AGENDA MATERIALS TRI- PROJECT

TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\II 11\\ BOARD MEETING

May 20, 2021 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAY 20,2021 9:00A.M.

Oakdale Irrigation District* 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 * SEE BELOW FOR INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION

NOTICE: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

A COMPLETE COPY OF THE AGENDA PACKET WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WEB SITE (www.oakdaleirrigation.com) ON MONDAY, MAY 17, 202 1 AT 9:00A.M. ALL WRITINGS THAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND RELATE TO AN AGENDA ITEM WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED TO A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRJOR TO THE MEETING NOTICED ABOVE WlLL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WEB SITE (www.oakdaleirrigation.com).

INFORMATION FOR SPECIAL MEETING DURING SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER (Effective 3/27/2020- until further notice):

Pursuant to Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, a local legislative body is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members ofthe public who wish to participate and to provide public comment to the local legislative body during the current health emergency. The Tri-Dam Project and Tri-Dam Power Authority Board of Directors (Tri-Dam Directors) wi ll adhere to and implement the provisions of the Governor' s Executive Order related to the Brown Act and the utilization of technology to facilitate patticipation.

*The location of the Tri-Dam meeting wi ll be at the offices of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, 110 11 Highway 120, Manteca and the Oakdale Irrigation Office located 1205 East F Street, Oakdale. These sites wi ll be utilized as call-in centers only for some or all Directors who wi ll be communicating via teleconference. Be advised these facilities are currently closed to public access due to implemented protection measures for the COVID-1 9 virus. The public will not be granted access to these facilities.

**Public members who wish to participate, listen to, and provide comment on agenda items can do so by telephone by calling (669) 900-9128, then entering Meeting ID: 439-287-1020. All speakers commenting on Agenda Items are limited to five (5) minutes.

Members of the public may also submit public comments in advance by e-mailing [email protected] by 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 19, 2021. In addition to the mandatory conditions set forth above, the Tri-Dam Directors will use sound discretion and make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the provisions of the Brown Act, and other applicable local laws regulating the conduct of public meetings.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a person requiring an accommodation, auxiliary aid, or service to participate in this meeting should contact the Executive Assistant at (209) 840-5507, as far in advance as possible but no later than 24 hours before the scheduled event. The best effort to fulfill the request will be made.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos, Ed Tobias

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2 I. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of April 15, 2021. 2. Approve the April financial statements and statement of obligations.

ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 3- 11 3. Discussion and possible action for 2021-2022 Insurance Renewal.

4. Discuss and approve the USFS Beardsley/Donnells Recreation Site Cost Sharing.

5. Discussion and possible action to approve 2021 Headwater Benefit Assessment- Tulloch.

6. Discussion and possible action to approve HDR Engineering to conduct an Inflow Design Flood Analysis.

7. Discussion and possible action to approve the purchase of wiring and materials for the installation of the Emergency Generator at Tulloch Powerhouse.

8. Discussion and possible action regarding TDP Resolution 2021-03 Surplus Property.

9. Discussion and possible action to approve the replacement of the Tulloch Unit I & 2 station service battery bank.

I 0. Discussion and possible action related to designating the date of one Tri-Dam Project regular meeting in Strawberry.

II. Discussion and possible action to approve the 2021 represented employee wage increase.

DISCUSSION ITEM12 12. Canyon Tunnel Progress Update Presentation and Discussion. COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS 13-16 13. Staff reports as follows: a. General Manager Report b. Operations & Maintenance Report c. Compliance Report

14. Generation Report

15. Fisheries studies on the Lower

16. Directors' Comments

CLOSED SESSION ITEM 17

17. a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Possible Initiation of Litigation Government Code§ 54956.9(d)(4) Four (4) cases

b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code§ 54956.9(d)(1)

1. SJTA v. State Water Resources Control Board Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding 5013

c. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code § 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: Oakdale Irrigation District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, California Department of Water Resources, Chicken Ranch Rancheria Band ofMi-Wuks, Stockton East Water District, other potential parties unknown Property: Water Agency Negotiators: OlD & SSJID General Managers and Water Counsel Under Negotiations: Price and Tenus of payment of sale

ADJOURNMENT ITEM18 18. Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting MEETING MINUTES BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Tri-Dam Project April 2021 Minutes

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend Approval of April15, 2021 Minutes

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) TRI-DAM PROJECT MINUTES OF THE JOINT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING April15, 2021 Manteca, 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 South San Joaquin Irrigation District located in Manteca, 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 Districts on July 29, 1955. President Holmes called the meeting to order at 9:00a.m.

OlD DIRECTORS SSJID DIRECTORS

DIRECTORS PRESENT:

TOM ORVIS BOB HOLMES ED TOBIAS DAVE KAMPER LINDA SANTOS JOHN HOLBROOK BRAD DeBOER MIKE WESTSTEYN HERMAN DOORNENBAL RALPH ROOS

DIRECTORS ABSENT:

Also, Present: Jarom Zimmerman, General Manager, Tri-Dam Project; Brian Jaruszewski, Finance and Administrative Manager, Tri-Dam Project; Genna Modrell, Admin. and Finance Assistant, Tri­ Dam Project; Susan Larson, Compliance Coordinator, Tri-Dam Project; Steve Knell, General Manager, OlD; Peter Rietkerk, General Manager, SSJID; Mia Brown, General Counsel, SSJID; Tim O'Laughlin, Counsel PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

ITEM #1 Approve the regular board meeting minutes of March 18, 2021.

Director Holbrook moved to approve the minutes as presented. Director Doornenbal seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

Page 1 TOP April15, 2021 ACTION CALENDAR

ITEM #2 Discussion and possible action regarding monthly and year to date Financial Statements, March 2021 statement of obligations, and monthly investment report.

Brian Jaruszewski presented the monthly and year to date financials and responded to Director questions.

Director Orvis moved to file the financials as submitted. Director Weststeyn seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #3 Discussion and possible action to approve the FERC annual land use fees for 2021.

Jarom Zimmerman presented the annual land use fee invoice from FERC and responded to Director questions.

Director Holbrook moved to approve as presented. Director Santos seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #4 Discussion and possible action to approve the DSOD annual dam fees for 2021.

Jarom Zimmerman presented the annual dam fee invoice from DSOD and responded to Director questions.

Director Tobias moved to approve as presented. Director Kamper seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

Page 2 TDP April 15, 2021 ITEM #5 Discussion and possible action regarding TDP Resolution 2021-02 Surplus Property.

Brian Jaruszewski presented items to be declared surplus and responded to Director questions.

Director Kamper moved to approve the item as presented. Director Doornenbal seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #6 Review and authot"ize the General Manager to sign the PSA with MHD Group for various public relations and social media services pertaining to Save the Stan campaign.

Brian Jaruszewski presented a Professional Services Agreement for MHO Group's Save the Stan campaign. Director Weststeyn sought clarification of the budgeted number of hours per month on Exhibit A. Director Santos commented that she was receiving more information regarding this campaign from other sources. Peter Rietkerk explained the efforts in 2021 would be mostly maintenance and joint press releases.

Director DeBoer moved to approve as presented. Director Weststeyn seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: Santos ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #7 Staff Reports

In addition to the other written staff reports, Jarom Zimmerman added there will be an advisory meeting in May.

ITEM #8 Generation Report

No discussion.

ITEM #9 Fisheries Studies on the Lower Stanislaus River

No discussion.

Page 3 TDP April15, 2021 ITEM #10 Directors Comments

Director DeBoer complimented staff's diligence on controlling costs.

Recess to Tri-Dam Power Authority

President Holmes recessed to the Tri-Dam Power Authority Board of Commissioners meeting at 9:39a.m.

The Tri-Dam Project meeting resumed at 10:02 a.m. after the Tri-Dam Power Authority meeting adjourned.

President Holmes announced before closed session that the following items would be discussed:

ITEM #11 Closed Session

a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Potential Initiation of Litigation Government Code§ 54956.9(d)(4) Two (2) cases

b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code§ 54956.9(d)(1)

1. SJTA v. State Water Resources Control Board Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding 5013

2. Tyler v. 010, SSJ/0, Tri-Oam Project Calaveras County Superior Court Case No. 17CV42319

At the hour of 10:29 a.m., the Board reconvened to open session.

Disclosure of reportable actions taken in Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1: There were no reportable actions taken in closed session.

ADJOURNMENT

President Holmes adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

The next regular board meeting is scheduled for May 20, 2021, at the offices of Oakdale Irrigation District, Oakdale, California beginning at 9:00 a.m.

ATTEST:

Jarom Zimmerman Secretary, Tri-Dam Project

Page 4 TDP April 15, 2021 FINANCIALS BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Tri-Dam Project April 2021 Financial Statements

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend Approval of April 2021 Financial Statements and Statement of Obligations

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Financial Statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement) for Tri-Dam Project are presented monthly for approval. Note that these are unaudited financial statements. As such, they include accruals for certain revenues and expenditures.

Also submitted for approval is the Statement of Obligations for Tri-Dam Project.

FISCAL IMPACT: See Attachments

ATTACHMENTS: Tri-Dam Project Financial Statements Tri-Dam Project Statement of Obligations

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

Action(s) to be taken: Tri-Dam Project Balance Sheets (unaudited)

""' ; - ' ~ - [ [I_~I-~d~ P~~E_~T] j April 30, 2021 March 31, 2021 April 30, 2020 Assets 2 Cash $ 5,247,780 $ 4,749,077 $ 7,423,657 3 Investment Securities & Money Market 14,661,434 14,655,435 13,121,696 4 Accounts Receivable 3,405,646 2,001,687 3,693,630 5 Prepaid Expenses 386,253 245,118 151,285 6 Capital Assets 107,721,771 107,721,771 106,900,092 7 Accumulated Depreciation (53,21 0,1 02) (53, 158,81 0) (51 ,459,327) 8 Intangible Assets 8,213,938 8,213,938 8,213,938 9 Accumulated Amortization • Intangibles (2,453,485) (2,434,024) (2,219,953) 1o Other Assets 22,105 22,105 39,874 11 Deferred Outflows • Pension Related 3,095,459 3,095,459 3,095,459 12 Total Assets & Deferred Outflows 87,090,798 85,111,756 88,960,350 13 14 15 Liabilities 16 Accounts Payable 125,218 60,213 471,997 17 Other Current Liabilities 448,112 455,644 443,747 18 Long-Term Liabilities 4,248,510 4,248,510 4,548,255 19 Deferred Inflows. Pension Related 2,576,399 2,576,399 2,576,399 20 Total Liabilities & Deferred Inflows 7,398,240 7,340,767 8,040,398 21 22 Net Position 23 Net Position· Beginning of Year 80,637,334 80,637,334 90,060,491 24 Contributed Capital • Districts 602,963 602,963 602,963 25 Distributions (5,506,000) (5,506,000) (15,320,000) 26 YTD Net Revenues 27 Total Net Position 28 29 30 Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 87,090,798 $ 85111 756 $ 88,960 350 Tri-Dam Project Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending April 30, 2021

Percent of MTD MTD MTD Budget Prior Year Prior Year 2021 2021 Budget Budget Actual Variance MTD Actual MTDVar Budget Remaining Operating Revenues 2 Power Sales $ 2,998,084 $ 2,879,292 $ {118,792) $ 3,166,204 $ (286,912) $ 35,977,003 76% 3 Headwater Benefit 30,613 (30,613) 367,354 100% 4 Total Operating Revenues 3,028,696 2,879,292 (149,404) 3,166,204 (286,912) 36,344,357 76% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 280,788 243,185 (37,603) 283,697 (40,512) 2,433,496 78% 8 Benefits and Overhead 147,889 135,392 (12,497) 160,812 (25,420) 1,774,672 77% 9 Operations 16,585 7,026 (9,559) 3,050 3,975 199,015 89% 10 Maintenance 113,358 98,909 (14,449) 50,Q26 48,883 1,360,300 78% 11 General & Administrative 410,312 321,761 (88,551) 366,728 (44,967) 4,923,747 80% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 174,700 179,360 4,660 173,477 5,884 2,096,400 74% 13 Total Operating Expenses 1,143,633 985,633 (158,000) 1,037,790 (52,157) 12,787,630 78% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 1,885,064 1,893,659 8,595 2,128,414 (234,755) 23,556,727 75% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 18 Investment Earnings 12,917 9,925 (2,992) 16,738 (6,813) 155,000 81% 19 Change In Market Value of Investments (890) (890) 3,484 (4,374) NA 20 Water Salas 13,861 (13,861) 166,336 100% 21 Equipment Rental 200 200 2,200 (2,000) NA 22 Galn/(loss) on Asset Disposal NA 23 Reimbursements 17,772 14,255 (3,518) 9,559 4,696 213,269 80% 24 Other Nonoperating Revenue 8,492 4,420 (4,072) 5,724 (1,304) 101,900 87% 25 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 53,042 27,909 (25,133) 37,705 (9,796) 636,505 87% 26 27 Net Revenues $ 1,938,106 $ 1,921,569 $ (16,537) $ 2,166,120 $ {244,551) $ 24,193,232 75% 28 29 30 MTD YTD MTD Budget 2021 31 Memo: Budget Actual Variance Budget 32 Capital Expenditures $ 132,880 $ 12,997 $ (119,883) $ 1,594,565 33 Tulloch Day Use Site $ 125,000 $ 26,058 $ (98,942) $ 1,500,000 34 Major Repairs- Hells Half Acre & 4700 Roads $ 18,333 $ $ (18,333) $ 220,000 35 Major Repairs- Tulloch Unit 3 Access Rd $ 185,833.33 $ $ (185,833) $ 2,230,000 Tri-Dam Project Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending Aprll30, 2021

Percent of YTD YTD YTD Budget Prior Year Prior Year 2021 2021 Budget Budget Actual Variance Actual Variance Budget Remaining Operating Revenues PowerSaies $ 11,992,334 $ 6,866,958 $ (5,125,376) $ 8,830,192 $ (1 ,963,234) $ 35,977,003 81% 3 Headwater Benefit 122,451 90,000 (32,451) 90,000 367,354 76% 4 Total Operating Revenues 12,114,786 6,956,958 (5,157,827) 8,920,192 (1,963,234) 36,344,357 81% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 842,364 705,933 (136,431) 752,512 (46,579) 2,433,496 72% 8 Benefits and Overhead 591,557 438,456 (153,101) 572,382 (133,926) 1,774,672 75% 9 Operations 66,338 23,258 (43,081) 38,872 (15,615) 199,015 88% 10 Maintenance 453,433 266,901 (186,532) 214,527 52,375 1,360,300 80% 11 General & Administrative 1,641,249 1,004,192 (637,057) 1,465,498 (461,306) 4,923,747 80% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 698,800 698,760 (40) 692,814 5,946 2,096,400 67% 13 Total Operating Expanses 4,293,742 3,137,501 (1,156,241) 3,736,606 (599,105) 12,787,630 76% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 7,821,044 3,819,458 (4,001 ,586) 5,183,587 (1,364,129) 23,558,727 84% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 18 Investment Earnings 51,667 50,068 (1,599) 88,388 (38,320) 155,000 68% 19 Change in Market Value of lnvestrnenls (21,086) (21,086) 155,593 {176,679) NA 20 Water Sales 55,445 41,500 (13,945) 41,500 166,336 75% 21 Equipment Rental 600 600 8,800 {8,200} NA 22 Galn/(Loss} on Asset Disposal 1,150 1,150 10,820 (9,670) NA 23 Reimbursements 71,090 50,605 (20.485) 56,893 {6,289} 213,269 76% 24 Other Nonoperating Revenue 33,967 15,967 (18,000) 30,917 (14,950} 101,900 84% 25 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 212,168 138,803 (73,365} 392,911 (254,108) 636,505 78% 26 27 Net Revenues $ 8,033,212 $ 3,958,261 $ (4,074,951) $ 5,576,498 $ {1,618,237) $ 24,193,232 84% 20 29 30 YTD YTD YTD Budget PriorYear Prior Year 2021 31 Memo: Budget Actual Variance Actual Variance Budget 32 Capital Expenditures $ 531,522 $ 34,190 $ (497,332) $ 821 $ 33,369 $ 1,594,565 33 Tulloch Day Use Site $ 500,000 $ 121,775 $ (378,225) $ $ 121,775 $ 1,500,000 34 Major Repairs- Hells Half Acre & 4700 Roads $ 73,333 $ $ (73,333) $ $ $ 220,000 35 Major Repairs- Tulloch Unit 3 Access Rd $ 743,333 $ $ (743,333) $ $ $ 2,230,000 General Ledger Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund

User: BJaruszewski Printed: 5/8/2021 11:16:02 AM Period 0 I -04 Fiscal Year 2021

Fund Descrintion Bud2:et Period Amt End Bal Variance Encumbered Available %Available

