DOCSLIB.ORG

(CVP) Water Contractors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(CVP) Water Contractors Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Contractors (1) (2) (3) M Maximum M & I Contract Contract & A Contract Historical Amount Expiration I G CVP Division Unit Contract No. Quantity Use for Ag Year Water Service Contracts North of Delta 4-E Water District X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 3-07-20-W0312-LTR1 35 0 35 2030 Stony Creek Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 2-07-20-W0261-LTR1 3,345 338 3,007 2030 U.S. Forest Service (Salt Creek) X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-3621A-LTR1 45 20 0 2045 Whitney Construction, Inc. X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-5749A-LTR1 25 0 0 2045 U.S. Forest Service X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-3464A-LTR1 10 0.21 0 2045 Colusa, County of (Stonyford) X X Sacramento River Div. Black Butte Dam & Reservoir 4-07-20-W0348-LTR1 40 8 32 2045 Black Butte Dam & Reservoir Total 3,500 366 3,074 Colusa Drain Mutual Water Company X Sacramento River Div. Colusa Basin Drain 8-07-20-W0693-R-1 70,000 0 70,000 2045 Colusa Basin Drain Total 70,000 0 70,000 Corning Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Corning Canal 14-06-200-6575-LTR1 23,000 8 22,992 2030 Proberta Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Corning Canal 14-06-200-7311-LTR1 3,500 0 3,500 2030 Thomes Creek Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Corning Canal 14-06-200-5271A-LTR1 6,400 0 6,400 2030 Corning Canal Total 32,900 8 32,892 Colusa County Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-304-A-LTR1 62,200 170 62,030 2030 Colusa, County of X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-8310A-LTR1 1 0 0 2030 4-M Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 0-07-20-W0183-R-1 (assigned) 5,700 0 5,700 2030 Colusa County Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 1-07-20-W0220-R-1 (assigned) 5,964 0 5,964 2030 Cortina Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 0-07-20-W0206-R-1 (assigned) 1,700 0 1,700 2030 Glenn Valley Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 1-07-20-W0219-R-1 (assigned) 1,730 0 1,730 2030 Holthouse Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 1-07-20-W0224-R-1 (assigned) 2,450 1 2,449 2030 La Grande Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 0-07-20-W0190-R-1 (assigned) 2,200 0 2,200 2030 Myers-Marsh Mutual Water Company X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 1-07-20-W0225-R-1 (assigned) 255 0 255 2030 Davis Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-6001A-LTR1 4,000 0 4,000 2030 Dunnigan Wd X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-399-A-LTR1 19,000 77 18,923 2030 Glide Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 7-07-20-W0040-LTR1 10,500 7 10,493 2030 Kanawha WD X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-466-A-LTR1 45,000 10 44,990 2030 Kirkwood Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 7-07-20-W0056-LTR1 2,100 0 2,100 2030 La Grande Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 7-07-20-W0022-LTR1 5,000 0 5,000 2030 Orland-Artois Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-8382A-LTR1 53,000 16 52,984 2030 Westside Water District X X Sacramento River Div. Tehama-Colusa Canal 14-06-200-8222-LTR1 65,000 0 65,000 2030 Feather Water District X X Sacramento River Div. 14-06-200-171-A-LTR1 20,000 0 20,000 2030 Tehama-Colusa Canal Total 305,800 281 305,518 Centerville Community Services District X Sacramento River Div. Shasta Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-3367X-LTR1 2,900 857 0 2045 Mountain Gate Community Services District X Sacramento River Div. 14-06-200-6998-LTR1 1,350 780 0 2045 Redding, City of X Sacramento River Div. 14-06-200-5272A-LTR1 (SR) 6,140 6,218 0 2045 Shasta County Water Agency X Sacramento