just upstream of Chipps Island. Table 1. Probability of survival (± SE) from Mossdale to Chipps Island by year. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Survival 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 Probability to (0.01) (<0.01) (0.0 I) (0.0 I) 0.00 0.00 Chipps Island The low probability of survival estimated in 2011 suggests increasing stream flow alone will not be enough to solve poor survival of juvenile Chinook salmon migrating out of the San Joaquin River basin. Gabe Singer (UC-Davis) recently presented similar acoustic telemetry results at the 2018 American Fisheries Society Cal-Neva Meeting showing that juvenile spring-run Chinook in the San Joaquin River also experienced low survival through the Delta in 2017, which was another wet year. Increasing Delta inflow is thought to increase juvenile salmon survival by increasing the physical an1ount of habitat available as well as increasing individual salmon migration speed, both of which minimize their interactions with predators. However, this study found that predation is a large component of juvenile salmon mortality and increasing speed did not increase salmon survival. Using a predation filter to identify predation events, the authors estimated annual minimums of 20 to 64% of tagged fish were predated upon between Mossdale and Chipps Island. However, the predation filter only identifies predation events where the predator moves past a receiver following consumption of the salmon (allowing researchers to track and identify the anomalous movement patterns of the predator). Predators in the Delta are not all highly mobile or migratory, nor will they all move past a receiver following each predation event; thus, actual predation rates in this region are likely higher than what is estimated by the predation filter Acoustic telemetry also allows researchers to track how quickly tagged fish were migrating through the study area. The results do not support the hypothesis that faster moving fish experienced higher survival rates by reducing their exposure to predators. Migration speed varied across years, longest in 2012, however there was · no relation to overall survival. Therefore, even if certain individuals are able to migrate faster and 6 ~ FISHBIO avoid predation at higher flows, they are too few to positively affect the overall survival of the population. The continued persistence of fall-run Chinook in the Central Valley is threatened by numerous factors, one of which is low survival from the SJR Basin. One metric of population viability is the smolt-to-adult return ratio (SAR), which is the number of salmon smolts for a given year class that survive and return as adults. For exan1ple, in the Columbia River Basin, an estimated minimum SAR of 2% (0.02) is needed to ensure population sustainability. To achieve a similar SAR in the SJR Basin, survival rates through the remainder of life until adult return would have to range from 20% to 80% (based on the estin1ated juvenile survival rates in the current study). However, studies have shown that higher survival rates in other life stages are not compensating for low juvenile survival rates in the SJR Basin. Considering the higher observed survival rates for juvenile salmon migrating from the Sacramento River, the SJR Basin likely acts as a 'sink' rather than a self-sustaining population of fall-run Chinook salmon. A population 'sink' occurs when returning adults from the Sacramento Basin stray into the SJR Basin, artificially inflating numbers of returning adults (and the SAR metric). In turn, this reduces the numbers of spawning adults and fish available for harvest in the Sacramento Basin. Data collected at the Stanislaus River weir indicate that the escapement is likely comprised almost entirely of hatchery fish, which is another indicator that the SJR Basin is a ' sink' population. The poor outrnigration survival combined with substantial straying of hatchery fish can cause a false 2 appearance of an adequate (SAR) or even positive population growth , complicating recovery efforts. The article concludes that the low survival during the juvenile outrnigration phase makes achieving a minimum SAR 2% 'nearly in1possible' for SJR Basin fall-run Chinook salmon, and that improving Delta habitat and survival are necessary for population