DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report as of July 25, 2021 Public Resources Code 5096.310 Net Available for Enacted Bond Section Department/Program Appropriation* Appropriations** Proposed Balance §5096.310(a) Department of Parks and Recreation : Capital Outlay Projects 493,202,676 492,557,139 0 645,537 §5096.310(b) Department of Parks and Recreation : Stewardship Projects 17,661,973 17,661,973 0 0 §5096.310(c) Department of Parks and Recreation : Volunteers Projects 3,924,661 3,924,661 0 0 §5096.310(d) Department of Parks and Recreation : Locally-operated State Park Unit Grants 19,587,303 19,587,303 0 0 §5096.310(e) Department of Parks and Recreation : Office of Historic Preservation Grants 9,793,651 9,793,651 0 0 §5096.310(f) Department of Parks and Recreation : Per Capita Grants 379,996,094 379,968,610 0 27,484 §5096.310(g) Department of Parks and Recreation : Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris Grants 195,875,039 195,864,177 0 10,862 §5096.310(h) Department of Parks and Recreation : Riparian/Riverine Grants 9,793,652 9,792,571 0 1,081 §5096.310(i) Department of Parks and Recreation : Trail Grants 9,793,653 9,793,111 0 542 §5096.310(j) Department of Parks and Recreation : Murray-Hayden Grants 97,937,518 96,054,085 0 1,883,433 §5096.310(k) California Conservation Corps : State Projects 2,466,163 2,466,163 0 0 §5096.310(l) Department of Parks and Recreation : Zoos, Centers, Soccer Grants 84,715,041 84,710,347 0 4,694 §5096.310(m) Wildlife Conservation Board 261,907,109 263,150,775 0 -1,243,666 (a) §5096.310(n) California Tahoe Conservancy 49,304,259 49,305,463 0 -1,204 (b) §5096.310(o) State Coastal Conservancy 217,417,608 216,725,873 0 691,735 §5096.310(p) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy 34,526,281 34,526,281 0 0 §5096.310(q) Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy 4,932,326 4,932,326 0 0 §5096.310(r) San Joaquin River Conservancy via Wildlife Conservation Board 14,796,978 14,796,127 0 851 §5096.310(s) California Conservation Corps : Local Grants 12,330,815 12,330,815 0 0 §5096.310(t) Department of Conservation: Agricultural Conservation 24,661,629 24,661,629 0 0 §5096.310(u) Department of Forestry and Fire Protection : Urban Forestry Grants 9,864,652 9,864,477 0 175 §5096.310(v) Department of Fish and Wildlife: State Projects 11,837,982 11,837,320 0 662 §5096.310(w) State Coastal Conservancy : San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy 29,592,956 29,592,858 0 98 §5096.310(x) California Integrated Waste Management Board: Playground Grants 6,904,657 6,904,657 0 0 §5096.310(y) Department of Parks and Recreation : Golden Gate Park Grants 14,690,978 14,690,164 0 814 §5096.310(z) Resources Agency : River Parkway Grants 45,228,251 45,228,250 0 1 Numbers may not add or match to other statements due to rounding of budget details. Program Total 2,062,743,905 2,060,720,805 0 2,023,100 * Pursuant to PRC section 5096.367.5, the Net Available for Appropriation amounts for the $2.1 billion bond have been reduced by $37,256,095 for bond issuance costs and other statewide Statewide Costs Requiring Appropriations 18,775,460 0 bond costs already committed by or proposed to the Legislature. ** Enacted appropriations shown net of reversions. Total Appropriations 2,079,496,264 0 (a) This allocation was continuously appropriated by the bond act and shows a negative balance due to how the State Controller’s Office tracks and reports continuous appropriations. The allocation will continue to be managed for typical year- to-year changes that impact the allocation balance and ensure the funds are not over-committed. (b) This allocation over-commitment will be resolved, as appropriate, as part of the budget process. Prop. 12: Detailed Allocations, Appropriations, Proposals, Set Asides and Balances ($ in whole dollars) Section: PRC § 5096.310 ( a ) Dept: Parks Allocation: State Parks - unspecified Section/Subsection: PRC § 5096.310 ( a ) / Allocation $: $416,150,000 Statewide, requiring appropriation (yellow): $1,798,619 DPR admin: $2,192,000 Statewide Set