1 Corporate I Bank Fees & Charges 13,500.00 3,391.54 3,391.54 10,108.46 I 0,108.46 74.88 1 Corporate 13.500.00 3.391.54 3.391.54 10,108.46 10,108.46 74.88 I Operations I Electric Exp Labor 822,002.00 369.688.70 369.688.70 452.313.30 452,313.30 55.03 I Electric Exp OH 569,306.00 167.967.50 167.967.50 401.338.50 401,338.50 70.50 I Interconnection Exp 3rd Unit 2,050.00 673. 12 673.12 I ,376.88 1,376.88 67. 16 I Power House & Dam Uti! 34,200.00 3,264.95 3,264.95 30,935.05 30,935.05 90.45 Dam Monitoring 5,500.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 100.00 Operations Office Supplies 4,800.00 565.82 565.82 4,234.18 4,234.18 88.21 Dam Supplies 8.800.00 2.406.00 2.406.00 6,394.00 6.394.00 72.66 Furnishings & Misc. Equipment 6.000.00 6,000.00 6.000.00 100.00 Safety Supplies & Related 29,965.00 5,229.33 5,229.33 24,735.67 24.735.67 82.55 Site Utilities ME 45,600.00 11 ,118.29 1 u 18.29 34,481.71 34.481.71 75.62 Resource Mgmt USFS Beardsley 110,000.00 110,000.00 110,000.00 100.00 Travel & Conference 23,900.00 23,900.00 23,900.00 100.00 Schools & Training 16,700.00 16,700.00 16,700.00 100.00 Trustee Fees Operations 2,100.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 100.00 WECC Dvnamic Modeling 19,500.00 19,500.00 19.500.00 Small Tools 2,000.00 2.000.00 2,000.00 100.00 Depreciation I .862.868.00 1.862.868.00 1.862.868.00 100.00 FERC Relicense Amortization 83,100.00 83,100.00 83,100.00 100.00 Beardsley Recreation Amort 150,432.00 150,432.00 150,432.00 100.00 1 Operations 3,798,823.00 560,913.71 560,913.71 3,237,909.29 19,500.00 3.218.409.29 84.72 1 Maintenance I C01mns & Security Labor 1,149,668.00 325,282. 10 325,282.10 824,385.90 824,385.90 71.71 Comms & Security OH 863,446.00 153,321.90 153.321.90 710,124.10 710,124.10 82.24 Maintenance Office Supplies 1.500.00 1.500.00 1.500.00 100.00 Safety Supplies & Related 25,500.00 1.992.44 1,992.44 23,507.56 23,507.56 92.19 Maint & Repairs - Structures 103,200.00 9,058.57 9,058.57 94,14 1.43 94,141.43 91.22 Maint & Repairs - Facilities 96,500.00 130,008.80 130,008.80 (33,508.80) (33,508.80) (34.72) Maint & Repairs - Plant 227,700.00 16,908.66 16.908.66 210,791.34 210,791.34 92.57 Electronic Expense Svc Center 60,000.00 534.36 534.36 59,465.64 328.37 59,137.27 98.56 Site Improvements 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100.00 Mise Hydro Expense 34.000.00 9.012.18 9.012.18 24.987.82 24.987.82 73.49 Computer Repair Replace 35.800.00 2,396. 17 2,396.17 33.403.83 37.820.63 (4.416.80) ( 12.34) Radio Repair & Replace 2,700.00 2.700.00 2.700.00 100.00 Fund Descriution Bud!i:et Period Amt End Bat Variance Encumbered Available %Available

Power Line Repair & Maint 15,000.00 15,000.00 15.000.00 100.00 Comms & Security 81,500.00 7,389.68 7,389.68 74,110.32 8,564.00 65,546.32 80.42 Routine Road Maintenance 76,000.00 292.21 292.21 75.707.79 75,707.79 99.62 Travel & Conference 11,400.00 11,400.00 11,400.00 100.00 Schools & Training 20,400.00 20,400.00 20,400.00 100.00 Management 50,500.00 7,023.92 7,023.92 43,476.08 43,476.08 86.09 Rolling Stock Maint/Repair 100.000.00 35,655 .63 35,655.63 64.344.37 3.760.63 60.583.74 60.58 Shop Supplies 25,000.00 4,053.71 4.053.71 20.946.29 20.946.29 83.79 Small Tools 20.000.00 6,022.09 6,022.09 13.977.9 1 13.977.91 69.89 Miscellaneous Equipment 28,900.00 3,804.63 3,804.63 25,095.37 25,095.37 86.84 I Disposal Expense 6,000.00 1,577.1 8 1.577. 18 4,422.82 4,422.82 73.71 I Fuel and Fuel Tax 105,000.00 34,011.87 34,011.87 70,988. 13 70.988.13 67.6 1 I Equipment Operation & Maint 8,700.00 415.38 415.38 8,284.62 8.284.62 95.23 I Maior Road Repairs 220,000.00 220,000.00 220,000.00 100.00 1 Maintenance 3,373.414.00 748.761.48 748,761.48 2.624.652.52 50.473.63 2.574.178.89 76.31 1 Administrative I Administrative Labor 461,824.00 6.372.94 6.372.94 455.451 .06 455.451 .06 98.62 I Administrative OH 341,921.00 11 5,330.41 115,330.41 226,590.59 226,590.59 66.27 I Office & Administrati ve Expens 35.800.00 11 ,358.88 11.358.88 24.44 1.12 1.125.00 23,3 16. 12 65.13 I Prof. Organizations & Subscrip 27,165.00 9,61 5.39 9,615.39 17,549.61 17,549.61 64.60 Utilities Straw 43.000.00 15,962.16 15.962. 16 27.037.84 27,037.84 62.88 Travel & Conference 22.500.00 22,500.00 22,500.00 100.00 Meals 5.000.00 480.81 480.81 4.5 19.19 4.51 9. 19 90.38 Drug Testing & Physicals 2.000.00 2,000.00 2.000.00 100.00 Computers and Related 11,100.00 41 .98 41.98 11 ,058.02 I 1,058.02 99.62 Schools & Training 2,500.00 169.00 169.00 2.331.00 2,33 1.00 93.24 Telephone Expense 28,800.00 11,878.86 11,878.86 16.921.14 16,921.14 58.75 Data Communications Services 4,400.00 1,871.04 1,871.04 2.528.96 2,528.96 57.48 Website Internet & Network 55,800.00 15.430.00 15,430.00 40,370.00 21.424.00 18.946.00 33.95 Legal Fees 353,000.00 51.415.00 51,415.00 301.585.00 301.585.00 85 .43 Reservoir Management 2,000.00 2.000.00 2,000.00 100.00 Auditing Services 13.410.00 4,449.00 4,449.00 8.96 1.00 8.961.00 66.82 Accounting & PR Software & Svc 10.550.00 11,075.40 11,075.40 (525.40) (525.40) (4.98) FERC Part 12 Inspections 150,000.00 1,234.22 1,234.22 148,765.78 148,765.78 99.18 Stategic Communication PR 25,000.00 3,050.00 3,050.00 21.950.00 21,950.00 License Condition Implement 55.000.00 55.000.00 55.000.00 100.00 Shoreline Erosion Mgmt Plan 500,000.00 500.000.00 500.000.00 100.00 Tulloch Shoreline Mgmt Plan 3.000.00 3.000.00 3.000.00 100.00 Mussel Risk, Insp & Monitor 3,000.00 3,000.00 3.000.00 100.00 FERC Cultural Resource Tulloch 99,917.00 6,645.10 6,645. 10 93 ,27 1.90 10,169.88 83,102.02 83 .17 FERC Cultural Res - Donn/Beard 30,000.00 4,010.80 4,010.80 25,989.20 28,7 10.39 (2,721.19) (9.07) FERC Cult Res Mon. Ongoing 84,800.00 84,800.00 84,800.00 100.00 Fish Study Publications 100.000.00 1.612.50 1.612.50 98.387.50 98.387.50 USBR Pin ofOpr & SWRCB 360,000.00 93.015.00 93,015.00 266,985.00 266.985.00 74.16 Lower River Non-native Investi 500,000.00 176,483.73 176,483.73 323,516.27 323,5 16.27 Adult Chinook I Life Cvcle 200,000.00 74,012. 19 74,01 2.19 125.987.8 1 125,987.81 Fund Descrintion Bud2et Period Amt End Bat Variance Encumbered Available %Available

Reliability Consulting 25,000.00 37.23 37.23 24.962.77 6.500.00 18.462.77 73.85 Labor Relations Neg/Consulting 12,000.00 12.000.00 12.000.00 100.00 Haz Mat Business Plan 2.500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 100.00 Legal Fees Fish Studies 25,000.00 4,760.00 4,760.00 20,240.00 20,240.00 Liability Insurance 493,950.00 134,704.58 134,704.58 359.245.42 359.245.42 72.73 Property and Use Taxes 10,000.00 306.61 306.61 9,693.39 9.693.39 96.93 Legal-Stan River Basin Plan 10,000.00 10.000.00 10.000.00 100.00 Stanislaus River Basin Plan 685,000.00 13.255.00 13.255.00 671.745.00 671.745.00 98.06 Dam Safety Fees 271,300.00 79.529.88 79.529.88 191.770.12 7,755.26 184.014.86 67.83 State Water Rights Fees 27,375.00 27,375.00 27,375.00 100.00 FERC Admin & Land Fees 205.000.00 35.296.46 35,296.46 169,703.54 169,703.54 82.78 Streamgaging 73,200.00 18,300.00 18,300.00 54,900.00 36,600.02 18,299.98 25.00 Streamgaging Cert USGS 52,480.00 13,022.58 13,022.58 39,457.42 39,457.42 75.19 FERC USBR HWB Tulloch 90,500.00 90,500.00 90.500.00 100.00 USFS Pennit Fees 11.600.00 12,774.78 12.774.78 (1,174.78) ( 1.174.78) (10.13) FERC EAP PMF Security Plan 6,000.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 4,700.00 4,700.00 78.33 Legal- District Water Rights 60,000.00 30,923.50 30,923.50 29.076.50 29.076.50 48.46 Relicense Special Consultants 9,500.00 8,713.75 8,7 13.75 786.25 786.25 8.28 Administrative 5,601,892.00 968.438.78 968.438.78 4.633,453.22 702.366.13 3,931,087.09 70.17 Capital Exp/ Fixed Asset Capital Labor 90,125.00 7,978.34 7,978.34 82.146.66 85,536.06 94.91 Capital OH 38,625.00 3,604.31 3,604.31 35.020.69 36.788.64 95.25 Switch yard LED Lighting 11,000.00 11.000.00 11,000.00 100.00 O'Byrnes Public Access Prop 1.470.000.00 79.069.58 79.069.58 1.390,930.42 21.669.56 I ,369.260.86 93.15 Survey install new staff gauge 6,000.00 6.000.00 6,000.00 100.00 Move Gen out of Eq. Bldg 10.000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 100.00 Abay bldg for gate controls 5.500.00 5,500.00 5.500.00 100.00 Re-roof Bldg Beard Gate House 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 100.00 24DC Battery Chargers 8,400.00 8,400.00 8.400.00 100.00 Beardsley water tank 90.000.00 90.000.00 90.000.00 100.00 Gov modem chg to Woodward 85,000.00 85,000.00 85.000.00 100.00 Parts Washer 4,000.00 5,942.47 5,942.47 (1,942.47) (1.942.47) (48.56) Self Dumping Hoppers 4.500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 100.00 Blk Crk Gate. Pole rep!, etc 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 100.00 Div Tower & Comm site install 328,915.00 7.317.21 7,317.21 321.597.79 321.597.79 97.78 Pump/motor Rebuilds 36,000.00 36,000.00 36.000.00 100.00 Donn wheel/jet brake cone repr 100,000.00 100.000.00 100.000.00 100.00 Donn Gov Upgrd to new hardware 128.000.00 11.55 11 .55 127,988.45 127,988.45 99.99 Spare MCC bucket parts 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 100.00 Rock Crusher 100,000.00 9.46 9.46 99,990.54 99.990.54 99.99 High bav LED lighting 20.000.00 20.000.00 20,000.00 100.00 E-Gen replacement 40.000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 100.00 RT AC Programming 20.000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 100.00 Separate Tull & Div dish(a),ME 12.000.00 1,266.11 1.266. 11 10,733.89 10,733.89 89.45 Sierra Controls additions 30,000.00 30.000.00 30.000.00 100.00 Spare SS Trans 480V-240V 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100.00 Fund Descriution Bud11;et Period Amt End Bal Variance Encumbered Available %Available

SF6 gas analyzer 22,000.00 22,000.00 22,000.00 100.00 NEC Phone 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100.00 Microwave battery banks 80.000.00 80.000.00 80.000.00 100.00 Network Analyzer 13,000.00 12,997.20 12,997.20 2.80 2.80 0.02 IP network infrastruc switches 9,000.00 9.000.00 9,000.00 100.00 Re-roof building ME 25,000.00 25,000.00 25.000.00 100.00 Primary & back up AC repl 18.000.00 18,000.00 18.000.00 100.00 Sep Tull & Div dishes ME 8.000.00 747.26 747.26 7,252.74 7.252.74 90.66 Redundant AC Straw Pk 20,000.00 20,000.00 20.000.00 100.00 Porta Cool 5,000.00 5.000.00 5.000.00 100.00 Tull skimmer gate actuator 17,000.00 17,000.00 17,000.00 100.00 Tull office fumiture 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100.00 125VDC Battery 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 100.00 Tull Cooling Water pump# I 10,000.00 10.000.00 10.000.00 100.00 Tull Unit 3 Relay testing 5,000.00 5.000.00 5.000.00 100.00 Compliance Coord Vehicle 35,000.00 35,000.00 35.000.00 100.00 I Ton Flatbed 62,000.00 62.000.00 62.000.00 100.00 Tulloch Spillway 2,230,000.00 593.75 593.75 2.229,406.25 38.615.25 2. 190,791.00 98.24 Capital Exo/ Fixed Asset 5.324.565.00 51.185.20 51.185.20 5.273.379.80 38.615.25 5.234. 764.55 98.31 Exoens• 18.112.194.00 2.332.690. 71 2.332.690. 71 15,779.503.29 810.955.01 14.968.548.28 82.64 1 Tri Dam Project 18.112.194.00 2.332.690. 71 2.332.690.71 15.779.503.29 810.955.01 14.968.548.28 82.64 Tri-Dam Project Reserve Funds /Investment Portfolio April 30, 2021

··:.~·- .,,.,,,.,.._.,".,·- ~ W""':".;~·.·· "~-- ,-~-'"'' T/"i'' -~ "':':":'"'~=~~'"!~!'"'''

Purchase Maturity Purchase Face Market Yield to--Average-· 2 CUSIP Issue Date Description Rating Date Date Price Amount Principal Value Gain/(Loss) Coupon Maturity Maturity 3 313378JP7 3/5/2012 FHLB BuHet US Agency 10/12/2017 9/10/2021 101.959 480,000 489,403 483,878 (5,525) 2.38% 1.85% 0.36 4 313560538 1/9/2017 FNMA BuHet US Agency 10/26/2017 1/5/2022 99.911 480,000 479,572 486,326 6,755 2.00% 2.02% 0.68 5 3130AC5A8 8/15/2017 FHLB Bullet US Agency 8/17/2017 8/15/2022 99.862 480,000 479,339 490,454 11,115 1.85% 1.88% 1.29 6 3135GOT94 1/23/2018 FNMA Bullet US Agency 3/21/2018 1/19/2023 98.278 480,000 471,736 498,206 26,471 2.38% 2.76% 1.72 7 91282CBT7 3/31/2021 US Treasury NOte US Agency 3/31/2021 3/31/2026 99.086 1,400,000 1,395,880 1,393,882 (1,998) 0.75% 0.94% 4.92 8 3,320,000 3,315,930 3,352,748 36,818 1.22% 1.23% 2.41 9 31846V203 NA First Am Govt Obi MMF Cl Y AAAm NA NA 23,684 23,684 23,684 0.01% 0.01% 0.00 10 Total- Revenue f Operating Fund $3,343,684 $3,339,613 $3,376,432 $36,818 1.21% 1.22% 2.39 11 . . - - · ···"c"''~,--~ '"''" •• -·o· "-"··--~ .. ,- · •,- ,._,..,--n-·• -~~··:::: ·;;-:-::· , ?:·~~---·• •-r:~; -.-:··r;::;o:c· ,,...,..,__ •-·-~·--~:""'-"'-:--•,-:,;c·~'"'"'-;··" --_.,..,_,. ·"-·"''-:" -::->·-•c"~··"~ ·"''·'"·"",.- --,~--·· --~---· ··-. 12 2_~ Ma·in~eOaOC$_fiirid '"'"---~~--·-·--._.·_.. -.. :~~~~~j~_:--'-=~"'-'-"-;"""::;::~"-'---'o.: --·-·------VieldtO Purchase Maturity Purchase Face Market -·-·Average-- 13 CUSIP Issue Date Description Rating Date Date Price Amount Principal Value Gain/(loss) Coupon Maturity Maturity 14 313378JP7 3/5/2012 FHLB Bullet US Agency 10/12/2017 9/10/2021 101.309 730,000 739,557 735,898 (3,659) 2.38% 2.02% 0.36 15 3135GOS38 1/9/2017 FNMA Bullet US Agency 10/26/2017 1/5/2022 99.493 720,000 716,347 729,490 13,142 2.00% 2.13% 0.68 16 3130AC5A8 8/15/2017 FHLB Bullet US Agency 8/17/2017 8/15/2022 99.199 730,000 724,149 745,899 21,750 1.85% 2.02% 1.29 17 3135GOT94 1/23/2018 FNMA Bullet U5Agency 3/21/2018 1/19/2023 98.212 755,000 741,502 783,637 42,135 2.38% 2.77% 1.72 18 3133EJSD2 6/19/2018 FFCB Bullet US Agency 10/5/2018 6/19/2023 98.989 700,000 692,923 740,208 47,285 2.89% 3.12% 2.14 19 91282CBT7 3/31/2021 FFCB Bu!!et US Agency 3/31/2021 3/31/2026 99.086 1,000,000 997,057 995,630 (1,427) 0.75% 0.94% 4.92 20 4,635,000 4,611,536 4,730,763 119,226 1.96% 2.09% 2.02 21 31846V203 NA First Am Govt Obi MMF Cl Y AAAm NA NA 100.000 746,078 746,078 746,078 0.01% 0.01% 0.00 22 NA NA State of California lAIF NA NA NA 100.000 5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 1.22% 1.22% 0.52 23 Total- Maintenance Fund $11,181,078 $11,157,614 $11,276,840 $119,226 1.45% 1.50% 1.11 24 25 Total - Both Funds $14,524,762 $14,497,227 $14,653,272 $156,044 1.39% 1.44% 1.40 26 27 Other Monthy Activity- Revenue I Operating Fund: None 28 Other Monthy Activity- Maintenance Fund: None 29 30 Monthly Net Cash Flow- Revenue I Operating Fund: $ (76.35} 31 Monthly Net Cash Flow- Maintenance Fund: $ (76.82} 32 33 Market values provided by U.S. Bank 34 Statement of Compliance: To the best of my knowledge, all investments are made pursuant to Tri-Dam's investment policy. In addition, 35 Tri-Dam maintains sufficient cash and liquid assets to fund expenditures for the next six months. /5/ Brian Jaruszewski, Treasurer

Tri-Dam Project Total Generation - MWh

70,000

60,000

50,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • Historical Tri-Dam Project Generation Revenue

$1,000,000

$0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 Tri-Dam Project Storage AF - Donnells & Beardsley 170,000

160,000

150,000

140,000

130,000

120,000

110,000

100,000

90,000

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 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 Tri-Dam Project

Statement of Obligations

Period Covered

April 1, 2021 to April 30, 2021 TRI-DAM PROJECT STATEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS Period Covered April1, 2021 to April 30, 2021

One-Half Oakdale Irrigation District $ 545,235.85 One-Half Sonth San Joaqnin Irrigation Distict $ 545,235.85 Total Obligations $ 1,090,471. 70

CERTIFICATION

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN .JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Thomas D. Orvis John Holbrook

Ed Tobias Robert A. Holmes

Linda Santos Dave Kamper

Herman Doornenbal Ralph Roes

Brad DeBoer Mike Weststeyn

Each of the undersigned certifies that he is President or Secretary of his respective District; That the amounts designated above have been properly incurred as an obligation ofthe Tri-Darn Project; that checks for payment of said amounts have been drawn on a Tri-Dam Project account at Oak Valley Community Bank, Sonora, California.