persistence. Drought and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 2012-2016: Synthesis Review and Lessons Scientists from UC Davis, UC Merced, and the Delta Stewardship Council presented an overview of results from a recently completed review of drought management in the Delta3 (2012-2016) at the March Delta Stewardship Council monthly meeting. The report 2 Johnson R.C., P.K. Weber. J.D. Wikert, M.L. Workman, R.B. MacFarlane, M.J. Grove, et al. ~012. Managed Metapopulations: Do Salmon Hatchery 'Somces' Lead to In-River 'Sinks' in Conservation? PLoS ONE 7(2): e28880. https://doi.org/10.1371 /journal.pone.0028880 3 Durand, J., A. Manfree, J. Medellin-Azuara, F. Bombardelli, W. Fleenor, Y. Hennebeny, J. Herman, C. Jeffres, M. Leinfelder-Miles, R. Lusardi, B. Milligan, P. Moyle, and T. 7 ~ FISHBIO focused less on the direct effects of the drought and more on providing an "after-action review" of the management decisions and actions taken to manage the Delta during the drought. The report provides lessons learned and recommendations to help prepare and guide managers during future droughts and water shortages. Overall, the researchers concluded that management of the Delta ecosystem was poorly handled after an initial delay while managers were waiting for the official declaration of drought. Fish stocks that were already depleted entering the drought were exposed to even further stress due to mismanagement of water. This was especially apparent as managers failed to control stream temperatures below Keswick Dam in 2014 and 2015, which almost led to the extirpation of wild juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon. Had stream temperatures remained high for a third straight year in 2016, it would have most likely eliminated all wild winter-run Chinook salmon with only a captive broodstock remaining. Finally, varying levels of distrust among almost all parties managing the Delta limited the data- and infmmation-sharing which led to decisions that were based on incomplete or outdated information. However, droughts are expected to become more frequent in the Central Valley and missteps during the last drought provide good starting points for preparing the Delta for the next drought. The authors began by suggesting an overarching plan should be developed for future droughts in the Delta. This would help managers by establishing guidelines for drought declaration, interagency coordination, and plans for agencies to re-deploy resources, like funding and flexible staffmg, at the onset of drought. Further, increasing functional transparency of the actions each agency is responsible for and the outcomes of those actions would help encourage cooperation and understanding, as would sharing the management objectives for each agency and manager in the Delta. Finally, the researchers contend that the best time to help build the resiliency of the Delta to drought is during inter-drought periods. Things like creating senior ecosystem water rights, rebuilding depleted fish stocks (especially endangered species), and improving funding. Young. Drought and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 2012-2016: Synthesis Review and Lessons. 8 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY of THE OAKDALE IRRJGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAY 17,2018 Start time is immediately following the Tri-Dam Project meeting which begins at 9:00AM CALL TO ORDER: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Dale Kuil and Ralph Roos Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Commissioners' encourages public participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Power Authority 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 1-3 1. Review and approve the regular board meeting minutes of April19, 2018 2. Review and approve April 2018 financial statements & statement of obligations 3. Commissioners' Comments ADJOURNMENT ITEM4 4. Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting D Items on the Agenda may be taken in any order. Ll Action may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. r·l Writings relating to an open session agenda item that are distributed to members of the Board ofCommissim1ers will be available for inspection at the Authority office, excluding writings that are not public records or are exempt fi·om disclosure under the California Public Records Acts. U ADA Compliance Statement: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to pa1ticipate in this meeting, please contact the Clerk at (209) 965-3996 ext. 110. Notification 48 hours prior to meeting will enable the Authority to make reasonable an-angements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. MEETING MINUTES TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April19, 2018 Oakdale, California The Commissioners of the Tri-Dam Power Authority met at the offices of the Oakdale Irrigation District located in Oakdale, California, on the above date for conducting business of the Tri-Dam Power Authority, pursuant to the resolution adopted on October 14, 1984. President DeBoer called the meeting to order at 9:17a.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: OlD COMMISSIONERS SSJID COMMISSIONERS TOM ORVIS BOB HOLMES GAIL ALTIERI DAVE KAMPER LINDA SANTOS JOHN HOLBROOK BRAD DE BOER DALE KUIL HERMAN DOORNENBAL RALPH ROOS COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Ron Berry, General Manager and Secretary, Tri-Dam Project; Rick Dodge, Finance Manager, Tri-Dam Project; Genna Modrell, Finance Asst., Tri-Dam Project; Peter Rietkerk, General Manager, SSJID; Bere Lindley, Asst. General Manager, SSJID; Mia Brown, SSJID Counsel; Steve Knell, General Manager, OlD; Tim Wasiewski, Water Counsel, O'Laughlin & Paris; Whitney Crockett, Maze & Associates; Dave Ward, lnterWest Insurance PUBLIC COMMENT None ITEM #3 Consider approval of 2017 Audited Financial Statements - Maze & Assoc. Whitney Crockett from Maze & Associates presented Tri-Dam Power Authority's 2017 audited financial statements, noting that her firm has issued an unqualified opinion. Ms. Crockett advised that there were no difficulties or issues encountered during the audit and that the Authority's accounting records are very clean. Commissioner Holbrook moved to approve the financial statements and the statement of obligations as presented. Commissioner Orvis seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM #1 Approve Minutes of the March 15, 2018 Regular Meeting President DeBoer presented the March 15, 2018 regular meeting minutes. Commissioner Kuil moved to approve the March 15, 2018 minutes. Commissioner Altieri seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. Page 1 TDPA April19, 2018 ITEM #2 Financial Matters a) Review and Approve Financial Statements Finance Manager Dodge reviewed the preliminary March 2018 financial statements, noting net revenue of $135,000 for the month. b) Review and Approve Statement of Obligations Finance Manager Dodge reviewed the statement of obligations with the Commissioners. c) Review Cash Flow Report Finance Manager Dodge reviewed the cash flow report with the Commissioners. Commissioner Santos moved to approve the financial statements and the statement of obligations as presented. Commissioner Holbrook seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM #4 Review and consider approval of purchase authorization 2018.04.01 USFS Collection Agreement- Sandbar Commissioner Kamper moved to approve the collection agreement as presented. Commissioner Santos seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID 5-0. ITEM #5 Commissioner's Comments Commissioner Holbrook thanked staff for doing so well on the audit. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Orvis moved to adjourn the Tri-Dam Power Authority Board of Commissioner's Meeting. Commissioner Holbrook seconded the motion. The motion passed OlD 5-0, SSJID5-0. President DeBoer adjourned the meeting at 9:28 a.m. The next Board of Commissioners meeting will be May 17, 2018 at the offices of Tri-Dam Project, Strawberry, California immediately following the Tri-Dam Project meeting, which commences at 9:00a.m. ATTEST: Ron Berry Secretary Tri-Dam Power Authority Page 2 TDPAApril19, 2018 FINANCIAL MATTERS Tri-Dam Power Authority Balance Sheets (unaudited) A11ril 30, 2018 March 31, 2018 A11ril 30, 2017 Assets 2 Cash $ 1,818,643 $ 1,622,335 $ 2,994,440 3 Short-Term Investments 1,030,717 1,026,896 1,024,508 4 Accounts Receivable 704,626 230,661 740,743 5 Prepaid Expenses 8,600 17,200 7,304 6 Capital Assets 45,330,766 45,330,766 45,319,919 7 Accumulated Depreciation (20, 759,800) (20,717,856) (20,253,270) 