Asides:* $7,823,930 {Statewide, not requiring appropriation (green): $3,833,311 DPR audits: $0 *Adj. for Statewide Bond Cost Savings, Jan. 2013 Outyear Support commitments: $0 Natural Reversions: ($59,322,931) Future Year Obligations: ($59,237,931) SO: $34,184,231.27; CO $25,138,699.92 {Outyear Local Asst. commitments $0 Cap. Outlay $ to complete started projects: $85,000 Approps/Proposals: Status Enactment Year Adj. Year Appropriation Program Delivery Agency Use Enacted 2000-01 2000-01 3790-001-0005 BA $1,471,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2000-01 2000-01 3790-001-0005 BA $991,000 Portion of support budget GP and SPS B3032 Enacted 2000-01 2000-01 3790-001-0005 BA $17,000,000 Portion of support budget Leg. Add B3031 Enacted 2000-01 2000-01 3790-001-0005 CS $18,000 Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2001-02 2001-02 3790-001-0005 BA $1,895,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2001-02 2001-02 3790-001-0005 BA $1,885,000 Portion of support budget GP and SPS B3032 Enacted 2001-02 2001-02 3790-001-0005 BA $145,000 Portion of support budget Kenneth Hahn Vista Pacifica B3031 Enacted 2001-02 2001-02 3790-001-0005 BA $8,429,000 Portion of support budget Leg. Add B3031 Enacted 2001-02 2001-02 3790-001-0005 CS ($4,023) Portion of support budget: 401(k) Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 adjustment Enacted 2002-03 2002-03 3790-001-0005 BA $1,968,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2002-03 2002-03 3790-001-0005 BA $1,806,000 Portion of support budget GP and SPS B3032 Enacted 2002-03 2002-03 3790-001-0005 BA $8,207,000 Portion of support budget Leg. Add B3031 Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:58:29 PM Section/Subsection: PRC § 5096.310 ( a ) / Proposition 12 Report ($ in whole dollars) Page 1 of 264 Enacted 2002-03 2002-03 3790-001-0005 CS ($33,000) Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2003-04 2003-04 3790-001-0005 BA $2,120,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2003-04 2003-04 3790-001-0005 BA $1,621,000 Portion of support budget GP and SPS B3032 Enacted 2003-04 2003-04 3790-001-0005 BA $8,500,000 Portion of support budget Leg. Add B3031 Enacted 2003-04 2003-04 3790-001-0005 CS $73,000 Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2003-04 2003-04 3790-001-0005 CS $56,000 Portion of support budget: Control GP and SPS B3032 Section adjustment Enacted 2004-05 2004-05 3790-001-0005 BA $2,222,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2004-05 2004-05 3790-001-0005 BA $1,843,000 Portion of support budget GP and SPS B3032 Enacted 2004-05 2004-05 3790-001-0005 CS $112,235 Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2005-06 2005-06 3790-001-0005 BA $1,986,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2005-06 2005-06 3790-001-0005 CS $0 Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2006-07 2006-07 3790-001-0005 BA $1,662,582 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff: B3031 Portion NOT reappropriated Enacted 2006-07 2006-07 3790-001-0005 CS $11,269 Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2006-07 2006-07 3790-001-0005 CS ($3,000) Portion of support budget: Control Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Section adjustment Enacted 2006-07 2006-07 3790-001-0005 BA $9,418 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff: B3031 Portion reappropriated Enacted 2007-08 2007-08 3790-001-0005 BA $695,461 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff: B3031 Portion NOT Reappropriated Enacted 2007-08 2007-08 3790-001-0005 BA $4,214 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff: B3031 Portion Reappropriated Enacted 2008-09 2008-09 3790-001-0005 BA $453,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2009-10 2009-10 3790-001-0005 BA $300,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2010-11 2010-11 3790-001-0005 BA $501,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:58:30 PM Section/Subsection: PRC § 5096.310 ( a ) / Proposition 12 Report ($ in whole dollars) Page 2 of 264 Enacted 2010-11 2010-11 3790-001-0005 BA $450,000 Portion of support budget Americans with Disabilities Act B3031 Program: Program Delivery Enacted 2010-11 2010-11 3790-001-0005 BA $8,550,000 Portion of support budget Americans with Disabilities Act B3002 Program: Projects Enacted 2011-12 2011-12 3790-001-0005 BA $182,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2012-13 2012-13 3790-001-0005 BA $800,000 Portion of support budget Acquisition and Development Staff B3031 Enacted 2012-13 2012-13 PRC 5096.3075 STAT ($26,932,549) Transfer to 5096.310(a), unspecified Transfer of excess statewide bond cost (Bond) set asides, pending natural reversions and allocation balances from various Parks sub-sections.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forest Genetic Electrophoresis Lab Annual Report 2003 – 2004 (FY04)
    USDA FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST GENETICS LABORATORY (NFGEL) Annual Report 2003 – 2004 (FY04) 2480 Carson Road, Placerville, CA 95667 530-622-1609 (voice), 530-622-2633 (fax), [email protected] Report prepared December 2004 INTRODUCTION This report covers laboratory activities and accomplishments during Fiscal Year 2004. October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 Background NFGEL was established in 1988 as part of the National Forest System of the USDA-Forest Service. The focus of the lab is to address genetic conservation and management of all plant species using a variety of laboratory techniques including DNA analyses. NFGEL services are provided to managers within the Forest Service, other government agencies, and non- government organizations for assessing and monitoring genetic diversity. Purpose of Laboratory The purpose of the Laboratory is to analyze molecular genetic markers (protein and DNA) in plant material submitted by Forest Service employees and those from other cooperating entities. NFGEL provides baseline genetic information, determines the effect of management on the genetic resource, supports genetic improvement program, and contributes information in the support of conservation and restoration programs, especially those involving native and TES (threatened, endangered, and sensitive) species. Alignment to National Strategic Plan for FY04-08 NFGEL’s work aligns to the following National Strategic Plan measures: 1. Goal 1 (Reduce risks from catastrophic wildland fire) 2. Goal 2 (Reduce the impacts from invasive species). 3. Goal 4 (Help meet energy resource needs) 4. Goal 5 (Improve watershed condition) 5. Goal 6 (Mission related work in addition to that which supports the agency goals) NFGEL Projects NFGEL projects were processed to meet a variety of management objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • CIP Report 2001-02
    Fort Ord Reuse Authority Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 2001/2002 through 2020/2021 (Final Version – FORA Board Approval, 06/08/01) 1 Table of Contents Page No. I. Executive Summary 3, 4, 5 II. Obligatory Program of Projects – Description of CIP Elements a. Transportation/Transit Projects 6, 7, 8, 9 b. Potable Water Augmentation 10 c. Storm Drainage System Projects 11 d. Habitat Management Requirements 12 e. Public Facility (Fire Station) Requirements 13 f. Building Removal Program 14, 15, 16 g. Water and Wastewater Collection Systems 17 III. FY 2001/2002 through 2020/2021 CIP a. Transportation/Transit Element 18-22 b. Summary of Obligatory CIP Elements 23, 24 c. Summary Spreadsheet (Overall CIP) 25 Appendices A. Protocol for Review/Reprogramming of CIP 26 B. Summary of funded projects through 2000/2001 27-38 C. Protocol for “Candidate Projects” 39-42 as replacements to listed mitigative transportation projects Attachment A D. CIP Revenue Discussion 43-44 2 Executive Summary 1) Overview This Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is responsive to the capital improvement obligations defined under the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (BRP) as adopted by the FORA Board in June 1997. The BRP carries a series of mitigative project obligations defined in Appendix B of that plan as the Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). The PFIP, which serves as the baseline CIP for the reuse plan, is to be re-visited annually by the FORA Board to assure that required projects are implemented in a timely way to meet development needs. The PFIP was developed as a four-phase program spanning a twenty-year development horizon (1996-2015) and was based upon the best at-the-time forecasts of development patterns anticipated in concert with market absorption schedules for the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report