River Div. 14-06-200-3367A-LTR1 (SDR) 1,022 419 0 2045 Shasta Lake, City of X Sacramento River Div. 4-07-20-W1134-LTR1 4,400 2,582 0 2045 Bella Vista Water District X X Trinity River Div. 14-06-200-851A-LTR1 24,578 7,313 17,265 2030 Clear Creek Community Services District X X Trinity River Div. 14-06-200-489-A-LTR1 15,300 2,163 13,137 2030 Shasta Community Services District X Trinity River Div. 14-06-200-862A-LTR1 1,000 641 0 2045 Shasta/Trinity Total 56,690 20,973 30,402 Total - Sacramento River Water Service 468,890 21,628 441,886 Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 1 Revised - 3/30/2016 Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Contractors (1) (2) (3) M Maximum M & I Contract Contract & A Contract Historical Amount Expiration I G CVP Division Unit Contract No. Quantity Use for Ag Year North of Delta - American River M&I Contracts El Dorado Irrigation District X American River Div. Folsom Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-1357A-LTR1 7,550 6,917 0 2045 Roseville, City of X American River Div. Folsom Dam & Reservoir 14-06-200-3474A-IR3 32,000 31,280 0 2017 Sacramento County Water Agency X American River Div. Folsom Dam & Reservoir 6-07-20-W1372 22,000 1,699 0 2024 San Juan Water District X American River Div. Folsom Dam & Reservoir 6-07-20-W1373-LTR1 24,200 1,593 0 2045 Folsom Dam & Reservoir Total 85,750 41,489 0 East Bay Municipal Utility District X American River Div. Folsom-South Canal 14-06-200-5183A-LTR1 133,000 133,000 0 2046 Sacramento Municipal Utility District X American River Div. Folsom-South Canal 14-06-200-5198A-IR2 30,000 6,468 0 2017 Sacramento County (assignment from SMUD) X American River Div. Folsom-South Canal 14-06-200-5198B-IR2 30,000 - 0 2017 Folsom-South Canal Total 193,000 139,468 0 Placer County Water Agency X X American River Div. Upper American River 14-06-200-5082A-IR3 35,000 90 0 2018 Upper American River Total 35,000 90 0 Total American River 313,750 181,047 0 Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region 2 Revised - 3/30/2016 Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Contractors (1) (2) (3) M Maximum M & I Contract Contract & A Contract Historical Amount Expiration I G CVP Division Unit Contract No. Quantity Use for Ag Year North of Delta - Sacramento River Settlement Contracts (4) Alexander, Thomas & Karen X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-7754A-R-1 22 2045 Anderson, Arthur L., et al. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-3591A-R-1 490 2045 Anderson, R. & J., Properties, L.P. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1726A-R-1 (A1) 47 2045 Anderson, R. & J., Properties, L.P. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1726A-R-1 (A2) 190 2045 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District X X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-3346A-R-1 125,000 2045 Andreotti, Beverly F., et al. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1898A-R-1 3,620 2045 Baber, Jack W., et al. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1604A-R-1 6,260 2045 Cranmore Farms (Assigned to Pelger Road 1700) X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1286A-R-1 10,070 2045 Beckley, Ralph & Ophelia (Assigned to Mary Kristine Charter) X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-8118A-R-1 300 2045 Butler, Dianne E., Revocable Intervivos Trust X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-2365A-R-1 434 2045 Butte Creek Farms, Inc. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1976A-R-1 204 2045 Butte Creek Farms, Inc. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-2851A-R-1 36 2045 Butte Creek Farms, Inc. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-5206A-R-1 95 2045 Butte Creek Farms, Inc. X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-7744X-R-1 640 2045 Byrd, Anna C. & Osborne, Jane X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1595A-R-1 (A1) 850 2045 Byrd, Anna C. & Osborne, Jane X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-1595A-R-1 (A2) 415 2045 Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-7206A-R-1 180 2045 Carter Mutual Water Company X Sacramento River Div. Sac.R. Water Rights Settlement 14-06-200-2401A-R-1 7,122 2045 Chesney, Adona, Trustee X Sacramento River Div.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Madera Subbasin