OAKDALE ffiRIGATIONDISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT,

Thomas D. Orvis Robert A. Holmes

SECRETARY, SECRETARY,

Steve Knell Date Peter M. Rietkerk Date Tri Dam Project Statement of Obligations Period Covered From To April1, 2021 to April 30, 2021

No. Chks. Amount Vendor Check Register Report (Please see attached Check Listing) 115 $790,142.29

Payrolls - Net Charges

Pay Date Payroll Amount

1-Apr-21 Payroll $ 100,318.50 15-Apr-21 Payroll $ 95,826.18 29-Apr-21 Payroll $ 104,184.73

Total Net Payroll $ 300,329.41 $ 300,329.41

Total Disbursements for the Period $1,090,471.70

Distribution Between Districts­ Oakdale Irrigation District $ 545,235.85 South San Joaquin Irrigation District $ 545,235.85

Total Districts $ 1,090,471.70 Project April Checks by Amount

!ITRI·DAM PROJECT!)

Check Vendor Number No Vendor Name Check Date Description Amount

127737 10133 CA Dept. Water Resources 04/23/2021 Annual Dam Fees 236,143.00 127699 10294 FISHBIO Environmental LLC 04/15/2021 Fish Studies 85,126.31 127730 10813 ACWA Joint Powers Insurance Authority 04/15/2021 Health Benefits 60,412.26 127702 10501 O'Laughlin & Paris 04/15/2021 Legal matters 50,239,00 127701 11343 Tim O'Laughlin, PLC 04/1512021 Legal matters 40,520.00 127741 10289 Federal Energy Reg. Commission 04123/2021 Land Use Fees 35,296.46 127697 10993 Dillon and Murphy Consulting Civil Engin• 04115/2021 Tulluch day use site project 26,057.75 127745 11325 Leslie Heavy Haul 04/23/2021 Timber Harvest~ Strawberry office 25,175.80 127663 10815 Cal PERS System 04/01/2021 BEIER Retirement Plan 17,284.94 127757 10815 Cal PERS System 04/28/2021 EE!ER Retirement Plan 17,112.00 127732 10815 Cal PERS System 04/15/2021 BEIER Retirement Plan 17,102.96 127762 10900 Chase Cardmember Service 04/29/2021 small tools, fuel, meals, Tulloch switchgear, Employee PPE 13,036.49 127692 10703 Tessco 04/09/2021 Network Analyzer 12,997.20 127704 10891 Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil En 04/15/2021 Water Rights Repmting 8,376.25 127764 11049 Hunt & Sons, Inc. 04/2912021 Fuel 7,332.62 127703 10771 W.D. Edwards Co. LLC 04/15/2021 Dam Safety Consulting 6,604.38 127742 11233 Fibrobec, Inc. 04/23/2021 Compac Conversion Kit 6,370.50 127696 10202 Condor Earth Technologies 04/15/2021 Abay final & Tulloch Spillway Hydraulic Modeling 5,526.75 127674 11344 Evergreen Wire Rope Testing, LLC 04/09/2021 Rope Testing- Goodwin Bridge 5,430.00 127725 10577 Rolyan Buoys 04/15/2021 Tuloch Buoys 5,405.40 127775 11326 Western Pacific Crane & Equipment Co. 04129/2021 Boom Truck control valve repair 4,632.52 127738 11351 Calaveras County Building Department 04/23/2021 Building Permit- Tulloch Day Use 4,623.39 127681 10514 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 04/0912021 Utilities 4,603.38 127770 10514 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 04/29/2021 Utilities 4,476.85 127755 11355 Phase II Auto Body 04/26/2021 Vehicle Repair 20-4 4,240.50 127721 10135 NewsData LLC 04/15/2021 CA Energy Market renewal 4,100.00 127667 10067 AT&T· SBC · Pac Bell 04/09/2021 Telephone 3,758.60 127707 10067 AT&T· SBC • Pac Bell 04/15/2021 Telephone 3,639.28 127665 10812 Nationwide Retirement Solution 04/01/2021 EE Supl Retirement Plan 3,298.84 127734 10812 Nationwide Retirement Solution 04/1512021 EE Sup! Retirement Plan 3,298.84 127759 10812 Nationwide Retirement Solution 04/28/2021 EE Sup! Retirement Plan 3,298.84 127753 11159 United Rentals (No. America), Inc. 04/2312021 Large Rammer 3,001.93 127711 11354 Manuel Conde 04/15/2021 Tulloch Performance Deposit Refund 3,000.00 127661 10813 ACWA Joint Powers Insurance Authority 04/01/2021 EE Health Benefits 2,931.63 127748 11028 MHD Group, Inc. 04/23/2021 Save the Stan C 2,750.00 127712 10935 datapath 04/15/2021 Network Support 2,600.00 127728 10991 State Compensation Insurance Fund 04/15/2021 Workers Compensation 2,547.50 127690 11005 Sonora Lumber Company 04/09/2021 lumber, mise supplies, small tools 2,461.95 127675 10319 General Plumbing Supply Co Inc. 04/09/2021 Tulloch culvert, gate valve and restroom repair 2,332.33 127723 10547 Power Plan 04/15/2021 Parts & repair to Loader 18-50 2,322.69 127689 10904 Sonora Ford 04/09/2021 Vehicle Repair 13-3 & 12~2 2,250.92 127736 11307 ALLDATA 04/23/2021 Automotive Intelligence renewal 2,148.00 127662 10183 Cal PERS S457 Plan 04/01/2021 EE Sup! Retirement Plan 2,105.00 127709 10084 Banks Glass 04/15/2021 Glass for Computer Room 1,913.11 127731 10183 Cal PERS S457 Plan 04/15/2021 EE Sup! Retirement Plan 1,705.00 127756 10183 Cal PERS S457 Plan 04/28/2021 EE Sup! Retirement Plan 1,705.00 127698 10250 Downey Brand Attorneys LLP. 04/15/2021 Tulloch Litigation 1,488.00 127679 10439 McMaster-Carr Supply Co. 04/09/2021 Drill bits, jumpers, ethernet switch, data connectors 1,471.84 127767 10402 Kamps Propane 04/29/2021 Utilities 1,217.55 127700 10347 HDR Engineering. Inc. 04/15/2021 Cultural Resource Monitoring & Data Recovery 1,174.95 127771 11001 RexelUSA 04/29/2021 Carbon Brushes - Donnells 1,148.44 127664 10811 lBEW 04101/2021 EE Union Dues 1,145.73 127733 10811 lBEW 04115/2021 EE Union Dues 1,145.73 127758 108ll !DEW 04/28/2021 EE Union Dues 1,145.73 127740 10288 Fastcnal Co. 04/2312021 Buoys supplies & mise supplies 1,138.60 127726 11264 Sonsray Machinery LLC 04115/2021 Excavator attachment nuts, bolts 18-70 1,134.08 127676 10320 General Supply Co. 04109/2021 913.45 127672 10225 Debco Automotive Supply Inc. 04/09/2021 905.79 127768 10485 Newark element I4 04/29/2021 762.76 127706 11240 Arnett Industries, LLC 0411512021 652.40 127666 10663 Standard Insurance Co. 04/01/2021 648.24 127735 10663 Standard Insurance Co. 04115/2021 648.24 127760 10663 Standard Insurance Co. 04/28/2021 648.24 127685 10618 Sierra Motors 04/09/2021 631.71 127673 10227 Del Oro Water Co. Inc. 04109/2021 592.89 127743 11049 Hunt & Sons, Inc. 04/23/2021 561.08 127746 10879 Lowe's 04/23/2021 522,09 127684 10536 Pitney Bowes Purchase Power Inc. 04109/2021 507.86 127718 10831 Mangan Meticulous 04115/2021 500.00 127766 11156 John Bertoldi, Inc. 04/29/2021 500,00 127691 10649 Sonora Rentals & Sales 04109/2021 466.80 127727 10665 Staples 04/15/2021 432.58 127695 10776 Waste Mgmt of Cal Sierra Inc. 04/09/2021 422.37 127763 10938 Great America Financial Svcs. 0412912021 386.31 127773 10649 Sonora Rentals & Sales 04/29/2021 376.33 127705 10044 American Valley Waste Oil Inc. 04/15/2021 365,00 127715 10938 Great America Financial Svcs. 04/15/2021 358.42 127720 11353 Nates Saw and Mower, LLC 04/15/2021 345.85 127722 11079 Oakdale Locksmith 04/15/2021 344,99 127761 10068 AT&T Corp - Data Link 0412912021 331.33 127670 11010 Calaveras County Water District 04/09/2021 312.56 127688 10641 Sonora Airco Gas & Gear 04/09/2021 285.27 127683 10535 Pitney Bowes GFS LLC 04/0912021 227.59 127751 10933 Smile Business Products 04/23/2021 186.16 127687 10933 Smile Business Products 04109/2021 185.47 127729 10718 Tractor Supply Credit Plan 04115/2021 174.76 127680 10513 Pacific Gas & Elec- Non Uti! 04109/2021 168.28 127678 11049 Hunt & Sons, Inc. 04/09/2021 167.01 127719 10466 Mountain Oasis Water Systems & Btl Col 04/15/2021 164.90 127772 11005 Sonora Lumber Company 04/29/2021 162.59 127708 10866 AT&T Teleconference Services 04115/2021 162.36 127739 10184 Clark Pest Control - Pest 0412312021 156.00 127669 11086 Benefit Resource, Inc. 04/09/2021 125.00 127717 10399 JS West Propane Gas 04/15/2021 123.20 127686 10845 Sierra Office Supply & Printing 04/0912021 112.13 127671 10154 Calaveras Telephone Co. 04/09/2021 109.70 127677 10333 Grainger Inc. W. W. 0410912021 107.46 127750 10888 AASC Safety Council 04/2312021 107.00 127694 ll258 Verizon 04109/2021 103.20 127682 10168 Petty Cash 04/09/2021 94.00 127716 10846 H & S Parts & Service 04/15/2021 63.84 127668 10971 Bear's Garden Florist 0410912021 63.28 127752 10696 T & C Signs 04/23/2021 59.31 127765 10364 Hurst Ranch Feed 04/29/2021 51.27 127713 11048 Fastenal (Vending) 04/15/2021 50.56 127724 11320 Red Car-Pet Service 04/1512021 50.00 127754 10749 UPS 04/23/2021 46.69 127749 11004 Paci·fic Gas & Electric 04/23/2021 43.48 127747 10428 MCI 0412312021 39.07 127710 10986 Cal-Waste Recovery Systems, LLC 04/15/2021 24.69 127769 1ll47 Pacific Gas & Electric 04129/2021 23.86 127714 10288 Fastenal Co. 04/1512021 20.66 127744 10402 Kamps Propane 04/23/2021 16.59 127774 10749 UPS 0412912021 11.55 127693 10749 UPS 04/09/2021 11.25

Report Total: $ 790,142.29 2021·2022 INSURANCE RENEWAL BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Property I Liability I Casualty Insurance

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the renewal of the current insurance coverages through Arthur J. Gallagher.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Tri-Dam currently utilizes the services of Arthur J. Gallagher for Property I Liability I Casualty Insurance coverage. The table below details the proposed renewal rates for the 2021 new policy year. '. l12021 Premimncomparison. I Premium ILine , 2020 : 2021 Proposed l% change JProperty $ 4,523.00 i $ 5,377.00 ; !Crime ;$ 932.00 i,. $ 916.00 . Inland Marine ·' $ 4,181.00 i $ 4,7~7.00!. Ir ~ - " , --- ·\ , .. Auto • 14,307.63 : $ 17,421.00 i $ ' .. GL :$ 37,325.00 ! $ 42,491~00 J ID&O 13,799.00 ! $ . ----- "! IExcess 10M . ! $ ~~:~:~~~H 33,331.00 ! I 1$ 98,908,6~ I $ 118,052~00 i 19%: I , - I . !ex~~ss 10Mxs10M ; . $ I $ 61,000.00 ' 22% I ...... 5o,ooo.oo. I ' • J Property- Zurich 264,000.00 i $ 331,500.00 : 26% . j • . ' ' [Property- AEGIS 243,262.16 j $ 291,608.00 : 20% 1100% premium 507,262.16 : $ 623,108.00 l 23%• ! i ! Property Terrorism · $ 20,650.00 ' $ 20,650.00 : 0%

Engineering ,$ 15,000.00 : $ 17,500.00 17%

lrotal $ 691,820.79 . $ 840,310.00 FISCAL IMPACT: $840,310

ATTACHMENTS: Presentation to be delivered by Arthur Gallagher

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) USFS BEARDSLEY/DONNELLS RECREATION SITE COST SHARING BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Forest Service Donne lis I Beardsley Recreation Site Cost Sharing

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the USFS Recreation Site Bill for Collection.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Tri-Dam's Agreement with the United States Forest Service requires that projects fund the annual costs associated with the operations and maintenance of developed recreation areas within FERC license boundaries. This invoice represents the 2021 operating costs for the Donnells I Beardsley recreation areas, which include:

• Maintaining the campground water systems to State of California standards • Trash removal at campgrounds • Vault toilet pumping at the Beardsley, Teleli puLaya, and China Flat sites • Maintaining US Forest Service presence on a daily basis from May through October to ensure facility cleanliness, area security, and operational readiness • Providing Campground Hosts at Campground and Teleli puLaya Campground • Law enforcement patrols in Forest Order closure areas and within license boundaries

Agreement#: NRMG-16-C0-11 051600-014

FISCAL IMPACT: $129,339

ATTACHMENTS: USFS Bill for Collection

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) FOREST SERVICE BILL FOR COLLECTION Doc. Date : 04/08/2016 PAGE: 1 ENCLOSE A COPY OF THIS BILL WITH YOUR CHECK OR MONEY MAIL PAYMENT TO: ORDER. DO NOT SEND CASH. PLEASE INCLUDE BILL NO. AND · US Forest Service C/0 Cltlbank CUSTOMER NUMBER ON YOUR CHECK OR ON YOUR ONLINE BILL P.O. Box 301550 PAYMENT. Los Angeles CA 90030-1550 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: Or pay online at www.fs.fed.us/billpay FOREST SERVICE

TO: PAYER INDICATE TRI-DAM AMOUNT ENCLOSED: PO Box 1158 PINECREST CA 95364 US NET AMOUNT DUE : $ 129,339.00 Work contingent upon collection. FMMI BILL NUMBER: 3001935926 CUSTOMER NUMBER: 3335000 REFERENCE CONTRACT/PERMIT/AGREEMENT NUMBER: DESCRIPTION : BEARDSLEY DONN ELLS FERC NRMG-16-C0-11051600-014 TRIDAM

REMARKS:· PRINCIPAL: $ 129,339.00 RE: 3700007153 INTEREST: $ 0.00 NOTE: PLEASE SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE, INQUIRIES, AND CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COST: $ 0.00 ADDRESS PENALTY: $ 0.00 TO: ASC ·BUDGET & FIN AMOUNT DUE: $ 129,339.00 101B SUN AVE NE AMOUNT CREDITED : $ 0.00 ALBUQUERQUE NM 871 09 US NET AMOUNT DUE : $ 129,339.00 LATE FEES DO NOT APPLY FOR BILLINGS IN ADVANCE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS OR SERVICES.

PROJECT TITLE: 051653 BEARDSLEY DONN ELLS FERC TRI DAM O&M Customer POC: Ron Berry 209-965-3996 x120 [email protected] Forest Service POC: Miguel Macias Phone: 209-965-3434 Email: [email protected] Forest Service Billing POC: ASC B&F RAGA 1·877 -372-7248 Option #1 Forest Service Agreement 16-CO-11 051600-014 ND

LINE LINE INFORMATION AMOUNT 000010 FS.RA.0516.CW.FS14.6014A 16XX $ 129,339.00 U.S. Forest Service OMB 0596-0217 FS-1500-18

Forest Service Agreement #L------' Cooperator Agreement #....______J

Collection Agreement Financial Plan

Explanation of trips: Vehicle From Where T o Where For Whom \lileage PerDiem Cost or # of Trips a nd Airfare Lodging U.S. Forest Service OMB 0596-0217 FS-1500-18

CONTRACTUAL

Describe Contracts that will most likelv result from this project: Water Tender $9,869.01 $9,869.01 Vault Pumping $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Water Testing I Filter Supplies $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $0.00 Subtotal, Contractual: $16,669.01 $0.00 $16,669.01 OTHER

Desc ribe Other Costs of the Project: ·: Camp Host Reimbursement-Black Oak, Beardley (fuel and round trip $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Uniforms $1,200.00 $1,200.00

$0.00 Subtotal, Other : $2,700.00 $0.00 $2,700.00 TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $164,378.54 $0.00 $164,378.54 Insert OVERHEAD ASSESSMENT Rate (if applicable, see FSH 1909.13) Here: 0.0% $0.00 Total Party Costs $1 64,378.54 $0.00 $164,378.54

;- ' ' ' ' '' 1 ' ' I • . ' ' -~ '' ' Ill I· I 1 1· •I (. I J I •' \(JI\/·1 I ' 'I' 1 r! I'•! r l•lrlfll Pl1r 11 ••• ! •, , I ' r I ( I ( I ' I ' ' 'j 1 /' ,. •"' ' • 'I 1 r I 1

TOTAL CHARGES $0.00 Insert OVERHEAD ASSESSMENT Rate (if applicable, see FSH 1909.13) Here: $0.00 Total Pass-Through Costs $0.00 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS I $1 64,378.54

Burden Statement

According to lhe Paperwor1< Reduction Act of 1995. an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person Is not required to respond to a collection of infonnation unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this infonnation collection is 0596.{)217. The time required to complete this infonnation collection is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including lhe time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing lhe collection of information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination In all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability. and where applicable, sex. marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation. genetic information, political beliefs. reprisal, or because all or part of an Individual's income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) shoud contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TOO).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights. 1400 Independence Avenue. SW, Washington, DC 20250·9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TOO users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TOO) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. WO INTERIM DIRECTIVE 2709.11-2021-1 id_2709.11-2021-1 EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01 /2021 Page 7 of 10 DURATION: This interim directive expires on 12/31/2021 .