    Proposition 12 Allocation Balance Report as of July 29, 2019 Public Resources Code 5096.310 Net Available for Enacted Bond Section Department/Program Appropriation* Appropriations** Proposed Balance §5096.310(a) Department of Parks and Recreation : Capital Outlay Projects 493,065,557 495,999,175 0 -2,933,618 (b) §5096.310(b) Department of Parks and Recreation : Stewardship Projects 17,661,973 17,661,973 0 0 §5096.310(c) Department of Parks and Recreation : Volunteers Projects 3,924,661 3,924,661 0 0 §5096.310(d) Department of Parks and Recreation : Locally-operated State Park Unit Grants 19,587,303 19,587,303 0 0 §5096.310(e) Department of Parks and Recreation : Office of Historic Preservation Grants 9,793,651 9,793,651 0 0 §5096.310(f) Department of Parks and Recreation : Per Capita Grants 379,854,866 379,828,335 0 26,531 §5096.310(g) Department of Parks and Recreation : Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris Grants 195,800,694 195,791,658 0 9,036 §5096.310(h) Department of Parks and Recreation : Riparian/Riverine Grants 9,789,935 9,789,483 0 452 §5096.310(i) Department of Parks and Recreation : Trail Grants 9,789,936 9,789,485 0 451 §5096.310(j) Department of Parks and Recreation : Murray-Hayden Grants 97,900,346 97,442,392 0 457,954 §5096.310(k) California Conservation Corps : State Projects 2,466,163 2,421,482 0 44,681 §5096.310(l) Department of Parks and Recreation : Zoos, Centers, Soccer Grants 84,682,916 84,679,008 0 3,908 §5096.310(m) Wildlife Conservation Board 261,632,536 262,612,879 0 -980,343 (a) §5096.310(n) California Tahoe Conservancy 49,264,259
    [Show full text]
  • Units by Classification
    CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS UNITS BY CLASSIFICATION CULTURAL PRESERVES (CP): Marina SB (Marina Dunes NP) McGrath SB (Santa Clara Estuary NP) Carmel River SB (Ohlone Coastal CP) Montaña de Oro SP (Morro Dunes NP) Cuyamaca Rancho SP (Ah-Ha-Kwe-Ah-Mac/Stone- Morro Bay SP (Heron Rookery NP, Morro Estuary wall Mine CP, Cuish-Cuish CP, Kumeyaay Soapstone NP, Morro Rock NP) CP, Pilcha CP) Mount San Jacinto SP (Hidden Divide NP) Hungry Valley SVRA (Freeman Canyon CP, Gorman Natural Bridges SB (Monarch Butterfly NP, Moore CP, Tataviam CP) Creek Wetland NP) Millerton Lake SRA (Kechaye CP) Palomar Mountain SP (Doane Valley NP) Mount Diablo SP (Civilian Conservation Corps CP) Pescadero SB (Pescadero Marsh NP) Ocotillo Wells SVRA (Barrel Springs CP) Pismo SB (Pismo Dunes NP) San Simeon SP (Pâ-nu CP) Point Mugu SP (La Jolla Valley NP) Wilder Ranch SP (Wilder Dairy CP) Providence Mountains SRA (Mitchell Caverns NP) Red Rock Canyon SP (Hagen Canyon NP, Red Cliffs NATURAL PRESERVES (NP): NP) Salinas River SB (Salinas River Dunes NP, Salinas Anderson Marsh SHP (Anderson Marsh NP) River Mouth NP) Benicia SRA (Southampton Wetland NP) San Onofre SB (Trestles Wetlands NP) Big Basin Redwoods SP (Theodore J. Hoover NP) San Simeon SP (San Simeon NP, Santa Rosa Creek Border Field SP (Tijuana Estuary NP) NP) Burton Creek SP (Antone Meadows NP, Burton Silver Strand SB (Silver Strand NP) Creek NP) Sugar Pine Point SP (Edwin L. Z’berg NP) Calaveras Big Trees SP (Calaveras South Grove Sunset SB (Sunset Wetlands NP) NP) Torrey Pines SR (Ellen Browning Scripps NP, Los Carmel River SB (Carmel River Lagoon and Wet- Peñasquitos Marsh NP) land NP) Van Damme SP (Van Damme Pygmy Forest NP) Castle Rock SP (San Lorenzo Headwaters NP) Wilder Ranch SP (Wilder Beach NP) Chino Hills SP (Water Canyon NP) Woodson Bridge SRA (Woodson Bridge NP) Cuyamaca Rancho SP (Cuyamaca Meadow NP) Zmudowski SB (Pajaro River Mouth NP) Folsom Lake SRA (Anderson Island NP, Mormon Island Wetlands NP) REGIONAL INDIAN MUSEUMS: Harry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit-Support Orglist 6-11