8 Intangible Assets 9 Other Assets 1,289 3,520 422 10 Total Assets 28,134 842 27 513,521 29,834,065 11 12 13 Liabilities 14 Accounts Payable 201,526 175,512 222,240 15 Other Current Liabilities 6,804 6,804 7,216 16 Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt 17 Interest Payable 18 Other Long-Term Liabilities 9,935 9,935 1,324 19 Long-Term Debt 20 Total Liabilities 218,265 192,251 230,780 21 22 Net Position 23 Net Position- Beginning of Year 33,820,203 33,820,203 28,037,311 24 Additional Paid in Capital 385,873 385,873 385,873 25 Distributions (7,383,000) (7,383,000) (1 ,384,000) 26 YTD Net Revenues 1,093,501 498,194 2,564,101 27 Total Net Position 27,916,577 27,321,270 29,603,284 28 29 30 Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 28,134 842 $ 27 513,521 $ 29,834,065 Tri-Dam Power Authority Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending April 30, 2018 Percent of Current YTD YTD YTD Budget 2018 2018 Budget Month Actual Budget Variance Budget Remaining Operating Revenues 2 Power Sales $ 704,626 $ 1,449,273 $ 1,781,568 $ (332,295) $ 5,344,704 73% 3 Other Operating Revenue NA 4 Total Operating Revenues 704,626 1,449,273 1,781,568 (332,295) 5,344,704 73% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 16,506 65,385 104,019 (38,634) 312,057 79% 8 Benefits and Overhead 7,508 30,292 78,660 (48,368) 235,980 87% 9 Operations 490 7,491 4,537 2,954 13,610 45% 10 Maintenance 3,171 11,781 93,267 (81 ,486) 279,800 96% 11 General & Administrative 41,852 81,961 91,986 (1 0,025) 275,957 70% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 41,944 167,775 170,000 (2,225) 510,000 67% 13 Total Operating Expenses 111 ,471 364,684 542,468 (177,784) 1,627,404 78% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 593,155 1,084,588 1,239,100 (154,512) 3,717,300 71% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 18 Investment Earnings 2,151 8,913 10,000 (1 ,087) 30,000 70% 19 Interest Expense NA 22 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 2,151 8,913 10,000 (1 ,087) 30,000 70% 23 24 Net Revenues $ 595,307 $ 1,093,501 $ 1,249,100 $ (155,599) $ 3,747,300 71% 25 26 27 Memo: 28 Capital Expenditures $ $ $ 64,833 $ (64,833) $ 194,500 100% General Ledger Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund User: rdodge Printed: 05/08/18 10:51:49 ,~--~~~--= -~ Period 04 ' 04 Fiscal Year 2018 1'11-D:AM PROJECT ~~-::;::::~- Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encmnbered Available %Available 2 Operations 2 New Resource Impl Labor 140,582.25 10,123.49 41,439.96 99,142.29 0.00 99,142.29 70.52 2 New Resource Impl OH 105,738.75 4,490.42 19,022.70 86,716.05 0.00 86,716.05 82.01 2 Powerhouse Supplies 800.00 0.00 245.00 555.00 0.00 555.00 69.38 2 Furnishings & Misc. Equipment 800.00 0.00 46.75 753.25 0.00 753.25 94.16 2 Powerhouse Utilities 6,000.00 490.25 1,039.18 4,960.82 0.00 4,960.82 82.68 2 Streamgaging 6,010.00 0.00 6,160.00 -150.00 0.00 -150.00 -2.50 2 Depreciation 510,000.00 41,943.70 167,774.65 342,225.35 0.00 342,225.35 67.10 2 Operations 769,931.00 57,047.86 235,728.24 534,202.76 0.00 534,202.76 69.38 2 Maintenance 2 Comms & Security Labor 124,614.00 2,528.94 10,027.01 114,586.99 0.00 114,586.99 91.95 2 Comms & Security OH 94,995.00 1,095.66 3,856.03 91,138.97 0.00 91,138.97 95.94 2 Safety Supplies 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 100.00 2 Maint & Repairs to Facility 41,000.00 1,171.17 3,673.56 37,326.44 3,156.80 34,169.64 83.34 2 Maint & Repairs to Plant 70,000.00 0.00 107.16 69,892.84 0.00 69,892.84 99.85 2 Electronic Expense 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.00 2 Mise Hydro Expense 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 ComputerMicro Repair Replace 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.00 2 Power Line Repair & Maintenanc 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 100.00 2 Communications & Security 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.00 2 Routine Road Maintenance 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100.00 2 Shop Supplies 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Equipment Rental TDP 24,000.