FSH 2709.11 - SPECIAL USES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 30- FEE DETERMINATION

36 - FEE SYSTEMS AND SCHEDULES

36.41 - Determination of Fee

36.41 -Exhibit 01

Cumulative Implicit Price Deflator-Gross Domestic Product (IPD- GDP)

1.015 (2021) 1.012 (2016) 1.024 (2011) 1.018(2020) 1.010 (2015) 1.006 (2010) 1.029 (20 19) 1.019 (2014) 1.016 (2009) 1.025 (2018) 1.014 (2013) 1.019 (2008) 1.016 (2017) 1.017 (2012) 1.031 (2007)

Note: The table reflects the IPD-GDP adjustment factors used to determine cost recovery, recreation residence, and other land use fees, excluding linear rights-of-way. The year of the fee calculation (in parenthesis) reflects the year the fee was collected to determine fees for the next calendar year. The table updates the 2020 IPD-GDP adjustment factor from 1.01 8 iri 2020 to 1.0 15, which was used to calculate 2021 cost recovery fees.

2015- $129,462.39

2016-$131,015.94

2017- $133,1 12.00

2018- $136,440.00

2019- $140,396.76

2020- $142,923.90

2021- $145,067.76 · 36.41 -Determination of Fee

36.41 -Exhibit 01 Cumulative Implicit Price Deflator-Gross Domestic Product IIPD- GDP)

' 1.0~~ (2015~ "::A 1.006 (2010) A\, 1.032 (2005). 'lOY.;:. \ 'Z- 4(, ' \ \''\ I '2.-\, '2-.0 IOLo·.-n'Q' '-1?

l.Ql.~ (2014) ct;:2:ii(2o99.);5 1.022 (2004) c1m)_,_.... \i?i() ' sc, (~t \ '0 <-\ (O;j:q -·--~· -·•-"'". 1.014 (2013) ; l 1.019 (2008) 1.015 (2003) I 2.-0 ll:\0,'5 Ill{> 0 Lt lo.Olo

-- 1.017 (2012) ' 1.031 (2007) 1.011 (2002) \ 'L'-\ os ?) ''(, 2- I I \._..\ .~ 7 '2-, O.'a

1.024 (2011) 1.,039 (2006) 1.024 (2001) 12.1 C\130.\Ci? 116 '1.3~.03 Note: The table reflects the IPD-GDP adJustment factors used to determme cost recovery and other land . use fees, excluding linear rights-of-way. The year of the fee calculation (in parenthesis) reflects the year the fee was collected to determine fees for the next calendar year. The table updates the 2015 IPD·GDP adjustmentfactor from 1.019 to 1.010, which was used to calculate 2016 cost recovery fees. TULLOCH ANNUAL HEADWATER

BENEFITS ASSESSMENT BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Jarom Zimmerman

SUBJECT: Annual Headwater Benefits

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the annual headwater benefits.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

The Federal Power Act and the Tulloch FERC license require that projects reimburse entities for benefits from headwater improvements. New Melones Reservoir benefits the Tulloch Project with additional energy gains, by smoothing out the Spring inflows and extending them throughout the entire year, minimizing spills past the Tulloch generating units and prolonging the power production period. The energy gains are calculated by FERC using the Commission's Headwater Benefits Energy Gain (HWBEG) model. This model calculates the energy gains by assembling streamflows that would have been theoretically available for energy production under varying conditions of operating the New Melones Reservoir.

FISCAL IMPACT: $90,618

ATTACHMENTS: FERC Invoice

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) l'i'U- D1\ii PfW JU. .:T

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 21 f!PR 21 PI·J f: c• Wasbington,D.C.20426

OFFICE OF ENERGYPROJECfS

Annual Headwater Benefits Assessment Stanislaus River Basin Docket No. HB43-21A-44 Oakdale & South San Joaquin Irrigation District

April 9, 2021

VIA Certified Mail and Return Receipt

Mr. Jarom Zimmerman General Manager Tri-Dam Prqject P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364

Subject: 2021 Annual Headwater Benefits Assessment -Stanislaus River Basin, Docket No. HB43-21A-44

Dear Mr. Zimme=:

By order issued October 1, 1993, Docket No. HB43-93-2-000,l the Commission I ! established rumual fees for benefits derived from headwater projects in the Stanislaus River Basin. The New Melones Federal Reservoir benefits your project. The table below represents the headwater benefits assessment for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020:

1 South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and Oakdale Irrigation District, 65 PERC ~ 62,003 (1993). Docket No. HB43-21A-44

Downstream Headwater Benefits Project Name Assessment

Tulloch 2067A $87,932.00

Admin. Charges to FERC $2,686.00

The attached bill and payment thereof are interim, pending final determination of the amount owed. Please review the attached instructions to remit payment, by check or money order, to:

By Mail By Courier

Federal Energy Regulatory ATTN: Government Lockbox Commission US Bank P.O. Box 979010 1005 Convention Plaza St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 SL-MOC!GL St. Louis, MO 63101

By ACB Credit By Wire

Federal Reserve Baul' of Richmond Federal Reserve Bank ofNYC ABA #051036706 ABA# 021030004 FERC's Account #540032 BENEFICIARY: FERC 89000004 Bill Number Bill Number

Payment is due by the date indicated. Payment must reach the Lockbox on or before the due date to prevent the assessment of penalty and administrative charges. FERC staffwill not receive cmrespondence sent to the Lockbox. Ma}(e your check or money order payable to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Please write the Bill Number(s) on your check or money order. Return the surmnary sheet with your check or money order. Include Bill Number(s) on instructions for ACH transfer. For Docket No. HB43-21A-44 - 3 - general information about headwater benefits, visit the Commission's Internet site at: http://www.ferc.gov/ and follow the links to the hydropower page.

Sincerely,

Kelly Houff Chief, Engineering Resources Branch Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance

Enclosure cc: VIA USPS First-Class Mail

Accounting Services Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Regional Office MP- 3600 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 DISBURSEMENT OF HEADWATER BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

River Basin: Stanislaus

D ocl{et Nos.: HB43-21A-44 (Oakdale· & South San Joaquin Irrigation District)

Disbursement: Accounting Services Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Regional Office MP- 3600 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1898

The following table represents the apportionment of the total headwater benefits assessment for the New Melones Federal Reservoir providing energy gains for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020:

DISBURSEMENT TO THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:

UPSTREAM RESERVOIR APPORTIONMENT NAME

ADNUN.CHARGESTOFERC

TOTAL $90,618.00 GENERAL PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Make your check or money order payable to FERC. Please write BILL NUMBER(S) on your check or money order. Return the summary sheet with your check or money order. Include BILL NUMBER(S) on instructions for ACH transfer.

* We must receive your payment at the Lock Box by the due date to avoid penalty and administrative charges, PERC staff will NOT receive correspondence sent to the lock box.*

ACHCredit: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Wire: Federal Reserve Bank of NYC ABA Number 051036706 ABA Number021030004 PERC's Account Number 540032 BENEFICIARY: FERC 89000004 Bill Number Bill Number

Courier: US Bank Mail: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Attn; GovernmentLockbox P.O. Box 979010 1005 Convention Plaza St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 SL-MOClGL St. Louis, MO 6310 l

REQUIREMENTS The basis for the submission of this statement of annual charges is Section10(e}(annual charges) Ol' 1O(f) (headwater benefits assessments) ofPart I of the Federal Power Act for licensees and Section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 for exemptees. Payment is due 45 days from the statement issue date. Penalty and administrative charges accrue on an unpaid balance after the due date, and possibly assessed monthly. We will place payments made "under protest'' in a suspense account until we make a determination on the appeal (and subsequent rehearing, if it is one filed). Making a payment "under protest" alone is not sufficient to appeal the bill.

This statement of annual charges is subject to subsequent correction in case of error, even though you already made the payment. In such event, if the correction shows a decrease in the total charges, you will get a credit on the statementforthe followingyear. If the correction shows an increase, additional remittance will be required, upon notification.

APPEALS If you believe this statement is incorrect, you must file an appeal with the Chief Financial Officer, no later than 45 days after rendition of the statement. Written appeals may be sent to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Chief Financial Officer, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20426. You may call Ms. Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276 or Ms. Lea Somarriba at(202) 502-6372, with any questions. You must still malre timely payment of the charges assessed to avoid penalty and administrative charges.

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING For the Commission to consider an argument of law or policy, you mnst file a Request for Rehearing, no later than 30 days from the Chief Financial Officer's decision on the appeal (18 CFR, 385.713 ). The request for rehearing is not a stay of the Commission's statement, and if you have not yet paid or, of the disposition result of your appeal, now owe additional sums, you must still pay the charges to avoid any penalty and administrative charges. Send requests for rehearing to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary Kimberly Bose, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20426.

FERC's FederaliD: 52-1383541 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D.C. 20426

Mr. Jarom Zimmerman General Manager Tl'i-Dam Project P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364

BILL NUMBER: HB2112 BILLED AMOUNT: $90,618.00 ·INT. RATE: 05.00% BILL DATE: 04/09/2021 DUEDATE: 05/24/2021 DOE CID REFERENCE: HB2112 RECEIPTS: $0,00 TOTAL DUE: $90,618.00

Dear Oakdale & South San Joaquin Irrigation District:

The attached letter describes the breakdown of armual charges for Headwater Benefits. We must receive your payment at our LOCKBOX on or before the due date to avoid the assessment of penalty and administrative charges. If you have any questions regarding payment, please contact Ms. Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276. INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD ANALYSIS

HDR ENGINEERING BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Jarom Zimmerman

SUBJECT: Inflow Design Flood

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve HDR Engineering to conduct an Inflow Design Flood analysis.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

As a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirement, our Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) was updated in 2017. The PMF is the theoretical, greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible for a given size storm area at a particular geographic location at a certain time of year. This analysis results in overtopping by approximately 5.6 feet and Beardsley Dam overtopping by approximately 4.3 feet, which is unacceptable by the FERC. This potential overtopping needs to be addressed by either physical modifications to the dam and/or spillway, or modifying the PMF with a site-specific PMF, which can possibly reduce the storm event parameters and resulting flood levels, but there is also a chance that it can increase the flood parameters, resulting in a more severe storm event and greater depth of overtopping. Another option is the Inflow Design Flood (IDF), which is the flood flow above which the incremental increase in water elevation due to failure of a dam is no longer considered to present an unacceptable threat to downstream life or property. In other words, the IDF is a flood level that is most likely safely passed through the spillway, and any increased flood level caused by a dam failure would not incur any additional loss of life or property over what a large flood through the spillway would incur.

The PMF is an extremely conservative estimate, which is very unlikely to ever occur. By performing the IDF, we are hoping to avoid costly modifications to the dam and/or spillway for an event that will most likely never occur, and instead, analyze whether a dam failure would threaten additional life and property that would not already be inundated during a large spillway release.

We have sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to a variety of engineering firms and have received two proposals, one from HDR Engineering for $38,571, and the other from West Consultants for $97,577.

FISCAL IMPACT: $38,571

ATTACHMENTS: HDR Proposal (entire proposal) WEST Consultants Proposal (fee schedule only to limit board packet size) Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) April 30, 2021

Brian Jaruszewski Finance and Administrative Manager Tri-Dam Project

Transmittal Letter

Subject: Request for Proposal -Inflow Design Flood

Mr. Brian Jaruszewski,

HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is pleased to submit this proposal in response to the Tri-Dam Project's Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform an Inflow Design Flood (IDF) incremental hazard evaluation for Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam. This submittal includes the proposed scope of work, project team and experience, schedule, and compensation details.

HDR will support the Tri-Dam Project in selection of the IDF on two separate , Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam identified as FERC Project No P-2005. The scope of work was prepared based on HDR's familiarity with the policies and procedures involved in IDF and consequence analysis for other FERC facilities across the country as well as having performed the 2017 PMF study for Tri-Dam Project.

HDR is proposing Paul Risher, Kevin Snyder, Adam Jones, Justin Niedzialek, Aimee Kindel and Kaylee Peterson, to serve as the project team to provide the Tri-Dam Project with both local expertise and national leadership in the dam safety industry. The proposed project team has worked together and conducted H&H analyses that include: probable maximum flood (PMF) studies, IDF hazard analysis, dam break inundation modeling, dam hazard classification, and flood damage and life loss studies. Paul Risher is the proposed Project Manager and will serve as the point of contact for this project.

If there are questions or comments regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Risher at 916-679-8894 or [email protected] or Jarvis Caldwell at 916-679-8875 or [email protected]. HDR appreciates the opportunity to provide support to the Tri-Dam Project on conducting the IDF for Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam.

Best Regards, HDR

Paul Risher, PE Jarvis Caldwell Project Manager Associate Vice President Tri-Dam Project !Inflow Design Flood

Relevant Expertise and Experience HDR has a long history in supporting clients with hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) services for dams and has developed efficient procedures and effective methods to address the technical issues facing a constantly changing industry. HDR's procedures follow FERC's guidelines, and use a combination of experience and understanding of where the industry is going to empower staff to reach solutions. HDR has conducted incremental hazard evaluations and related analyses throughout the United States. The team is thoroughly familiar with the requirements of FERC's Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects as wel l as aspects of FERC's dam safety, risk informed decision making, and the Part 12D programs. HDR's expertise in IDF consequence analysis and insight into FERC processes distinguishes HDR from other firms. HDR will provide the high quality, cost effective consulting services that Tri-Dam Project is seeking.

FERC has continued to increase expectations for dam safety, becoming more demanding of dam owners and placing a higher value on consequence assessments. HDR has successfully satisfied both FERC and its clients with the people, skills, relationships, and work products that efficiently address the owners' needs and FERC's concerns. HDR routinely works with dam safety staff in FERC's five regional offices and the Washington, D.C. headquarters and has an excellent working relationship with staff in FERC's San Francisco regional office and senior staff in Washington, D.C.

Selecting HDR provides the Tri-Dam Project with the following benefits for this project:

• Extensive experience with IDF and Consequence Assessments- HDR brings a strong technical team that have worked closely with each other on a broad range of IDF and hydraulic modeling projects. The incremental hazard evaluation requires expertise and efficiency with a hydraulic model such as HEC-RAS that HDR has demonstrated for many dam owners. The team has provided the same incremental hazard evaluation services on dams similar to the Tri-Dam system across the United States. The collaborative project team knows each other's strengths and enjoys working together, bringing value to the Tri-Dam Project in both technical competency and efficient delivery. • Experience at Beardsley and Donnells Dams - HDR developed the current PMF for Donnells and Beardsley Dams and continues to usher them through FERC's review process, recently providing updates for snowmelt and changes to the spillway gate ratings. HDR's senior engineering advisors have periodically served as FERC Part 12D Independent Consultants providing industry leading insights for dam safety. Over the last 15 years we have supported Tri­ Dam Project with many other services from Homeland Security vulnerability and security assessments, to transformer rep lacement. • Keen understanding of FERC processes and shifting requirements - The process for IDF incremental hazard evaluation is laid out in FERC's Engineering Guidelines, but application of that guidance leaves room for interpretation which can shift over time. HDR will guide Tri-Dam Project through FERC's regulatory requirements avoiding costly pitfalls and re-work where possible. HDR has successfully elevated the state of practice by gaining FERC's approval on flood damage and life loss stud ies such as the consequence assessments of and Pyramid Dam.

hdrinc.com

2 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Client References One of HDR's main principles that reflects its values and culture is to be a trusted business partner. H DR is committed to providing excellent client service, meeting client needs first, beyond what is expected as a consultant, and building strong relationships. The project team has provided similar services to several clients within the last five years. The specific applicability of the project team's previous work experience to the services requested by the Tri-Dam Project is presented below. HDR's clients are a testimony to the quality of services, and HDR encourages the Tri-Dam Project to contact the client references to discuss the project team's capabilities and expertise.

Turlock Irrigation District, La Grange Dam Failure and Hazard Analysis Tim Payne, Chief Dam Safety Engineer 209-883-8384 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF WORK HDR was selected to perform hydraulic modeling studies and analysis to determine the hazard potential classification of Turlock Irrigation District's (TID) La Grange Diversion Dam, as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Project is jointly owned by TID and the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), but the powerhouse is operated solely by TID.

HDR commissioned upstream ground and bathymetry surveys to gather information related to the impoundment. LiDAR and bathymetry surveys of the downstream areas were also commissioned to provide information associated with the dam breach analysis and routing offlows to evaluate downstream hazard. HDR also gathered and reviewed previous studies, model calibration data, and Federal Emergency Management Agency data for use in the studies and sensitivity analyses.

Hydraulic modeling of dam failure scenarios was used to perform the hazard analysis. HDR developed 1-D HEC-RAS dam failure models specific to the existing drainage area to identify flooding impacts due to flood flow conditions, up to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) conditions. The models were run for a variety of river inflow conditions, from summer high flows up to the PMF inflow, and model results were evaluated to identify potential downstream impacts.

Potential incremental Impacts from the hypothetical breach were identified at five structures owned by TID and MID that are used for the diversion dam operator's residence and general equipment and materials storage. Actions were taken to remove the hazard to the occupants of the TID operator's residence. No impacts or hazards were identified to other structures along the river and the hazard classified as "Low".

HDR prepared a detailed dam failure and hazard analysis report at the conclusion of this study, which was submitted to FERC.

Project Start Date: 2014; Project Completion Date: 2016

hdrinc.com

3 Tri~Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

California Department of Water Resources, Dam Breach Inundation Mapping and Consequence Assessments David Sarkisian, DWR Chief Dam Safety Engineer 916-653-4395 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF WORK HDR provided comprehensive H&H modeling services to California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in support of FERC and California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) regulations. Relevant services covered seventeen dams in the State Water Project and included: dam breach and appurtenant structure breach modeling, 2D HEC-RAS inundation modeling, life loss and economic damage estimates, evacuation modeling, and hydrologic hazard assessments.