    California State Parks Units with Supporting Organization (501(c) (3)) (updated 6/5/14) 1 Admiral William Stanley SRA (Richardson Grove Interpretive Association) 2 Ahjumawi Lava Springs SP 3 Albany State Reserve 4 Anderson Marsh SHP (Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association) 5 Andrew Molera SP (Big Sur Natural History Association) 6 Angel Island SP (Angel Island Conservancy) (Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation) 7 Annadel SP (Valley of the Moon Natural History Association) 8 Ano Nuevo State Park (Coastside Parks Association) 9 Año Nuevo SNR (Coastside Parks Association) 10 Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve (Poppy Reserve/Mojave Desert Interpretive Association) 11 Antelope Valley Indian Museum (Friends of the Antelope Valley Indian Museum) 12 Anza-Borrego Desert SP (Anza-Borrego Foundation & Institue) 13 Armstrong Redwoods SNR (Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods) 14 Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland SP (Poppy Reserve Mojave Desert Interpretive Association) 15 Asilomar State Beach 16 Auburn SRA 17 Austin Creek SRA (Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods) 18 Azalea SNR 19 Bale Grist Mill SHP (Napa Valley Natural History Association) 20 Bean Hollow SB (Coastside Parks Association) 21 Benbow Lake SRA (Richardson Grove Interpretive Association) 22 Benicia Capitol SHP (Benicia State Parks Association) 23 Benicia SRA (Benicia State Parks Association) 24 Bethany Reservoir SRA 25 Bidwell Mansion SHP (Bidwell Mansion Association) 26 Bidwell-Sacramento River SP Big Basin Redwoods SP (Mountain Parks Foundation; Rancho del Oso section-Waddell Creek Assn.) 27 28 Bodie SHP (Bodie Foundation) 29 Bolsa Chica SB Amigos de Bolsa Chica Border Field SP (Tijuana River National Estuary RP-Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association, 30 Friends of San Diego Wildlife Refuges, inc.) 31 Bothe-Napa Valley SP (Napa Valley State Parks Association) 32 Brannan Island SRA 33 Burleigh H.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 47, Number 6, 2008
    Volume 47, Number 6, 2008 www.ventana.sierraclub.org MAGAZINE OF THE VENTANA CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB @ @ @ @ Trouble in Davenport New State Wilderness DEC, JAN, FEB OUTINGS Ventana staff photo Explore, enjoy and protect the planet hile it is the intent of The Ventana to print articles that reflect the po- C HAPTER C HAIR sition of the Ventana Chapter, ideas expressed in The Ventana are those of the au- Wthors and do not necessarily reflect the position Budget cuts threaten Commission to stop the Pebble Beach 1 in Sand City. North Monterey County of the Sierra Club. Articles, graphics, and pho- Company’s golf course and housing plans residents are working on the Moss Land- tographs are copyrighted by the authors and coastal protection artists and may be reprinted only with their per- in Del Monte Forest. There have been ing Local Coastal Plan. he sinking economy in California many other efforts to curtail development Members continue to work on coastal mission. is hurting our environment, espe- DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSIONS and degradation of coastal resources trail opportunities and general develop- cially in the coastal zone. Upcom- through the years. ment issues in both Santa Cruz and Mon- All materials for publication must be received Ting state budget cuts for 2008-09 will by the deadlines listed below. No exceptions. Currently, the Group is studying the terey Counties. Drastic budget cuts that reduce funding for the Coastal Manage- toxins at the Cemex plant in Davenport affect the Coastal Management Program SUBMISSIONS FORMAT ment Program of the California Coastal and is pressuring Caltrans to replace the can impact the outcome of the work we Please limit articles to 800 words; letters to 300.