    MADERA SUBBASIN Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) First Annual Report Prepared by Davids Engineering, Inc Luhdorff & Scalmanini ERA Economics April 2020 DRAFT Madera Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act First Annual Report April 2020 Prepared For Madera Subbasin Prepared By Davids Engineering, Inc Luhdorff & Scalmanini ERA Economics Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... iii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary (§356.2.a) .................................................................................................. 2 Groundwater Elevations (§356.2.b.1) ........................................................................................ 6 Groundwater Level Monitoring .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Endangered Buena Vista Lake Shrews
    CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher1, Erin Tennant2, Jesus Maldonado3, Larry Saslaw1, Tory Westall1, Jacklyn Mohay2, Erica Kelly1, and Christine Van Horn Job1 1California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 2California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 3Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park June 16, 2017 Buena Vista Lake Shrew Conservation CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREWS (SOREX ORNATUS RELICTUS) THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF TAXONOMIC STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF NON-INVASIVE SURVEY METHODS Prepared by: Brian Cypher, Erin Tennant, Jesus Maldonado, Lawrence Saslaw, Tory Westall, Jacklyn Mohay, Erica Kelly, and Christine Van Horn Job California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park CONTENTS Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KEY to ENDSHEET MAP (Continued)
    KEY TO ENDSHEET MAP (continued) RESERVOIRS AND LAKES (AUTHORIZED) 181.Butler Valley Res. 185. Dixie Refuge Res. 189. County Line Res. 182.Knights Valley Res. 186. Abbey Bridge Res. 190. Buchanan Res. 183.Lakeport Res. 187. Marysville Res. 191. Hidden Res. 184.Indian Valley Res. 188. Sugar Pine Res. 192. ButtesRes. RESERVOIRS AND LAKES 51BLE FUTURE) 193.Helena Res. 207. Sites-Funks Res. 221. Owen Mountain Res. 194.Schneiders Bar Res. 208. Ranchería Res. 222. Yokohl Res. 195.Eltapom Res. 209. Newville-Paskenta Res. 223. Hungry Hollow Res. 196. New Rugh Res. 210. Tehama Res. 224. Kellogg Res. 197.Anderson Ford Res. 211. Dutch Gulch Res. 225. Los Banos Res. 198.Dinsmore Res. 212. Allen Camp Res. 226. Jack Res. 199. English Ridge Res. 213. Millville Res. 227. Santa Rita Res. 200.Dos Rios Res. 214. Tuscan Buttes Res. 228. Sunflower Res. 201.Yellowjacket Res. 215. Aukum Res. 229. Lompoc Res. 202.Cahto Res. 216. Nashville Res. 230. Cold Springs Res. 203.Panther Res. 217. Irish Hill Res. 231. Topatopa Res. 204.Walker Res. 218. Cooperstown Res. 232. Fallbrook Res. 205.Blue Ridge Res. 219. Figarden Res. 233. De Luz Res. 206.Oat Res. 220. Little Dry Creek Res. AQUEDUCTS AND TUNNELS (EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Clear Creek Tunnel 12. South Bay Aqueduct 23. Los Angeles Aqueduct 1. Whiskeytown-Keswick 13. Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct 24. South Coast Conduit 2.Tunnel 14. Delta Mendota Canal 25. Colorado River Aqueduct 3. Bella Vista Conduit 15. California Aqueduct 26. San Diego Aqueduct 4.Muletown Conduit 16. Pleasant Valley Canal 27. Coachella Canal 5.