The "Extremely High Risk" dams modeled and mapped under this contract (T01 and T037) were: Oroville Dam, Perris Dam, Del Valle Darn, Thermalito Afterbay Dam, Pyramid Dam, Castaic Dam, and Cedar Springs Dam. The "High Risk" dams modeled and mapped under this contract (T018) were: Grizzly Valley Dam, Frenchman Dam, Antelope Dam, Bethany Dam, Dyer Dam, Patterson Dam, Crafton Hills Dam, Thermalito Diversion Dam, and Thermallto Forebay Dam. The "Low Hazard" dam at William Warne Powerplant Complex (formally known as Quail Dam) was also modeled and mapped.

The scope of services included a site visit for each dam, collecting and reviewing the existing hydrology and documentation, determining breach parameters, HEC-RAS 2D hydraulic modeling of the floodplain, sequential breach of downstream dams, GIS mapping of depths, velocities and flood arrival times, and development of technical memoranda describing the work.

Inundation maps were developed for each facility featuring embedded tables and cross sections for each modeled scenario to aid in emergency evacuations. The maps included the locations and names of key features (named watercourses and check dams, spillways, dams, roadways, public recreational sites), critical infrastructure (police/fire stations, hospitals), limits of inundation, and map contours, raster grids, cross sections, and/or tables that presented the following modeling results at appropriate detail to assess the population at risk from flooding:

• Maximum (or peak) inundation depth. • Maximum velocity. • Arrival Time.

Subsequently, many of the floodplains became the base input to HEC-LifeSim evacuation and consequence models that were used to assess life safety consequences and estimate structure damages. Detailed consequence assessments were developed for many breach scenarios on Oroville Dam (T021) and Pyramid Dam (T026) in support of FERC Level2 Risk Assessments.

Project Start Date: Mar 2018; Project Completion Date: Mar 2020

hdrinc.com

4 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Duke Energy, Cedar Cliff Development IDF and Spillway Upgrades Brad Keaton, Chief Dam safety Engineer (704) 382-1951 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The Cedar Cliff Development is a two unit, 6 MW hydropower facility located on the East Fork Tuckasegee River. The primary spillway at the development includes a Tainter gate, and the existing auxiliary spillway system includes two fuse plug sections having separate crest and activation elevations. The Cedar Cliff, Bear Creek, and Tennessee Creek developments collectively comprise· the East Fork Hydroelectric Project. HDR was selected to re-evaluate potential flood impacts on downstream residents associated with the Inflow Design ·Flood (IDF) discharge from the Cedar Cliff Development, and utilize structural, geotechnical, and hydraulic engineering data to develop a list of potential dam and spillway remediation alternatives for passing the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

The previous IDF had been approved at 42 percent of the PMF at Cedar Cliff and FERC revised the IDF in 2014 to be the full PMF. HDR revised the existing 1-D Cedar Cliff HEC-RAS model to include the remaining East Fork Project dams. The model was sufficiently detailed and robust to evaluate the hydraulic performance of outflow discharge and downstream impacts.

The selected remediation alternative Involves lowering the existing fuse plug sill elevation by removing the two existing fuse plugs, widening the existing auxiliary spillway channel, and installing six new semi-labyrinth Fusegates, as provided by Hydroplus. 3-D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling using FLOW-3D was performed to support Hydroplus hydraulic design efforts. In addition, a 1:19 scale physical model was developed to confirm nappe overflow aeration at the Fusegates and determine the new auxiliary spillway discharge rating table.

Next, HDR used lnnovyze ICM to develop a 2-D model of the Cedar Cliff Dam, reservoir, spillway discharge channels, and portions of the East Fork Tuckasegee River. The model was used to determine potential scouring impacts at the toe of Cedar Cliff Dam, flow paths and velocities through the primary spillway channel, auxiliary spillway channel (based on alternative control section configurations, fuse plug, Fusegates, and Obermeyer gates), and the complicated junction of the two nearly 90-degree channels below the toe of Cedar Cliff Dam. In addition, the 2-D model estimated overtopping velocities along the dam crest and downstream face of the rock fill embankment if insufficient discharge capacity existed.

Project Start Date: 03/2014; Project Completion Date: 10/2018

Merced Irrigation District, McSwain Dam Potential Impacted Sites Evaluation Ed Torrico, PE, MS, PMP, Hydro Regulatory Compliance Specialist 209-354-2964 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF WORK In 2009 HDR prepared the McSwain Dam Inflow Design Flood Analysis Study (Study) to meet the request of FERC to demonstrate that a potential failure due to overtopping of the McSwain Dam, under a flood level less than Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), does not constitute an additional incremental hazard to downstream life or property. Incremental inundation areas were identified for the PMF. The PMF inflow to McSwain Dam was determined to be 264,600 cubic feet per second hdrinc.com

5 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

(cis) and the maximum spillway capacity (MSC) without overtopping the dam is approximately 250,000 cfs. Since the overtopping flow is nearly 95% of the PMF, the PMF hydrograph was used in the Study. Later, per FERC review comments, MID was requested to rerun using the MSC flow rate of 250,000 cfs to determine if there are structures located within or near the incremental inundation area for the reduced flow. The reanalysis updated the existing FLDWAV hydraulic model with the new flow rate and included the downstream Merced Falls Dam. The updated model was used to select potential impact sites and compare with- and without-breach water levels. Two residences were identified In the incremental flood area.

HDR continues to support MID with FERC requested updates to the PMF and associated analysis.

Project Start Date: 2009; Project Completion Date: March 2014

Southern California Edison, Dam Breach Analysis and Inundation Mapping John Dong, Dam Safety Engineer 626-302-0920 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF WORK HDR utilized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) hydraulic modeling software, 2- dimensional (2-D) HEC-RAS for modeling of 22 dams on 5 different river systems extending over 500 river miles. This included SCE's eight dams located in the basin. The SCE dams are located in the upper portion of the San Joaquin basin, characterized by dense forest cover, rock outcroppings, and high-gradient incised channels with minimal floodplain areas. Initially, for the isolated or sequential failure of these structures, the routing computations were proposed to be carried downstream to the impoundment, . This is the same location where the previous emergency action plan (EAP) inundation maps terminated. HDR provided SCE with the option to perform the inundation tasks in two phases. The first phase included routing to Friant Dam and the second phase included analyzing a single breach of Friant Dam under the worst case (i.e., peak stage) scenario for each upstream dam, and continuing the routing computations downstream of Friant Dam to the downstream extent of the 2-foot incremental rise, or the Delta.

HDR's analyses included an evaluation of downstream flood depths, maximum velocity, as well as the flood wave arrival time as defined by a 1-foot incremental rise. The inundated areas were delineated using the results of the routing computations and high resolution digital topographic data in GIS. HDR developed inundation maps representing the worst inundation case (i.e., peak flood stage) for each of the dams. Maps of the inundation areas were prepared using GIS and displayed inundation zones, gridded maximum depths, gridded maximum velocities, gridded flood wave times, cross section information, and other information. GIS data was georeferenced so that the data will spatially match other georeferenced data layers.

Project Start Date: Feb 2018; Project Completion Date: Ongoing

hdrinc.com

6 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Identification and Qualifications of Project Manager and Key Personnel

Experience and Qualifications HDR is looking forward to the opportunity to work with the Tri-Dam Project on the incremental hazard evaluation of the IDF for Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam. HDR has spent time reviewing the RFP and have put together a team that has a depth of experience that is tailored to the project. The HDR team possesses an in-depth understanding of FERC compliance requirements and has the proven ability to provide efficient and effective dam safety solutions.

HDR has completed very similar IDF incremental hazard evaluations for clients across the country including Turlock Irrigation District (La Grange Dam), Merced Irrigation District (McSwain Dam), and Duke Energy (Cedar Cliff Development). In addition, the team has demonstrated a depth of expertise with both 2D dam breach modeling and consequence analysis for Southern California Edison and California DWR.

HDR completed the following relevant tasks as part of the IDF projects above:

• Incremental hazard evaluation for selecting the IDF • Dam breach modeling • Inundation mapping for the EAP • Dam hazard assessment

HDR prepared the necessary documentation and maps for these facilities in a timely manner to enable our clients to meet their FERC requirements for justifying a lower IDF. In the cases where a lower IDF could not be justified, we helped the client assess the next course of action such as spillway resizing or risk informed decision making.

Project Team HDR is proposing a project team that is well suited to work with the Tri-Dam Project in the completion of the IDF for Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam. The proposed project team is summarized in . Following are brief biographies of the proposed team members. Resumes for each are included in Appendix A.

Table 1. Project Team Members

[s,tatt Nam~~~~~.~Y1£.~t ·/f'.~"'.-7'·;,:~ 'l5taff Role(s) :~~' ·:~-:",-::,_.--."::·-- ~~, ..... ~~~- ;:-.':.::~<~-' ..,-:•::- ~ · '-.?, · ~-.:__i.;.~~ .:.~-~~~.,._..,~- >.:>. ~.f:;__(l\ '.L"·:~r.\}.~ IW....t..::J'_-."T.•Y.'v..!"}. -!...-..J!...:_.~· • ~~~_t-t':.t-5~ .. t-~~·fQ~'i'ji.r':fY-.. ~;;_.,~'(·t ~~~:. ... '~:. ·~...... ~~MI' _. Paul Risher, PE Project Manager/Engineering Lead Kevin Snyder, PE Principal in Charge Adam Jones. PE Senior Technical Advisor Justin Niedzialek, PhD PE Quality Control Aimee Kindel, PE Hydrologic Engineer Kaylee Peterson , EIT Junior Hydraulic Engineer

hdrinc.com

7 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Paul Risher, Project Manager/Engineering Lead Paul Risher, PE is a senior hydraulic engineer and project manager with more than 15 years' experience modeling California's dams, levees, lakes and rivers. Paul will manage the project budget and schedule as well as provide technical leadership and oversight to the project team. He has recently led a project for DWR to model and map 5 extreme high hazard dams for DSOD compliance. Then as a follow-on he led the engineering teams to provide consequence analyses for two of the State's largest dams. Paul has extensive expertise with dam breach modeling and consequence assessment gained from development of the tools of analysis (HEC-RAS and HEC­ LifeSim) with US Army Corps of Engineers.

Kevin Snyder, Principal in Charge Kevin Snyder, PE Kevin is a senior dam safety engineer and a registered professional civil engineer with 29 years of experience primarily dedicated to dam safety and dam improvement projects. Kevin will provide technical direction as needed and serve as a liaison with FERC regulators. He has conducted or has been Involved in dam safety inspections for over 40 dams, including leading or participating in FERC Part 12 inspections and PFMA sessions at concrete, earthfill, rockfill, and arch dams. He has been responsible for the seismic evaluation of several dams and other earth structures, and he is familiar with a broad range of state-of-the-art geotechnical techniques. He was the project manager and lead for the Forensic Investigation and Root Cause Analysis (FI/RCA) for the spillway ogee cracking at Wanapum Dam. Kevin currently serves as the project manager for seismic analyses at Donnells Arch Dam and Tulloch Spillway for the Tri-Dam Project. Kevin has also served as the project manager for Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) determinations at several sites in California.

Adam Jones, Sr. Technical Advisor Adam Jones, PE has over 30 years of experience in FERC hydropower regulatory compliance and has served as the Part 12 Independent Consultant on multiple Part 12D boards including the latest Tri-Dam Project Part 12D inspection. Adam will provide technical oversight of the project and guidance. For more than 30 years, Adam has worked almost exclusively in the hydroelectric industry, concentrating on dam safety inspections, stability analyses, and project rehabilitations associated with dam safety programs. He has served as Independent Consultant for the Part 12 inspections of more than 50 projects and has participated in more than 15 Potential Failure Mode Analyses as Independent Consultant, Facilitator, or a member of a Board of Consultants.

Justin Niedzialek, Quality Control Dr. Justin Niedzialek, PE is a water resources engineer with more than 20 years in the industry. Justin will provide quality control through detailed review of the engineering products. He has performed many IDF incremental hazard evaluations and dam breach analyses for hydropower projects across the country. He has over 12 years of experience in hydrologic/hydraulic model development and application in government, private, and research settings. Current responsibilities include FERC Part 12 dam safety-related work including dam failure and hazard analyses, open channel and reservoir modeling, functional exercises, determination of spillway adequacy, determination of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), and preparation of inundation maps and emergency action plans.

hdrinc.com

8 Tri-Dam Project ! Inflow Design Flood

Aimee Kindel, Hydrologic Engineer Aimee has a long track record of H&H projects with Tri-Dam Project reaching back to the original PMF update in 2011. Aimee will provide continuity with previous and ongoing Tri-Dam Project work as well as developing hydrology for IDF analysis. She has supported flood control studies by developing, calibrating, and validating computer models simulating reservoir and flood control operations. These include reservoir, hyd raulic, and consequence models utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-ResSim, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, HEC-50, HEC-FDA, and HEC-FIA.

Kaylee Peterson, Junior Hydraulic Engineer Kaylee Peterson is a water resources engineer-in-training with experience in several dam breach studies for a variety of clients in California. She has developed an expertise with the HEC-RAS 2D model from these studies. Kaylee wi ll perform the hydraulic modeling under supervision of the engineering lead. She has also participated in consequence assessments for dam and levee failure assessments including property damage and life loss. Kaylee had six years of experience as a student engineering trainee at the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Her responsibilities included creating maps, updating Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals, levee inspections, developing 1-dimensional and 2-dimensioinal hydraulic models, as well as writing and compiling reports.

Other Team Members As needed, HDR has additional senior staff that are available to support this effort or address unexpected items as required . Project Approach

Project Understanding The Tri-Dam Project owns and operates both the Beardsley and Donnells Dams located on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River near Strawberry, CA. Dam safety for both structures is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (Project No. 2005) which classifies both structures as "high hazard" due to the potential for life loss in the event of dam failure. HDR understands the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) also has jurisdiction over the dams, but this work addresses FERC compliance only. The Tri-Dam Project is requesting an Inflow Design Flood (I DF) incremental hazard evaluation to be performed for both Beardsley and Donnells Dams.

The scope of work (SOW) described in this proposal covers the incremental hazard evaluation for selecting an IDF at Beardsley Dam and Donnells Dam. Both Donnells and Beardsley Dams are overtopped by the current PMF, which is the IDF by default for high hazard dams. FERC provides for a lower IDF to be chosen if the dam owner can show that no incremental hazard is caused by the selected flood . The method for this analysis is given in FERC Engineering Guidance for Hydropower Projects, Chapter 2, Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams (FERC, 2015). The analysis requires a comparison of the downstream flood impacts between the dam failure and non-failure conditions. Although many types of downstream consequences are possible in a flood, only property damage and potential life loss are typical for an IDF analysis. The incremental hazard evaluation is an iterative process conducted separately for each dam with a hydraulic model of the dams, , and downstream river corridor. Starting with 100-year inflow conditions, the flood depth, arrival time and velocity are compared at points of interest for the dam breach and non­ breach floods. If there is incremental damage or life loss expected, a larger flood is attempted. The

hdrinc.com

9 Tri~Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

process repeats until no unacceptable incremental downstream consequences are observed. FERC indicates a depth increase of two feet at an inhabited area from the non-breach to breach condition is a rough rule of thumb for unacceptable consequences. Smaller depths may be deemed unacceptable and require further consideration and engineering judgement. The IDF is the smallest flood that does not cause incremental damages or life loss. If the PMF causes incremental consequences, that is the IDF. When a new IDF is selected, a determination of the dam's ability to safely pass the flood may be required.

Donnells Dam is located roughly 12 miles upstream of Beardsley Dam on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River. Approximately 17 miles downstream from Beardsley Dam that branch combines with the North Fork Stanislaus River to form the Stanislaus River before entering the Reservoir. New Melones Dam is a flood control reservoir owned and operated by the US Bureau of Reclamation. It is required to hold 450,000 acre-feet of storage capacity for flood control. It does not have an updated PMF study. The current EAP mapping (2019) for both fair weather and PMF dam breach conditions terminate at New Melones Reservoir. Both dams have gated spillways that can impound a portion of the reservoir, however during flood conditions these gates will be open and a failure of the spillway gate structure would not represent the worst case scenario for incremental flood flows used in the incremental hazard evaluation.

Scope of Services This section describes HDR's approach to the IDF incremental hazard evaluations for Donnells and Beardsley Dams based on HDR's understanding of the SOW outlined in the RFP and FERC's guidelines.

HDR proposes to support the Tri-Dam Project with an IDF incremental hazard evaluation as described in the following tasks below.

Task 1 - Project Management and Documentation Review As part of this task, HDR will work closely with the Tri-Dam Project to develop a plan for accomplishing the work within the required schedule, and with the necessary review and level of detail. The schedule can be modified to meet project requirements. To facilitate the work required for this project, a kick-off meeting, coordination meetings internally and with the Tri-Dam Project, and additional meetings/conference calls will be held as needed to verify HDR is meeting the Tri-Dam Project's needs and FERC's compliance regulations. The SOW has 10 hours available for coordination and kickoff meetings.

DOCUMENTATION COLLECTION AND REVIEW The project team will work with the Tri-Dam Project to collect the relevant project documentation for the FERC Project No. P-2005 facilities, including:

• Hydrologic analysis reports for the PMF, flow and stage records, and frequency analyses • Pertinent dam information such as that contained in the STID describing the physical aspects of the dam and its operation • Construction or as-built drawings of the dams • GIS and other information of Tri-Dam Project facilities in the IDF inundation zone • Recent Part 12D inspection reports • Emergency Action Plans and inundation maps • Hydraulic model used to develop EAP maps

hdrinc.com

10 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

The focus of this subtask will be to develop familiarity with existing information, examine new information, and organize and prepare the information for use in the incremental hazard evaluations. Some missing data may also be collected from publicly available sources. As the information is reviewed and understood, the project team will be in communication with the Tri-Dam Project to provide their assessment of any information gaps.

Task 2- PMF Incremental Hazard Evaluation HDR is aware that the IDF is currently the PMF for both dams, and that Donnells Dam overtops by approximately 5.6 feet, and Beardsley Dam overtops by approximately 4.3 feet. FERC has stated that this is not acceptable, and has requested that Tri-Dam Project address overtopping at both dams. Redefining the IDF as a flood that doesn't overtop either dam may address the overtopping concern. However, if the PMF has incremental consequences, FERC dictates that it must be the IDF and no further analysis is needed. HDR suggests that the PMF be the initial focus of the IDF assessment for each dam.