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for QUALIFICATIONS No
    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS No. C08E0019 Architectural and Engineering Professional Services for Projects in the California State Park System November 2008 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Acquisition and Development Division State of California Request for Qualifications No. C08E0019 Department of Parks and Recreation Architectural and Engineering Professional Services Acquisition and Development Division for Projects in the California State Parks System TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SECTION 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Type of Professional Services......................................................................................... 3 1.3 RFQ Issuing Office .......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 SOQ Delivery and Deadline ............................................................................................ 5 1.5 Withdrawal of SOQ.......................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Rejection of SOQ ............................................................................................................ 6 1.7 Awards of Master Agreements ........................................................................................ 6 SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 Locations and Descriptions of Potential Projects ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Year Trend Report
    20 YEAR REPORT for Report prepared by: Pam Krone (CMSF), Lisa Emanuelson (CMSF) and Bridget Hoover (MBNMS) MBNMS Snapshot Day organized by: Monterey Bay Sanctuary Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Supporting citizen monitoring programs throughout the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. (831) 647 -4227 www.montereybay.noaa.gov Coastal Watershed Council A public education non-profit advocating the preservation and protection of coastal watersheds through the establishment of community-based stewardship programs. (831) 464 -9200 www.coastal- watershed.org Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Water Quality Protection Program Promoting clean water in the watersheds along nearly 300 miles of the Sanctuary’s coastline. (831) 647 -4217 www.montereybay.noaa.gov With assistance from: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Helping people help the land since 1939. (650) 712-7765 www.sanmateorcd.org Watsonville Wetlands Watch Advocating for wetlands, teaching school students, restoring habitats and preserving what remains. (831) 728-1156 www.watsonvillewetlandwatch.org Upper Salinas-Las Tablas RCD Provide services and education to landowners supporting their management and stewardship of soil, water and natural resources. (805) 434-0396 www.us-ltrcd.org Executive Summary Snapshot Day began as a volunteer monitoring effort on April 22, 2000, the first official Earth Day, through a joint collaboration with the Coastal Watershed Council (CWC), The Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Snapshot Day was intended to provide a “snapshot” of the quality of water flowing into MBNMS while raising awareness about watershed health. Snapshot Day (SSD) has become an annual event that has created partnerships, drawn over 3,395 volunteers to date, and has helped foster an ethic of watershed stewardship for local citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventana Chapter Turns 40 See P. 12
    Volume 42, Number 3, 2003 www.ventana.org M AGAZINE OF THE V ENTANA C HAPTER OF THE S IERRA C LUB JUN,OUTINGS JUL, AUG The Club successfully demonstrated in 1972 for passage of Prop. 20, the Coastal Protection Initiative, which preceeded the Coastal Act. From left, unidentified, State Senator Don Grunsky, Julian Camacho, Ansel Adams, others unidentified. Jerry Lebeck Corky Matthews Lois Robin Roy Anderson (l) and Art Benoit (r), seated; Ed Sloan standing on summit of Chris Broadwell and Robin Brooks atop Silver Peak near Lake Thomas Edison El Capitan looking east toward Half Dome, 1973. debate the view, 1980s. Ventana Chapter turns 40 See p. 12 Explore, enjoy and protect the planet hile it is the intent of The Ventana to print articles that reflect the position CHAPTER CHAIR Wof the Ventana Chapter, ideas expressed in The Ventana are those of the Proposed legislation to sanctuaries along the California coast. ing a variety of wastes in the Sanctuary authors, and do not necessarily reflect the regulate cruise ships Dedicated environmentalists and several months after the fact. The cruise position of the Sierra Club. Articles, graphics politicians are working hard to protect lines cannot be trusted to monitor their and photographs are copyrighted by the ecent visits by cruise ships to the authors and artists and may be reprinted only the Sanctuary, but there needs to be own activities, and some states visited by port of Monterey have generated more work on the federal level to clean cruise lines are reluctant to pass laws to with their permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Carmel Pine Cone, June 3, 2016 (Main News)