    [Show full text]
  • “Shorten and Streamline” Federal Land Use Planning While Being “More Transparent and Accessible”
    The Original Rule Was Intended To “Shorten And Streamline” Federal Land Use Planning While Being “More Transparent And Accessible” A 2008 And 2009 Biological Opinion Found That The Central Valley Project And State Water Operations Would Threaten Endangered Species And “Destroy Or Adversely ModiFy” Critical Habitat. “The 2008 and 2009 BiOps found that the Central Valley Project and State Water Project operations would jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, including endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, threatened Delta smelt, and threatened Central Valley steelhead, and would destroy or adversely modify these species' designated critical habitat.” [California Attorney General Xavier Becerra Press Release, accessed 10/07/20] In 2019, The Fish And Wildlife Service Was Told To Prepare A New, More Limited Environmental Review Of The Shasta Dam. “This year the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service was told to prepare a new environmental review of the dam project, but this one will be much more limited in scope, according to a person familiar with the plans, who requested anonymity out of fear of retribution. The new plan would not analyze the effects on salmon habitat downstream or the effects on several rare species.” [New York Times, 09/28/19] The New Biological Opinion Weakened Protections For The Delta Smelt, Allowing Large Amounts OF Water To Be Diverted From The San Francisco Bay Delta. “The Trump administration on Tuesday moved to weaken protections for a threatened California fish, a change that would allow large amounts of water to be diverted from the San Francisco Bay Delta to irrigate arid farmland and could harm the region’s fragile ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Respondent Westlands Water District in Orff V. United States, 03
    No. 03-1566 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- FRANCIS A. ORFF, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF RESPONDENT WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- Of Counsel STUART L. SOMACH DANIEL J. O’HANLON Counsel of Record WILLIAM T. CHISUM ANDREW M. HITCHINGS KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, ROBERT B. HOFFMAN TIEDEMANN & GIRARD SOMACH, SIMMONS & DUNN 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 813 Sixth Street, Sacramento, California 95814 Third Floor Telephone: (916) 321-4500 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-7979 DONALD B. AYER JONES DAY Counsel for Respondent 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Westlands Water District Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent Westlands Water District addresses the following question presented by this case: Whether the court below correctly determined that the Petitioner landowners within Westlands Water Dis- trict are not intended third-party beneficiaries of West- lands’ 1963 water service
    [Show full text]
  • Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvement Project Draft EIS/R
    Draft Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2009072044 June 2015 The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is a comprehensive long-term effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River and restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river while reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts from Interim and Restoration flows. Mission Statements The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American Public. The California State Lands Commission serves the people of California by providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration. Executive Summary INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND Introduction and Background The Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project (Project) includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Mendota Pool Bypass and improvements in the San Joaquin River channel in Reach 2B (Figure S-1). The Project consists of a floodplain width that conveys at least 4,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), a method Mendota Pool to bypass Restoration Flows around Mendota Pool, and a method to deliver water to Mendota Pool. The Project footprint and vicinity (Figure S-2) extend from approximately 0.3 mile above the Chowchilla Bifurcation Structure to approximately 1.0 mile below the Mendota Dam. The Project footprint comprises the area that could be directly affected by the Project. The Project study area or “Project area” includes areas directly and indirectly affected by the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District
    Environmental Assessment Warren Act Contract for Kern- Tulare Water District and Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation District EA-12-069 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California January 2014 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. EA-12-069 Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Relevant Legal and Statutory Authorities........................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Warren Act .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Reclamation Project Act ......................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Central Valley Project Improvement Act ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Safe Drinking Water Gap for California's Rural Poor
    Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 24 | Number 2 Article 4 1-1-2018 Bridging the Safe Drinking Water Gap for California’s Rural Poor Camille Pannu Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Camille Pannu, Bridging the Safe Drinking Water Gap for California’s Rural Poor, 24 Hastings Envt'l L.J. 253 (2018) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol24/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bridging the Safe Drinking Water Gap for California’s Rural Poor By Camille Pannu* Spurred by decades of inaction and continued exposure to unsafe drinking water, community leaders from California’s disadvantaged communities1 (DACs) advocated for the creation of a human right to water2 under state law.3 Shortly * Camille Pannu is the Director of the Water Justice Clinic, Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies at UC Davis School of Law. I thank the residents of California’s disadvantaged communities, and the organizations that amplify their voices, for their tireless efforts to extend water justice to our state’s most vulnerable people. Additionally, I thank Olivia Molodanof, Jessica Durney, and the Editors of the Hastings Environmental Law Journal for their patient and thoughtful editing. All errors are, of course, my own. 1. “Disadvantaged community” has become a legal term of art for an alternative poverty measure that compares a community’s relative socioeconomic status (median household income) to the statewide median household income level.