Hydraulic modeling will begin with updating the HEC-RAS hydraulic model provided by Tri-Darn project with the latest spillway rating curves and PMF information. The local and tributary inflows currently in the model will be reviewed and if necessary, updated with a reasonable assumption according to FERC Guidelines Chapter 2. The consequences will be assessed at a number of points downstream at critical infrastructure and/or dwelling places. Aerial photos, topographic maps, and/or GIS structure data may be consulted to assess the potential for damage and life loss. Tri-Dam Project will be able to provide input on building occupancy types. Analysis will end at New Melones Dam.

HDR will prepare a letter to Tri-Dam Project with the findings of the PMF incremental hazard evaluation. Based on those findings, Tri-Dam Project and HDR will discuss whether or not to proceed with Task 3.

Task 3 -lncrementaiiDF Selection (as required) If needed, scaled versions of the PMF will be used for successively larger floods beyond the sunny day normal inflow scenario, unless a more appropriate inflow hydrograph is available. Each dam will be analyzed separately, however failure of Donnells Dam may still trigger a sequential failure of Beardsley Dam depending on the scenario. For each iteration of flood loading, a dam breach and non-failure scenario will be run. A maximum of 4 additional flood loadings will be run for each dam.

Breach parameters will be determined in accordance with FERC Engineering Guidelines. HDR will review the existing breach parameters used for EAP mapping and propose alternatives if advantageous to the Tri-Dam Project. In general, the breach parameters should represent a "reasonable worst case". We have found that an informal email submittal of these breach parameters to FERC for informal review eliminates many follow-up comments from FERC during their review process. If deemed necessary, an allowance of up to one hour has been included for a telephone conference with FERC and two HDR engineers.

After the IDF is selected, a sensitivity analysis will be performed of the breach parameters as discussed in FERC Engineering Guidelines up to a maximum of 3 scenarios per dam. The selected IDF may also require a safety determination that the dam will safely pass the flood if accepted by FERC. Such a determination is not included in this SOW.

hdrinc.com

11 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Upon completion of modeling of the various failure scenarios, a draft technical memo will be prepared for review by Tri-Dam Project and CDSE describing the evaluations and proposed IDF for each dam. HDR will have a meeting with Tri-Dam Project to discuss resolution of any comments. Tri­ Dam Project's comments from review of the document will be incorporated into the final report and submitted to FERC via Tri-Dam Project. Response to comments by FERC or third parties is limited to 10 hours in the SOW. However, given that the exact nature of potential FERC information requests is not known at this time this allowance may or may not prove sufficient. Two hard copies of the report will be provided.

Schedule HDR proposes to complete the tasks with deliverables outlined in this proposal based on the following schedule presented in Table 2. The schedule may be adjusted as needed with Tri-Dam Project after NTP. The schedule below gives ample time for review and coordination but can be accelerated at Tri-Dam Project's request.

Table 2. Proposed Schedule of Task Milestones and Deliverables

14 1 :•·.' "' '... .. ~·~~;~~;•.r.:·N·~. ·. ·,;;; :·.' ': Tasl<' Des·criptio'it::. 1lt.. :•~ .. ,·.:~; 1 '~ t·:':'.i~·· :. norAnticipated Completlor{Date'"'' ~~ ~ ''ts£;;., l£tt .. ._., .-,~.q !:'". !~.._t.... ~11.'-~~·~~f'..c~.. ;..ay;'!P!P'.JIY;~... ,~!! ·~,... h.-.i. "" ,·-.:r...-:- Llli:.fdb, l l!it: ..--r;:_,...... 1~r~ ,:fr.:.·~·· ~ ... "'~1': ?!t ~ ~~·~ rrask 1: Project Management and Documentation Review Receive Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) TBD Kick-off meeting and additional project coordination meetings TBD, as needed rrask 2: PMF Incremental Hazard Evaluation Beardsley Dam PMF hazard evaluation Within 6 weeks of NTP Donnells Dam PMF hazard evaluation Within 8 weeks of NTP Letter and meeting with Tri-Dam Project on Task 2 findings Within 8 weeks of NTP rrask 3: lncrementaiiDF Selection (as required) Email on breach parameters to FERC Within 2 weeks of Task 3 start Beardsley Dam IDF determination Within 6 weeks of Task 3 start Donnells Dam IDF determination Within 8 weeks of Task 3 start Draft technical memorandum of Beardsley Dam and Donnells Within 4 weeks of IDF determinations Dam IDF determinations for review by Tri-Dam Project and CDSE Participate in review meeting with the Tri-Dam Project and Within 4 weeks following the submission of the receive comments draft reports Incorporate the Tri-Dam Project and CDSE comments into Within 2 weeks from the resolution of the Tri- inal memo to FERC Dam Project's comments on the draft report

hdrinc.com

12 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Quality Assurance and Quality Control HDR has a strong culture and reputation of delivering quality work, which is supported by several client references as noted in the previous section. HDR's approach to quality management begins early in the project, and HDR believes in integrating reviewers early to make sure the project team can deliver on time and within budget. The proposed senior technical advisor, Adam Jones will provide quality assurance and technical oversight for the project. The QC lead, Justin Niedzialek, will be responsible for ensuring the quality of task deliverables for this SOW. Adam Jones, PE has over 30 years of experience in FERC hydropower regulatory compliance and has served as a Part 12 Independent Consultant for multiple projects including the latest Tri-Dam Project Part 12D inspection. Dr. Justin Niedzialek, PE has performed many IDF and dam breach analyses for hydropower projects over his more than 20 years in the industry. Adam and Justin work closely with the other proposed project team members on IDF and related projects.

It is HDR's policy to consistently provide professional services that satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements and that meet or exceed client expectations. To achieve quality in HDR's work, HDR leverages a Quality Management System (OMS) and Quality Management Plan (QMP) based on th e fundamental principles and guidelines set forth by the ISO 9001 :2015 series of international standards for quality management.

HDR's OMS provides an important framework for making sure HDR is reaching the customary levels of quality-both for HDR and its clients. HDR remains focused on continual opportunities for improvement throughout daily activities to achieve client satisfaction and meet performance expectations. The OMS includes programs, policies, and business processes, and has four key elements: • Management Responsibility- Management actively promotes quality in HDR's business activities and defines responsibilities for maintaining HDR's focus on quality. • Resource Management - Resources are trained, available, and committed to providing quality services. HDR also carefully review resource assignments to make sure workload expectations are reasonable. • Professional Service Delivery- Processes and procedures are in place that promote quality in the delivery of HDR products and services. • Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement - Continual improvement is achieved through performance measurement and identification of areas for improvement.

HDR's QMS provides sound business practices that result in quality work products and services that clients expect.

hdrinc.com

13 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Fee Schedule

Cost Summary HDR proposes the following estimate assuming payment will be "not to exceed" for the completion of the services defined in this proposal. An overall breakdown of costs by task is provided in Table 3. The proposal assumes a total of 252 labor hours for the project team.

Task 1 includes project management; meetings and coordination amongst the project team and with the Tri-Dam Project to acquire necessary review documents. Task 2 includes adapting the existing hydraulic model for the PMF incremental hazard analysis and performing the modeling. Task 3 includes further adapting the hydraulic model for the incremental IDF hazard evaluation, performing the analysis and sensitivity analyses. It also includes preparation of documentation related to the new IDF selection as well as addressing and incorporating review comments.

Table 3. Breakdown of Costs by Task

Management and Documentation Review 2 F Incremental Hazard Evaluation SUBTOTAL 3 ncremental IDF Selection (as required) TOTAL

Cost Control For the project to be considered a success, the project team will work efficiently and effectively to fulfill the project tasks and schedule within the approved budget. The project team have worked closely together on a number of projects and understand the processes required to verify the project is completed within the budget and to meet the Tri-Dam Project's needs. We have also structured the budget to allow for a cost effective solution eliminating needless analysis inthe case of a PMF with incremental consequences.

Rates Table 4 summarizes HDR staff rates by classification for 2021.

Table 4. 2021 HDR Staff Rates

$212 $204 4 $165 5 $121 6 $106 7 ior Project Controller $165 8 nistration/Project Controller $127

hdrinc.com

14 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Understanding or Clarification of Scope Items HDR notes the items below to confirm and clarify HDR's understanding of the SOW. HDR's proposal and estimated hours are based on the following understandings and expectations for FERC Project No. P-2005.

• Pertinent project information will be provided by the Tri-Dam Project to HDR electronically. • Appropriate data and information will be provided for understanding of project conditions. • The existing HEC-RAS 20 hydraulic model developed for EAP inundation mapping will be provided to HDR. We assume the model has at least 10 meter OEM terrain or finer and is sufficient for the IDF analysis with only minor modifications to the inflow. HDR will review the model and notify Tri-Dam Project if revisions to the model are necessary, which would be out of scope. • Hydraulic modeling and incremental hazard evaluations for the IDF will terminate at the New Melones Reservoir. Overtopping and sequential failure of New Melones Dam during a PMF with upstream dam breaches is not anticipated and therefore not included in the scope. • A maximum of five (5) flood scenarios will be modeled and analyzed at each dam. Scenarios will include a breach and non-breach condition. Failure of the spillway during any flood condition is not anticipated to be a "worst case scenario" and therefore not included in the incremental hazard evaluation. If requested by Tri-Dam Project or FERC a spillway breach may be included in the sensitivity analysis or replace one of the 5 flood scenarios. • As noted in FERC Engineering Guidelines, there are many potential consequences of a dam failure. However, only potential life loss and downstream structure damages will be considered in the incremental hazard evaluation. • No field inspections or in-person meetings are required. • Locations and elevations of structures in the flood zone will be determined by project records or aerial photo and digital terrain information. No surveys will be completed to confirm elevations of downstream structures as part of this SOW. Tri-Dam will be consulted on the structures selected for the comparative analysis. • The Tri-Dam Project does not require a new dam hazard assessment as described in FERC Engineering Guidelines - Chapter 1, or development of dam breach inundation maps for the associated Emergency Action Plans. • If a lower IDF is justified and accepted by FERC based on the incremental hazard analysis, FERC may require a safety determination for the dam to pass that flood. That determination is not covered by this SOW. An estimated peak reservoir stage under IDF conditions will be provided. • Efforts to address FERC or third party comments are limited as described under Task 3. Mandatory Forms and Certification Appendices B and C contain the executed Tri-Dam Project forms and certification including Exhibit A, the statement of no conflict of interest, and Exhibit B, certification.

Tri-Dam Project has provided a sample professional services agreement. In the past, HDR has successfully negotiated terms with Tri-Dam Project with no need for elevated approvals.

hdrinc.com

15 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Appendix A­ Project Team Resumes

hdrinc.com

16 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Paul Risher, PE Project Manager/Engineering Lead

Paul is a senior water resources engineer with more than 18 years of experience on dam and levee infrastructure projects, including flood risk analysis, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and consequence modeling. He leads various water resources projects for federal, state, and local agencies with a focus on flood impacts, erosion, and hydraulic modeling. During his 9 years with USACE, Paul was a member of the EDUCATION national levee screening review cadre and provided consistency review of dam and MS, Hydraulic levee safety risk analyses. He also developed HEC analysis tools and guidance for Engineering, UNESCO­ hydrology, hydraulic modeling, breach erosion, and flood fatality estimation. He tHE, Delft, the researched historic levee breach floods and built data sets for testing and Netherlands development. He presented findings to senior USACE officials and taught new BSE, Civil Engineering, methods to the community of practice. His Master's thesis was applying Jonkman's University of Michigan, Ann method of flood fatality estimation to coastal flooding in Bangladesh. Arbor

REGISTRATIONS RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Professional Engineer­ Civil, California, C71 166 HEC-LifeSim Technical Reference Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers PROFESSIONAL (USACE), CA MEMBERSHIPS Paul served as technical lead engineer to write the Technical Reference Manual Association of State Dam (TRM) for HEC-LifeSim. As a complement to the user's manual for the expert Safety Officials modeler, the TRM explains how the software works by diagramming logic flow and calcu lations. The team also summarized the research on default parameters and American Society of Civil explained sensitivities of input. Engineers (ASCE), Sacramento Oroville Dam Risk Assessment, DWR, CA As Subject Matter Expert- H&H and Consequences, Paul led the hydraulic and HDRTENURE consequence modeling teams to provide estimates of potential life loss at Oroville 3 Years Dam from failure of various structural components with HEC-RAS and HEC-LifeSim. He provided independent, expert opinion to FERC required, Level 2 Risk Assessment INDUSTRY TENURE on such matters as hazard warnings, evacuation patterns, breach outflows, and flood 18 Years depth and arrival times. The analysis was also adopted by DWR's Conditional Needs Assessment team, responsive to the CA DSOD inquiry.

Dam Safety Risk Assessment, Tennessee Valley Authority, Multiple dams in GA, AL, VA, TN Paul served as Subject Matter Expert- H&H and Consequences for the Dam Safety Risk Assessments at several TVA dams. He provided independent technical review of TVA hydrology methods and hydrologic and consequence analysis for the semi­ quantitative risk assessments. He also reviewed Quantitative Risk Assessments for proper application of consequence models for high risk structures.

Dam Safety Periodic Assessment Program, USACE, Nationwide Paul served as Facilitator and Hydraulic Engineer as he facilitated periodic risk assessments with a multidisciplinary team of engineers, geologists, and economists. Teams inspected the dam and performed a Probable Failure Mode Analysis. Paul presented findings to Senior Dam Safety Officers. He also reviewed reports for program-wide consistency. He contributed to US Dam and Levee Safety Best Practices on the topics of: dam breach modeling, consequence modeling, and embankment erosion.

State Water Project, DWR, CA Paul served as Project Manager and Senior Hydraulic Engineer to model and map five of the highest risk dams in DWR's portfolio. HEC-RAS 2D was used to model the

hdrinc.com

17 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

dam breach, critical appurtenant structure breaches, and resulting floodplains. The output was manipulated in ESRI GIS to develop several hundred pages of maps for various scenarios. Later Paul served as a Subject Matter Expert to convert the floodplains into consequence estimates for risk assessments.

Levee Safety Program, USACE, Nationwide Paul served as National LST Review Cadre Member- Consequences and H&H for the Levee Safety Program for USAGE. He compiled and analyzed hydraulic data for the Levee Screening Tool (LST). He recommended updates to the method guidance I tools and taught consequence methodology to colleagues. Paul assisted field offices with communicating findings of risk assessments to the Levee Senior Oversight Group.

Levee Breach Parameter Study, USACE, Nationwide Paul served as Research Hydraulic Engineer and performed a comparative assessment of state-of-the-art, physically based, levee breach erosion modeling tools for incorporation into HEC-RAS. He researched historic levee breaches for use as validating case studies and calibrated HE G-RAS to the observed levee breach conditions. Paul also collaborated with experts on breach modeling in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering to identify sources of uncertainty, risk drivers, and further research.

HEC-FIA and HEC-LifeSim Development Research, USACE, Nationwide As Research Engineer, Paul conducteq a comparison study of HEC-FIA consequence analysis software and the Dutch method (Jonkman) for flood fatality modeling (2011). He cooperated with experts from the Netherlands and UK on similar methodologies. As part of the HEC-LifeSim research team, he developed new stability and submergence thresholds for vehicles and structures in floods, and compiled a detailed, historic flood fatality database to redefine fatality rate curves.

Martis Creek Dam Safety Modification Study, USACE, CA and NV Paul served as Lead Hydraulic Engineer for this project for USACE. Martis Creek Dam was a DSAC 1 with high potential for failure from overtopping requiring more investigation. Paul performed dam breach analysis for an overtopping scenario using Win DAM B. He developed a novel approach to wind and wave estimation that expanded on current guidance and wrote the hydraulic analysis appendix to the DSMR. He also interviewed downstream emergency managers on their preparedness in case of a dam failure for use in updating the consequence modeling.

hdrinc.com

18 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Kevin Snyder, PE Principal in Charge

Kevin is a Senior Dam Safety Engineer and a reg istered professional civil engineer with 25 years of experience primarily dedicated to dam safety and dam improvement projects. Kevin has conducted or has been involved in dam safety inspections for over 40 dams, including leading or participating in Part 12 inspections and PFMA sessions at concrete, earthfill, rockfill, and arch dams. He has been responsible for EDUCATION the seismic evaluation of several dams and other earth structures, and he is familiar MS, Civil Engineering, with a broad range of state-of-the-art geotechnical techniques for subsurface Virginia Tech improvement, liquefaction evaluation, slope and landslide stabilization, subsurface BS, Civil Engineering, exploration, geophysical assessment, foundation design, instrumentation and Virginia Tech monitoring, and construction testing. Kevin has evaluated the stability of numerous REGISTRATIONS dams and other structures using a variety of analytical methods ranging from simple Professional Engineer­ hand calculations to two- and three-dimensional non-linear finite element analyses. Colorado, 0032194 Kevin was the project manager and lead for the Forensic Investigation and Root Cause Analysis for the spillway ogee cracking at Wanapum Dam. Kevin is an active PROFESSIONAL member in USSD, and has authored and presented several peer-reviewed MEMBERSHIPS conference papers. He is the coauthor of a FERC report that compares the sliding America n Society of Civil stability of 10 large concrete dams for differing cracked-base and uplift assumptions. Engineers (ASCE)

United States Society on RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Dams (USSD)

SPECIALIZED TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS Tulluch, Beardsely and Donnells Dams, 2017 Potential Failure Mode Analysis, Seismic Evaluation of Dams Tri-Dam Project, CA Facilitator for multi-day Potential Failure Mode Analysis sessions that revised all of Dam Safety and Dam the potential failure modes for the arch, concrete gravity and rockfill dams and Improvements appurtenant structures. Kevin also reviewed and provided comments with regard to Sched uling and the 2017 Part Dam Safety Inspection Report and potential failure mode analysis Construction Oversight reports prepared by Tri-Dam Project Independent Consultant, Adam Jones. Civil Design and Specification Preparation FERC 2012 Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection Reports, Donnells, Tulloch and Beardsley Dams, Tri-Dam Project, CA Construction Quality Control Project Manager and assistant to Part 12 Consultant (Ed Luttrell) for the development and Testing of the FERC required Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection Reports. The overall scope of Evaluation of Water work included physical dam inspections (thin arch, gravity concrete, and rockfill Retaining Structures dams), developing Supporting Technical Information Docu ments (STID) and Potential Instrumentation and Failure Mode Analysis (PFMA) studies for each dam. Kevin was responsible for Monitoring scope and budget preparation, schedule management and oversight, inspection and report development for technical leadership associated with development of the STJD. Soil and Foundation Improvement Three Dimensional Seismic Evaluation, Donnells Dam, Tri Dam Project, CA Project manager of a team consisting of HDR staff and subconsultants to perform HDRTENURE 20 Years linear and non-linear dynamic finite element analyses of a large arch dam. Work includes developing ground motions from updated fault studies using published INDUSTRY TENURE attenuation functions and using 3 to 5 seismic input sets to evaluate stresses and 31 Years deflections in the arch, foundation contact, and rock thrust blocks. Mr. Snyder was also responsi ble for developing and delivering presentations to Tri-Dam Project's board.

hdrinc.com

19 Tri-Darn Project I Inflow Design Flood

Donnells, Beardsley, and Tulloch Spillway Stability Evaluations, Tri-Dam Project, CA Project Manager responsible for oversight of analysis, budget and schedule associated with PMF and seismic stability analysis of Tri-Dam Project spillways. Scope includes hydraulic modeling to determine PMF and seismic study to develop design earthquake ground motion. As part of the study, finite element analysis is conducted for spillway to assess the potential for damage during earthquake (cross­ valley seismic) and post-seismic stability evaluation. Kevin was responsible for oversight of analysis approach and methodology and scope, budget and schedule management. Kevin was also responsible for developing and delivering presentations to Tri-Dam Project's board.