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 16,000.00 66.67 2 Fuel and Fuel Tax 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 100.00 2 Equipment Operation & Maintena 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Maintenance 499,409.00 6,795.77 25,663.76 473,745.24 3,156.80 470,588.44 94.23 2 Administrative 2 Administrative Labor 46,860.75 3,854.01 13,918.24 32,942.51 0.00 32,942.51 70.30 2 Administrative OH 35,246.25 1,921.51 7,413.39 27,832.86 0.00 27,832.86 78.97 2 Office Expense 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 APPA & NHA Dues 7,000.00 0.00 6,398.00 602.00 0.00 602.00 8.60 2 Legal Fees General Matters 30,000:00 990.00 1,830.00 28,170.00 0.00 28,170.00 93.90 2 Auditing Services 10,207.00 0.00 6,927.00 3,280.00 3,280.00 0.00 0.00 2 General Consulting 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 18,980.00 31,020.00 62.04 2 Property Insurance 115,750.00 8,599.92 34,399.68 81,350.32 0.00 81,350.32 70.28 2 Property and Use Taxes 500.00 0.00 144.00 356.00 0.00 356.00 71.20 GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018- 10:51 AM) Page 1 Fund Description Budget PeriodAmt EndBal Variance Encumbered Available %Available 2 FERC Admin & Land Fees 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 4,009.32 25,990.68 86.64 2 USFS Campground Fee 32,000.00 32,262.00 32,262.00 -262.00 0.00 -262.00 -0.82 2 Administrative 358,064.00 47,627.44 103,292.31 254,771.69 26,269.32 228,502.37 63.82 2 Capital Exp Fixed Asset 2 Repl Trans Line Caution Balls 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 2 Repl aging line struc & insul 130,000.00 0.00 0.00 130,000.00 0.00 130,000.00 100.00 2 Rep!DVR 9,500.00 0.00 0.00 9,500.00 0.00 9,500.00 100.00 2 Repl. wicket gate bushings 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 100.00 2 Capital Exp Fixed Asset 194,500.00 0.00 0.00 194,500.00 0.00 194,500.00 100.00 Expense 1,821,904.00 111,471.07 364,684.31 1,457,219.69 29,426.12 1,427,793.57 0.78 Total 2 Tri Dam Power Authority 1,821,904.00 111,471.07 364,684.31 1,457,219.69 29,426.12 1,427,793.57 78.37 Expense 1,821,904.00 111,471.07 364,684.31 1,457,219.69 29,426.12 1,427,793.57 0.78 Total GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/08/2018- 10:51 AM) Page2 Tri-Dam Power Authority Cash Flow 2018 Power Other Cash Monthly Net YTD Net Cash Month Sales Receipts Outflow Cash Flow Flow Jan $ 630,007 $ 5,396 $ 7,392,279 $ (6,756,876) $ (6,756,876) Feb 359,385 380 1,375 358,389 (6,398,486) Mar 152,351 522 9,039 143,834 (6,254,653) Apr 230,661 4,382 34,913 200,129 (6,054,523) May (6,054,523) June (6,054,523) July (6,054,523) Aug (6,054,523) Sept (6,054,523) Oct (6,054,523) Nov (6,054,523) Dec (6,054,523) Total $ 1,372,404 $ 10,680 $ 7,437,607 $ (6,054,523) Budget $ 5,344,704 $ 30,000 $ 1,311,904 $ 4,062,800 Budget $ Debt Payments (P&I) 1'117,404 O&M Payments 194,500 Capital Payments $ 1,311,904 Tri-Dam Power Authority Statement of Obligations April1, 2018 to April30, 2018 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS Period Covered April1, 2018 to April30, 2018 Total Obligations: 4 checks in the amount of $34,913.42 =~~;,;,;.;,;~ (See attached Vendor Check Register Report) CERTIFICATION OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Tom D. Orvis John Holbrook Gail Altieri Robert A. Holmes Linda Santos Dave Kamper Herman Doornenbal Ralph Roos Brad DeBoer Dale Kuil To: Ron Berry, Secretary of the Tri-Dam Power Authority: THE UNDERSIGNED, EACH FOR HIMSELF, CERTIFIES THAT HE IS PRESIDENT OR SECRETARY OF THE TRI DAM POWER AUTHORITY; THAT THE AMOUNTS DESIGNATED ABOVE 1-IA VE BEEN ACTUALLY, AND NECESSARILY AND PROPERLY EXPENDED OR INCURRED AS AN OBLIGATION OF THE TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY FOR WORK PERFORMED OR MATERIALS FURNISHED FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SAND BAR PROJECT; THAT WARRANTS FOR PAYMENT OF SAID AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ORAWN ON THE SAND BAR PROJECT 0 & M CHECKING ACCOUNT AT OAK VALLEY COMMUNITY BANK, SONORA, CALIFORNIA. TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, Brad DeBoer, President Date Ron Berry, Secretary Date Authority April Checks by Amount Check Vendor No Vendor Date Description Amount 207934 10755 USDA - Forest Service 04/ 18120 18 Sandbar Collection Agreement 32,262.00 20793 1 10368 HyPower Turlock Mach Wrks Inc. 04/ 18/2018 Repair shaft 1.171.17 207932 10501 O'Laughlin & Paris 04118/2018 990.00 207933 105 16 Paci ric Gas & Electric Co. 04118/2018 490.25 Report Total: $ 34.913.42