    VolumeThe 102 No. 23 Carmel On the Internet: www.carmelpinecone.com Pine Cone June 3 - 9, 2016 Bernie Sanders wows big Monterey crowd Hardy unanimous By KELLY NIX pick to join council TOUTING FREE higher education, health care for all, By KELLY NIX and other ideas that have made him a modern socialist idol, WITH THE unanimous support of the Carmel City Democratic presidential candi- Council, and the blessing of numerous residents Wednesday date Bernie Sanders also told a afternoon, longtime community volunteer Carolyn Hardy fired up crowd of nearly 8,000 in was appointed to fill a vacancy on the council left by Steve Monterey Tuesday night that he Dallas after voters elected him mayor in April. expects to beat rival Hilary Dallas defeated fellow Councilman Ken Talmage on April Clinton in California’s primary 12 to replace former Mayor Jason Burnett, who opted not to election next week. seek a third term. In a Tuesday night rally, After being sworn in to the position by City Clerk Ashlee Sanders, the 74-year old Senator Wright during a Wednesday council meeting, Hardy said she from Vermont, addressed a was honored by the confidence that the council placed in her, diverse and enthusiastic crowd, and said she intended to live up to the city’s expectations. most of whom packed the lawn “I look forward to working with all of you,” she said, ges- in front of Colton Hall. turing to the council, “and city employees and residents and Claiming early in his speech business owners.” Hardy took the seat next to newly elected that Clinton was “nervous” Councilwoman Jan Reimers after adding, “I have always about winning the June 7 been willing to take on whatever project the city has asked of California Primary and securing PHOTO/MICHAEL TROUTMAN, DMT IMAGING me.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Wild Rivers Need Protection P
    Volume 42, Number 5, 2003 www.ventana.sierraclub.org M AGAZINE OF THE V ENTANA C HAPTER OF THE S IERRA C LUB OCT,OUTINGS NOV, DEC Jim Rose Local wild rivers need protection p. 3 Explore, enjoy and protect the planet hile it is the intent of The Ventana to print articles that reflect the position CHAPTER CHAIR Wof the Ventana Chapter, ideas expressed in The Ventana are those of the hand these responsibilities to a German authors, and do not necessarily reflect the Water Board election provides clear choices position of the Sierra Club. Articles, graphics energy conglomerate whose only inter- n November 4, six candidates are River. est in the Monterey Peninsula is the and photographs are copyrighted by the running for three open seats for Their opponents favored SB 149. This authors and artists and may be reprinted only amount of profits that can be squeezed with their permission. Oterms on the Monterey Pen- placed them in league with other oppo- from the area. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSIONS insula Water Management District nents of local control (special interests), Three Water Board candidates, Zan All materials for publication must be received (MPWMD) Board of Directors (Water who were the moving force behind the Hanson, Kristi Markey and Bob Pacelli, by the deadlines listed in The Ventana publica- Board). (See related story on p. 12.) McPherson legislation. Fortunately, this tion schedule (see below). No exceptions. support your right to control your water Carmel Highlands/Carmel/Carmel bill died in the Assembly Appro- policies, and the environmental efforts SUBMISSIONS FORMAT Valley (Division #5) is presently repre- priations Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN Monterey County, CA 2014 Update 2014 Update
    FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN Monterey County, CA 2014 Update 2014 Update Prepared by: Monterey County Water Resources Agency Salinas Salinas River, March 1995 Pajaro, March 1995 Castroville, Floodplain March Management 1995 Plan Carmel River, February 1998 Monterey County, CA | ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The FMP and the FEMA NFIP/CRS Program ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Goals of the FMP ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. County Profile Summary ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography, Demographics, and Climate ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Watersheds ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Government Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Floodplain
    [Show full text]