FERC 2015 Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection and Potential Failure Mode Analysis, La Grange Dam, Turlock Irrigation District, CA Kevin was the Independent Consultant for the Initial 5-year Part 12 inspection of TID's LaGrange Dam hydroelectric facility under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The project consists of a 131-foot-hlgh gravity arch dam, constructed in 1883 and located downstream of Don Pedro Dam on the . Kevin participated in field inspection of the dam, conveyance structures, spillway, penstock, and powerhouse. Kevin also participated in the first potential failure mode analysis of the dam and prepared the first PFMA report. Kevin was also responsible for overseeing the preparation of the STID and for review of all analyses related to the project. Kevin provided the recommendations with regard to enhancements to surveillance and monitoring for the arch dam and additional analyses to verify stability under all appropriate load cases. Kevin recommended additional analyses be performed to address sediment loading upstream of the structure, sliding stability along the dam-foundation contact, and to evaluate stresses in the dam under seismic and flood loading conditions. Kevin also recommended that the stability analyses be performed with a focus on potential stress states within the left abutment, and the potential for movement of the left abutment.

FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection and Potential Failure Modes Analysis (PFMA) Review at Skookumchuck Dam, TransAita, WA Independent Consultant in support of a FERC Part 12 Dam Safety Inspection and PFMA review at Skookumchuck Dam. Work included on-site inspection, document review; and participation as a core team member in the PFMA review session for the development. HDR provided analyses, evaluations and assessments of project facilities, documents, plans, and programs to ascertain compliance with FERC regulations; and prepared a CSIR report and associated documentation for TransAita's submittal to FERC.

Skookumchuck Sinkhole Investigation, TransAita, WA Lead Dam Safety and Geotechnical Engineer to oversee field reconnaissance, investigation, and analysis related to depressions identified along the downstream slope of an existing earthfill dam. Work included revisiting the PFMA, drilling and installing five shallow weilpoints to evaluate local groundwater conditions, and excavation of three test trenches immediately through the sinkholes to examine subsurface conditions associated with these features.

hdrlnc.com

20 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Adam Jones, PE Senior Technical Advisor

Adam has more than 40 years of experience in the design and construction management of hydroelectric and heavy industrial projects. For more than 30 years, Adam has worked almost exclusively in the hydroelectric industry, concentrating on dam safety inspections, stability analyses, and project rehabilitations associated with dam safety programs. He has served as Independent Consultant for the Part 12 EDUCATION inspections of 50 projects, and has participated in more than 20 Potential Failure MS, Civil Engineering, Mode Analyses as Independent Consultant, Facilitator, or a member of a Board of University of New Consultants. Adam has developed over 15 Dam Safety Surveillance Monitoring Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire Plans, and has authored a number of annual reports. Adam has assisted in the preparation and evaluation of several Owner's Dam Safety Plans, and has assisted BS, Civil Engineering, in the development of training programs for owners and operators. Adam has served University of Maine, as lead structural and geotechnica l engineer for a number of project rehabilitations Orono, Maine and upgrades, and also as project manager for multi-disciplinary project teams. Illinois Institute of Structural engineering projects include stability analysis and design of new and Technology, rehabilitated conventional and roller compacted gravity dams, spillways, intakes, Chicago, Illinois retaining walls, buttress dams, timber crib dams, powerhouses, radial, slide, REGISTRATIONS wheeled, roll and bascule gates, trashracks, penstocks, conventional and inflatable Professional Engineer, IL, flashboard systems, fish passage measures, and associated structures. This 062-041276 includes research of old design and construction materials and practices, field Professional Engineer - evaluation of structural condition, su pervision of laboratory testing of materials Civil, MA, 45760 including aggregate-concrete reactions, structural steel and concrete design, design and specification of concrete repairs, preparation of drawings and specifications, and Professional Engineer, CT, construction· monitoring and management. PEN.00271 04 Professional Engineer, ME, RELEVANT EXPERIENCE No. 6457 Professional Engineer, AL, Beardsley, Donnells, and Tulloch Dams, Tri-Dam Project- Oakdale and South 22302 San Joaquin Irrigation District Partnership, CA PROFESSIONAL Performed the 2017 Part 12D safety inspections for Beardsley Dam, a 278 foot high MEMBERSHIPS embankment dam, Donnells Dam, a 317-foot-high double curvature arch dam, and American Society of Civil , a 200-foot-high concrete gravity dam. Significant revisions to the Engineers (ASCE), Member Potential Failure Mode Analyses were conducted, as well as focused spillway U.S. Congress on Large assessments for the three gated spillways, which included concrete and rock lined Dams, Member chutes. Associated work included review and evaluation of the seismic analysis of Association of State Dam the Donnells arch dam and thrust block, and the stability of the spillway and spillway Safety Officia ls (ASDSO), piers at Donnells and Tulloch dams. Member Owner's Dam Safety Program, External Audit, Duke Energy HDRTENURE Auditor for the Duke Energy 2019 ODSP audit. The audit consisted of a review of 32 Years ODSP documents selected by HDR and provided by Duke Energy, in-person INDUSTRY TENURE interviews, visits to select Duke Energy project locations, and preparation of a report 41 Years documenting the audit findings.

Rumford Hydroelectric Project, Brookfield Renewable, ME Performed the Part 12D inspection of the Upper Development consisting of a 464- foot-long , 37-foot-high concrete dam, power , intake structure, tunnels, and a powerhouse; and an internal inspection of the lower development consisting of a concrete capped timber crib, canal, two penstocks, surge tanks, and a powerhouse.

hdrinc.com

21 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Great Sacandaga Lake Project, Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, NY Performed the Part 12D inspection of the Great Sacandaga Lake Project which consists of the Conklingville Dam and reservoir. The project includes the 95 foot-high earth fill embankment dam, a concrete canal, a concrete outlet structure consisting of two siphon spillways and three outlet valves (Dow Valves), spillway and reservoir.

Iron Gate, Copco, and J.C. Boyle Dams, PacifiCorp, CA & OR Independent Consultant responsible for performance of the 2019 Part 12D safety inspections for Iron Gate, a 189 foot high zoned embankment dam with a side channel chute spillway, Copco, a 250-foot-high gravity arch dam, and J.C. Boyle, a 68-foot-high embankment dam with a 3 mile long conveyance including a trestle supported flow line, a 2 mile long 20-foot-high concrete flume, a rock tunnel, two penstocks and a surge tank. Significant updates to the Potential Failure Mode Analyses were conducted.

Part 12 Inspection and Potential Failure Mode Analysis, Upper and Lower Baker Dams, Washington, Puget Sound Energy, WA Co-Independent consultant for the Part 12 inspections of a 285-foot-high, 550-foot­ long thick arch dam and a 312-foot-high, 1,235-foot-long concrete gravity dam with two long saddle embankments. Participated in week-long reassessments of the Potential Failure Mode Analysis for both projects. Each project had unique foundation conditions that were subject to in-depth review, and also included an assessment of an embankment subject to overtopping during the Probable Maximum Flood using a Risk Informed Decision Making approach.

Deep Creek Dam Filter Blanket, Brookfield Renewable, MD Lead Engineer responsible for the design and construction monitoring of a 3 zone filter blanket and toe trench to mitigate seepage that was observed at the toe of the dam.

Thurlow Dam Crest Gate Installation, Alabama Power Company, AL Project Engineer and team responsible for the civil, mechanical, and electrical design of a 5.75-foot-high, 1,1 00-foot-long inflatable crest gate system installed on the crest of a curved gravity arch dam, piping, and a control building and system.

Oroville Dam, California Department of Water Resources, CA Assisted with the realtime analysis of the erodibility of exposed rock within the spillway chute as the incident unfolded, followed by an assessment of the spillway underdrain system, with a focus on inspection plans and monitoring.

Wanapum Dam Forensic Investigation and Risk Assessment, Grant County Public Utility District, WA Project engineer responsible for the investigation of the root cause and contributing factors related to cracking along a lift joint In the 832-foot-long, 150-foot-high gated spillway at Wanapum Dam. The spillway houses 12 68-foot-high, 50-fool-wide radial gates, the largest in the world at the time the dam was constructed. The cracking necessitated a draw down of the reservoir and significant remediation efforts tor this large dam on the Columbia River. The work included reviewing historical data and literature, developing field testing programs, conducting finite element analyses to evaluate stresses and deflections In the existing structure, presentations at Board of Consultant's meetings, and a Risk Informed Decision Making (RIDM) assessment of risk for an interim construction condition wlth a partial pool raise.

hdrlnc.com

22 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Justin Niedzialek, Pho. PE Quality Control

I

Justin joined HDR in 2008 to provide civil and hydraulic engineering analysis. He has over 12 years of experience in hydrologic/hydraulic model development and application in government, private, and research settings. Current responsibilities include Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Part 12 dam safety-related work including dam fai lure and hazard analyses, open channel and reservoir EDUCATION modeling, functional exercises, determination of spillway adequacy, determination of PhD, Environmental Engineering, University of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), and preparation of inundation maps and emergency Connecticut action plans. Other duties include the evaluation and analysis of hydroelectric feasibility studies for new development, rehabilitation, and due diligence. Prior to ME, Environmental Engineering, University of joining HDR, Justin served as a hydrologic modeler for the South Florida Water Connecticut Management District to support the design, operation, and permitting of some of the world's largest reservoirs, engineered wetlands, and other regional scale modeling BCE, Civil Engineering, Princeton University projects. At the District, he was also responsible for leading water supply allocations during drought restrictions and providing near real-time operational decision support. REGISTRATIONS Justin has also provided contractual support for hydrolog ic model development with Professional Engineer - Civil the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Engineer Research Development Center and Environmental, NY, (USACE-ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 086408

Professional Engineer - Civil RELEVANT EXPERIENCE and Environmental, FL. 68466 Central Rivers Power US, LLC, Red Bridge IDF Refinement, MA HDR TENURE Perform refined IDF modeling for the Red Bridge Project. Central Rivers needs to 12 Years accurately determine the IDF level for this facility, and accurately determine the discharge capacity of the site, in its present configuration, and determine if existing INDUSTRY TENURE water release structures can be improved/modified to increase discharge flows, i.e. 21 Years spillways, culverts, bridges etc.

Cornell University, Beebe Dam Repair Analysis/Design, NY Provide an analysis for two options to safely pass the IDF at the non-spillway section at the south end of Beebe Dam. • Inspect the existing rock at the base of the dam, especially on the north, low section, and perform a feasibility study for any work that may be needed. Analyze the intake area and provide options to reduce head losses with a cost benefit analysis.

Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP, Hewittville Unionville IDF Higley Part 12, NY Develop an JDF determination and hazard classification for Hewittville and Unionville in the context of leveraging the broader Raquette River IDF model and study that has been previously approved by FERC. Perform an overtopping analysis for the Higley Development.

Chugach Electric, Task Order 73 Cooper Lake Mapping, AK HDR completed an inflow design flood (IDF) determination dam-break analysis and Emergency Action Plan (EAP) geographic information system (GIS) mapping for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project Inundation Mapping Study.

hdrinc.com

23 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Enel Green Power North America Inc., Lowell Project Dam Failure Analysis, MA HDR provided professional services for inflow design flood (IDF) determination dam break analysis hazard classification and Emergency Action Plan (EAP) geographic information system (GIS) mapping for the project.

Upper Peninsula Power Company, Victoria Dam Spillway Adequacy Evaluation, Ml Justin served as lead engineer in support of the Upper Peninsula Power Company's desire to evaluate alternatives for re-establishing the acceptable spillway adequacy at Victoria Dam. Duties included evaluation of a dam-failure and hazard analysis to provide the basis for significantly reducing the Inflow Design Flood (IDF) and required spillway capacity and provided recommended modifications to the spillway and flood operating and emergency response procedures to accommodate the re-established IDF. Through this effort, HDR helped save the client potentially millions of dollars in project modification costs.

Enel Green Power North America Inc., Dexter Project Inflow Design Flood Analysis, NY HDR completed an Inflow Design Flood (IDF) dam breach and hazard analysis for the project in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Engineering Guidelines.

Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP, Hudson River Projects Dam Failure Analyses and Inundation Mapping, NY HDR assisted with facility-specific dam failure analyses at the Spier Falls Sherman Island and Feeder dams including determining the IDF and providing inundation mapping under normal ("sunny day") and IDF conditions.

DWR, 2018 Inundation Mapping for High Hazard Dams, CA HDR is providing engineering services for purposes of evaluating the Hydrology and Hydraulics of Grizzly Valley Dam, Frenchman Dam, Antelope Dam, Bethany Dam, Dyer Dam, Patterson Dam, Crafton Hills Dam, Thermalito Diversion Dam and their appurtenant structures. We will also develop hydraulic models to prepare inundation maps and comprehensive reports for the aforementioned locations.

hdrinc.com

24 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

Aimee Kindel, rE Hydrologic Engineer

Aimee is a civil engineer with 10 years of experience in water resources planning and water resources engineering. She has supported flood control studies by developing, calibrating, and validating computer models simulating reservoir and flood control operations. These include reservoir, hydraulic, and consequence models utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-ResSim, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, HEC-5Q, HEC-FDA, and HEC-FIA. Her previous experience includes EDUCATION an assignment at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering MS, Civil Engineering, Center (HEC) with software testing and development and a position with the University of California, Davis U.S.A.C.E Sacramento Planning Division as a civil engineer conducting NEPA BS, Civil Engineering, analyses. University of California, Davis RELEVANT EXPERIENCE REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer, CA, New Exchequer and McSwain Probable Maximum Flood, Merced Irrigation 85580 District In response to FERC comments on the New Exchequer and McSwain Probable SPECIALIZED TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS Maximum Flood, Aimee completed sensitivity analyses on the Probable Maximum Water Resources Data Precipitation and Probable Maximum Flood for the Merced River development, Management with HEC­ reviewed and updated spillway rating curves, and reviewed changes to the Inflow DSSVue Design Flood (IDF) at McSwain Dam, including the effects of antecedent storms. Reservoir systems analysis Aimee completed a precipitation-frequency based routing using HEC-1 and NOAA with HEC-ResSim Atlas 14 to develop frequency-based inflow hydrographs for both dams, and routed the frequency-based events through HEC-ResSim. Unsteady Flow Using HEC­ RAS Oroville Dam Level 2 Risk Analysis, DWR Flood Frequency Analysis Aimee was a member of the Facilitation Team for a FERC Level 2 Risk Analysis of Wetlands Development and Oroville Dam, including its main embankment, saddle dam embankments, Hyatt Restoration Powerplant, low level outlet works, Flood Control Outlet headworks and chute, and Emergency spillway. Workshops included discussions with DWR personnel and Planning Core Curriculum: Plan Formulation other pertinent groups with an independent team of subject matter experts (SMEs) estimating the risks. Responsible for sharing key studies and reports with subject Planning Core Curriculum: matter experts and DWR personnel before and during workshop, coordinating pre­ Planning Principles and workshop site visit, recording the development of probable failure modes, Procedures recording expert elicitation of risk and life loss estimates, and drafting a technical 2D Hydraulic Modeling using report summarizing the failure modes and findings of the Risk Analysis. HEC-RAS 5.0. 2D Hydraulic Modeling HDR University, Upper Feather River PMF Study, DWR Denver CO Aimee facilitated meetings between DWR's O&M Dam Safety Services and Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), presented PMF findings to a Director's Safety HDRTENURE Review Board and DSOD, and led an HDR team to update the Upper Feather 7 Years River HEC-1 rainfall-runoff model pursuant to comments from DSOD and the Board. Aimee and her team updated the calibration to better account for snow and INDUSTRY TENURE ongoing losses throughout the simulation, and revised the PMF. 10 Years Lower Drum PMF Study, Pacific Gas & Electric Using HMR 58/59, Aimee computed temperature, wind, and other hydrometeorological parameters to develop an estimate of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) for local and general storms at 4 hydropower dams. Aimee routed the PMP using HEC-1 and HEC-HMS rainfall-runoff models, using regional hdrinc.com

25 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood

unit hydrograph parameters, As appropriate, Aimee reviewed assumptions of existing PMF studies, reviewed and updated the hydraulic calculations for spillway rating curves using HEC-RAS, updated bathymetric information, calculated the effects of camber at dam crests, and calculated effects of wind-wave run up. Using HEC-1 and HEC-HMS, Aimee determined the peak water surface elevation of the probable maximum flood (PMF). Aimee documented the findings In reports, presented findings to the client, coordinated team members, and, as a project manager, managed the schedule and budget.

Shasta/Feather/Mokelumne PMF Study, Pacific Gas & Electric Aimee completed PMF analyses for over 20 Pacific Gas and Electric system dams in California. As appropriate, Aimee reviewed assumptions of existing PMF studies, reviewed and updated the hydraulic calculations for spillway rating curves using HEC-RAS, updated bathymetric information, calculated the effects of camber at dam crests, and calculated effects of wind-wave runup. Using HEC-1, Aimee recalibrated unit hydrograph, soil loss, and snowmelt loss parameters and updated the PMF to account for revise estimates of runoff expected from the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) for local and general storms.