    [Show full text]
  • River West-Madera Master Plan
    River West-Madera Master Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – River West-Madera Resource Assessment 39 | Page River West-Madera Master Plan River West- Madera Master Plan June 5, 2012 Resource Assessment The River West-Madera area consists of 795 acres of publicly owned land located in Madera County along the northern side of the San Joaquin River between Highway 41 and Scout Island. The Resource Assessment presents the area’s existing characteristics, as well as constraints and opportunities to future planning efforts. River West-Madera Master Plan River West-Madera Master Plan RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3 TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 4 EXISTING CHARACTERISITICS ............................................................................................. 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Land Use and History .............................................................................................................................. 7 Cultural History ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Sycamore Island ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A. INTRODUCTION the Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA
    A. INTRODUCTION The Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA) lies within the Corning Ranger District, Mendocino National Forest (Maps 1 and 2). The California black oak (Quercus kelloggii1)stands and surrounding areas of Devil's Basin were first reconnoitered in 1984 (Henry 1984), and subsequently proposed as a representative of the California Black Oak Woodland type (Holland 1986). An ecological survey of the basin was completed in 1987 (Newton 1987). Unless otherwise noted, information contained in this Establishment Record is based on this ecological survey. The DBRNA has had no history of intensive use such as logging or grazing. The DBRNA is entirely under public ownership with the Mendocino National Forest. 1) Land Management Planning The establishment of Devil's Basin RNA is recommended and evaluated in the Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1995) and the Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices for the LRMP (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1995a-c). The land allocation for the Devil's Basin RNA was decided by the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the LRMP by the Regional Forester (1995). The establishment of the DBRNA is completed upon signature of this Establishment Record with concurrence of the Station Director. The area lies within the Research Natural Areas Management Area #5 allocated to Management Prescription #11 which emphasizes the preservation of natural conditions and the protection of features for which the RNA was established (Appendix 3). B. OBJECTIVES The primary purpose for establishment of the DBRNA is to preserve a representative of a Black Oak Woodland ecosystem and its associates in a condition minimally modified by humans within the North Coast Physiographic Province for their scientific value and educational importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan
    Draft Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon Central Valley Steelhead National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region November 2009 1 Themes of the CV Recovery Plan • This is a long-term plan that will take several decades to fully implement • The recovery plan is intended to be a “living document” that is periodically updated to include the best available information regarding the status or needs of the species • Implementation will be challenging and will require the help of many stakeholders • The plan is intended to have realistic and attainable recovery criteria (i.e, de-listing criteria) 2 What are Recovery Plans? • Purpose of the Endangered Species Act: To conserve (recover) listed species and their ecosystems • Required under section 4(f) of the ESA for all Federally listed species • Provide the road map to species recovery • Must contain objective, measurable criteria for delisting a species • Guidance documents, not regulations 3 Winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered) 4 Status of Species – Winter-run Chinook 5 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Threatened) 6 Status of Species – Spring-run Chinook Declining abundance across range: Extinction risk is increasing Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Adult Summer Holding Escapement Rivers/Creeks 25,000 Sacramento Battle 20,000 Clear Beegum 15,000 Antelope Mill 10,000 Deer Big Chico 5,000 Butte 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 7 Central Valley steelhead (Threatened) 8 Key
    [Show full text]
  • Westlands Water District – Warren Act Contract for Conveyance of Kings River Flood Flows in the San Luis Canal
    Final Environmental Assessment Westlands Water District – Warren Act Contract for Conveyance of Kings River Flood Flows in the San Luis Canal EA-11-002 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California January 2012 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Table of Contents Page Section 1 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope ..................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Reclamation’s Legal and Statutory Authorities and Jurisdiction Relevant to the Proposed Federal Action.............................................. 2 1.5 Potential Issues...................................................................................... 3 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action............................... 5 2.1 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]