Staff Embed, DWR Dam Safety Services As a consultant embedded with DWR's O&M Dam Safety Services, Aimee supported Pyramid and Castaic frequency analyses and operational risk reduction measures by coordinating and facilitating technical team meetings; coordinating with other consultants, field division staff, Dam Safety Staff, and water operations staff to track project schedule and completion; and reviewing deliverables. Aimee drafted STIDs, reviewed Part12D reports, and reviewed PFMA reports for Thermal ito facilities. Aimee reviewed submittals of High and Extremely High Inundation Maps and developed breach parameters. Aimee also supported Dam Safety Services with spill forecasts on the Upper Feather River dams.

Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation, DWR Aimee assisted with the construction and quality control of a HEC-RAS hydraulic routing model encompassing 700 miles of San Joaquin River streams and tributaries and 1,275 square miles of floodplain. Areas with unusually steep or complex hydraulic configuration were modeled with the newly developed two­ dimensional capabilities of HEC-RAS. Aimee assisted with the delineation and development of the 2D areas, including development of roughness factors based on aerial imagery. Aimee also delineated 1-D stream centerlines and storage area connections; verified geometry of reaches proposed for addition to the model; and adjusted gate operation rules and bridge hydraulics for model stability. Aimee developed a set of HEC-RAS inflows for a variety of historic and scaled events, and determined the appropriate locations and time series to be used for the model boundary conditions. Aimee checked the validity of routed flows and conducted a detailed comparison to results from previous studies in the region.

Don Pedro FERC Rellcenslng, Turlock and Modesto Irrigation District Aimee supported the environmental analyses for the Don Pedro FERC Relicensing with reservoir, temperature, and hydraulic modeling at a daily timestep. V adjusted the hydrology, diversions, and reservoir operating rules of a daily spreadsheet model for with- and without-project assumptions. Aimee also developed post­ processors and used the model outputs as boundary conditions for HEC-RAS and HEC-5Q daily water temperature models of the Tuolumne River. Aimee post­ processed the results for temperature, fisheries, water supply, and hydropower.

hdrinc.com

26 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Kaylee Peterson, EIT Junior Hydraulic Engineer

Kaylee is a water resources EIT with nine years of experience. She has been with HDR for three years, and her responsibilities have included creating various maps, going on site visits, developing 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional hydraulic models, sizing drainage pipes and drainage basins as part of drainage analyses, writing and compiling reports, and developing storm water pollution plans. Prior to joining HDR, EDUCATION Kaylee had six years of experience as an engineering student trainee at USACE in BS, Civil Engineering, the Flood Protection and Navigation Section. Her responsibilities included creating California State University, maps, updating Operations and Maintenance Manuals, going on levee inspections, Sacramento beta testing and training staff and consultants on how to use their levee inspection REGISTRATIONS software, as well as writing and compiling reports. Kaylee has a working knowledge Engineer in Training, CA, in the design-oriented software ArcGIS, HEC-RAS, HEC-ResSim, HEC-HMS, 167158 CulvertMaster, and FlowMaster.

HDR TENURE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE 3 Years Southern California Edison (SCE), Borel Canal Decommissioning Hydraulic INDUSTRY TENURE Analysis, CA 9 Years HDR is tasked with developing a hydraulic model and performing preliminary hydraulic analyses as part of the initial planning efforts associated with the Borel Canal Decommissioning Plan. Kaylee developed the rain on grid HEC-RAS 2- dimensional model and the HEC-RAS 2-dimensional runoff model to simulate the existing flooding patterns and compare them to the runoff patterns that may result from the terrain being restored to natural grade along the canal alignment. As part of this analysis she developed simulations for the 2-yr, 10-yr, 50-yr, 100-yr, and 500-yr design storm events. She developed the technical memorandum that documented the development of the model and results. She also post-processed the existing and proposed condition scenarios to extract inundation depths at key locations within the HEC-RAS 2-dimensional models and developed rasters, figures, and tables to convey the results within the technical memorandum.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Task Order 35- Oroville­ Thermal ito Complex Hydraulic Analyses and Inundation Mapping, CA HDR is evaluating the hydraulics of the Oroville-Thermalito Complex. Kaylee developed the HEC-RAS 2-dimensional model to simulate the sunny-day failure of the Southeast Saddle Dam. She developed the technical memorandum that documented the development of the model and the results. She also post-processed the baseline scenarios to extract the data from specified cross sections in the HEC­ RAS 2-dimensional model and developed the results tables.

hdrinc.com

27 Tri~Dam Project ]Inflow Design Flood

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Yolo Bypass Design Big Notch Project, CA HDR is tasked with developing and evaluating multiple hydraulic models to simulate proposed design improvements for the Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project. Kaylee updated the existing CVFED HEC-RAS 1- dimensional model used for the Existing Hydraulic Impact Assessment (HIA) model. She updated the HEC-RAS model geometry to reflect the thirty and sixty-five percent design and assessed model results for the Project. Kaylee developed the truncated HEC-RAS 2-dimensional model used to assess hydraulic characteristics including flow velocities, water surface evaluations, structure hydraulic characteristics and flow patterns at Project features to support rock protection sizing for the sixty-five percent design. Kaylee contributed to the development of the Future Conditions HIA HEC­ RAS 1-dimensional/2-dimensional model used to evaluate water surface elevation results due to the thirty and sixty-five percent design. She contributed to the development of each technical memorandum and post-processed simulation results for each of the three hydraulic models.

DWR, High Hazard Inundation Mapping, CA HDR is providing engineering services evaluating the hydrology and hydraulics of Grizzly Valley Dam, Frenchman Dam, Antelope Dam, Bethany Dam, Dyer Dam, Patterson Dam, Crafton Hills Dam, Thermalito Diversion Dam, and their appurtenant structures. HDR will also develop hydraulic models to prepare inundation maps and comprehensive reports for the aforementioned locations. Kaylee developed the HEC­ RAS 2-dimensional hydraulic model for Crafton Hills Dam and Quail Dam. These models simulated the breach of the dams and associated structures for sunny-day and probable maximum flood failure scenarios. Kaylee developed the technical memorandum that documented the development of the model and the results.

DWR, Extreme High Hazard Inundation Mapping, CA HDR is evaluating the hydrology and hydraulics of Perris Dam, Del Valle Dam, Pyramid Dam, Castaic Dam, Cedar Springs Dam, and their appurtenant structures. HDR will also develop hydraulic models to prepare inundation maps and comprehensive reports for the aforementioned locations. Kaylee developed the HEC­ RAS 2-dimensional hydraulic model for Perris Dam. The model simulated the breach of the left and right abutments of the main dam, the spillway, and the low-level outlet structure for sunny~day and probable maximum flood failure scenarios. Kaylee also developed the HEC-RAS 2-dimensional hydraulic model for Pyramid Dam. This model simulated the breach of the dam and no breach scenario during probable maximum flood conditions. Kaylee developed the technical memorandum's that documented the development of both of the models and the results.

DWR, Task Order 29 - P2426 Potential Failure Mode Analysis, Various Locations, CA HDR is providing facilitators, recorders, and selected subject matter experts to participate in Potential Failure Mode Analysis workshops for DWR's Quail Dam, Cedar Springs Dam, Devil Canyon 1'' and 2"' Afterbay Dams, and L.A. Department Water and Power's Elderberry Fore bay Dam and their associated powerplants (respectively Warne, Mojave, Devil Canyon, and Castaic) and appurtenances, as well as to participate in a semi-quantitative risk analysis workshop for Pyramid Dam and its associated appurtenances. Kaylee developed the HEC-RAS 2-dimensional hydraulic model for Devil Canyon 2"' Afterbay Dam. This model simulated the breach of the Dam for sunny-day and probable maximum flood failure scenarios.

hdrlnc.com

28 Tri-Dam Project I Inflow Design Flood 1-)~

Appendix B­ Statement of No Conflict of Interest

hdrinc.com

29 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Undersigned, on behalf of the consultant/consulting firm set forth below ("Consultant"), does hereby certify and warrant that, if selected the Consultant while performing the consulting services required by the Request for Proposals, shall do so as an independent contractor and not as an officer, agent, or employee of the Tri-Dam Project.

The Undersigned further certifies that:

1) Consultant has no interest that would constitute a conflict of interest under California Public Contract Code section 10365.5, 10410 or 10411; or Government Code section 1090 et seq. or 87100 et seq;

2) Consultant has not been a source of income or pay to any employee or officer ofTri-Dam within the past twelve (12) months;

3) During the qualifications process (the time from the date of issuance of the RFP to the award of the Contract), Consultant and its sub-contractors shall not contact or solicit Tri­ Dam Board Members or staff in an attempt to influence the selection process, and that should such contact occur, Consultant or sub-contractor shall be disqualified from the RFP selection process.

Signature c/~ --­ Printed Name Jarvis Caldwell

Title Associate Vice President

Date -"A'*pwri"-1..._274 ,_..2.,0..._21'------Tri-Dam Project l lnnow Design Flood J-)~

Appendix C­ Certification

hdrinc.com

31 EXHIBITB CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have read and received a complete set of documents including the instmctions for submitting a Proposal in response to the Request for Proposals.

I consent to the Tri-Dam Project contacting references included in the submitted Proposal for the purposes of obtaining information about projects and experience described therein.

I understand that information contained in the submitted Proposal is a public record without exception, and I understand that submittal of the Proposal constitutes a waiver of any claim that the information is protected from disclosure.

I consent to release of such materials by Tri-Dam if requested under the California Public Records Act without further notice, and agree to indenmify and hold Tri-Dam harmless for release of such information. Signature c:L--4;; ---..._ Date April27, 2021 Printed Name Jarvis Caldwell

Title Associate Vice President

Company HDR Engineering, Inc. Street Address 2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833

Telephone 916-679-8875

E-mail [email protected] I SUBCONTRACTORS WEST will not use any subcontractors for this effort.

' f " f, ' ,..,-·, <' ~· ~_..!: , ~.. '!:_ I" • : ' • , , '> • ' •! , \ ; , T.. J • 1 , ~ ;cosr·AND scHEDULE · r '.. • 1

~. f.~:r:. I•,; • f 1 :.• '.':J' '• ,-,,, __ ' ,'> , '1 - ·~!.l ,,_•> ' -~ , WEST's estimated not to exceed fee to determine the IDF for Donnells and Beardsley Dams is $97,600.

Table 3. Billing Rates and Hours

Category Rate ($/Hr) Hours Cost$ Associate $281 4 $1 ,124 Project Manager 3 $240 40 $9,600 Sr. Engineer 2 $165 138 $22,770 Staff Engineer 2 $128 316 $40,448 Engineering Tech 2 $103 122 $12,566 GIS Specialist $120 80 $9,600 Total Labor $96,108 Direct Cost $1,469 Total Cost $97,577

WEST is committed to deliver the reports by the end of 2021 . The proposed schedule, Figure 9, shows the number of weeks estimated to complete the studies.

19 TULLOCH EMERGENCY

GENERATOR INSTALLATION BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Wiring and Materials for Installation of Tulloch Emergency Generator

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the purchase of wiring and materials for the installation of the Emergency Generator at Tulloch Powerhouse.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

In December 2019, a replacement Emergency Generator for Tulloch Powerhouse was purchased. This replacement generator was budgeted for in fiscal year 2019, but was not installed at that time. This purchase request is for the wiring and materials to complete the installation of the generator.

Pursuant to Tri-Dam's Purchasing Policy, three written quotes were obtained:

• General Supply Company- $20,761.08 • Independent Electric- $20,848.92 • Wille Electric Supply Co., Inc.- $23,069.23

Staff recommends the purchase of wiring and materials from General Supply Company.

FISCAL IMPACT: $20,761.08

ATTACHMENTS: Quotes

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) Chris Tuggle

From: scott.franklin@ genpl.com Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:44 AM To: Chris Tuggle Subject: FW: Bid 55380237 PO# RFQ

Caut io n: Th is email originated from outside of the organization. Do not cl ick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Chris, Good morning to you. Quote below per your request. Sincerely, Scott

Scott Franklin Branch Manager Scott. franklin @genpl.co m {209)532-5576 GBNEMl. SUPPLY COMPANY

WHOLESALE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTOR P.O BOX4085 - 14185 MONO WAY SONORA, CA 95370

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 3, 202110:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Bid 55380237 PO# RFQ

Quotation OrdlrrDate Order H11mber GENERAL SUPPLY COMPANY 04/30/2021 S5380237 P.O. BOX 4085 ORDER TO: 14185 MONO WAY GENERAL SUPPLY COMPANY P.O. BOX 4085 SONORA, CA 95370-2816 14185 M ONO WAY 209-532-5576 Fax 209-532-7140 SONORA, CA 95370-2816 Phone: 209-532-5576 - -- - - J

QUOTE TO: SH IP TO: TRI-DAM TRI-DAM P.O. BOX 1158 P.O. BOX 1158 PINECREST, CA 95364 PINECREST, CA 95364

Release Number

Write• f""rms ExprDate SCOTI FRAN KLIN WILL CALL 2% l Oth Net EOM 05/30/2021 No (3) Descnpt ion OrllerQly Net PriCe Amount

~~- **250MCM THHN STOCK IN BAY AREA** PLUS SHIPPING. NO CUT CHARGES TRA Y CABLE BOTH STOCK DALLAS TX PROBABLY NO SHIPPING CHARGES DEPENDING ON WHEN WE GET AN ORDER PRICES GOOD FOR TWO DAYS ONLY - -T ------1 THHN 250MCM BLK STR CU 2500R WIRE I 2040ft 6.1661 12577.73! ! I **6 X 340FT** i . - ~ - - ~ - --- ~ - . - ~------1 -·---.r - I ------~ THHN 1/0 BL K 19 STR CU 2500R WIRE 340ft - 2-.709T 921.211

**IN STOCK** I . I I - --,- -~--- -- ~ ---,.------~ SPECIAL ORDER ITEM 1 465ea 10.647j 4950.90! **#1-4COND THHN/PVC TRAY CABLE ** I PRIORITY #1-04TCG-VN I I W/#6 BARE GROUND WIRE I --, - J - SPECIAL ORDER ITEM 415ea 2. 188. 907.81~1 **#12-10COND THHN/PVC TRAY CABLE** I I PRIORITY #12-lOTC-VN I I ------1- -~ !subtotal~ -19-3-57.65-1. r - I - -·-----; ,Tax 1 1403.431 , F-r;i~_t . ---]_ _ -- ~~ Handling 0 .001 ·r~~-~ - ~ T -2o761.os1 ------__J

2 0 INDEPENDENT Quotation QUOTE DATE QUOTE NUMBER elect~i~nepar Company 04/29/2021 S105142741 INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC 1565 VENTURE LANE PAGE NO. TURLOCK, CA 95380-5761 INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC 1565 VE~I TURE LANE 209-668-4 702 TURLOCK, CA 953BQ-5761 Fax 209-668-4434 209-66&-4702 Fax 209~-4434 1 of 1

QUOTE TO: SHIP TO:

TURLOCK CASH SALES TURLOCK CASH SALES ALL CASH SALES ARE FINAL! ALL CASH SALES ARE FI NAL! NO RETURNS,NO EXCEPTIONS NO RETURNS,NO EXCEPTIONS TURLOCK, CA 95380 TURLOCK, CA 95380

CUSTOMER NUMBER CUSTOMER PO NUMBER JOB NAME I RELEASE NUMBER ORDERED BY

2312 TRI DAM PROJECT CHRIS

WRITER SHIP VIA TERMS SH IP DATE FREIGHT ALLOWED

Chris Wyatt BID Cash on Delivery 04/29/2021 No

ORDER QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT PRICE II SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS I II ALL CASH SALES ARE FINAL- NO RETURNS

340ft WIC. THHN 250MCM STR BRN MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BUILDING WIRE 340ft WIC. THHN 250MCM STR ORG MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BUILDING WIRE 340ft WIC . THHN 250MCM STR YEL MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BUILDING WIRE 340ft WIC. THHN 1/0 STR GRN MR 2600.000/m 884.00 COP PER BU ILDING WIRE WEMCO AND FRAME FOR ABOVE 340ft WIC. THHN 250MCM STR BRN MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BU ILDING WIRE 340ft WIC. THHN 250MCM STR ORG MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BUILDING WIRE 340ft WIC. THHN 250MCM STR YEL MR 5800.000/m 1972.00 COPPER BUILDI NG WIRE WEMCO AND FRAME FOR ABOVE 460ea OMN A30104 14996.924/M 6898.59 1/4C VNTC 90C M4 600V TC-ER 415ft OMN A11 212 2974.286/m 1234.33 12/12C VNTC N/S E2 600V TC-ER

...... ALL QUOTES ARE GOOD FOR 30 DAYS OR Ll::.~~ . ,.u•••••••• Prices are subject to Sales Tax and Freight Charges where applicable. Subtotal 20848.92 Miscellaneous items may not be included. No returns without prior S&H Charges 0.00 approval. All returns must be accompanied by a copy of the invoice and are subject to a restocking charge. No returns allowed on non-stocked items or cu t wire. Complete terms and conditions of sale Amount Due 20848.92 are included on the IES website at www.iesupply.com/aboutltermsofsale

Pnnted By CCW2424 on 4/3012021 6 43 56 AM

•r:: WILLE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC. Quotation 101 South 7th Street Modeoto CA 95354 209-527-6800 Fax 209-527-5872 :fl]~~[!§3!liiE¥milll~~§]i~~E§K 04/29/21 Ls2027640 llJmEino:------rJ~'ij~(!iiil@: WILLB BLli!CT!tiC! SUPPLY CO., INC , ,__• .,.,,.,.,..._ • ., ...... _......

101 aouth 7t.h streu~t Mcd.er;~~o CA 9!lo354 1 ------2~!1·527·5000 Fax 2Q9c-527-Sil72 ------QUOTE TO: SHIP TO: TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM PROJECT PO BOX 1158 31885 OLD STRAWBERRY ROAD PINECREST, CA 95375 STRAWBERRY, CA 95375

BUDGETARY ********************** WIRE PRICING SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON DATE OF PURCHASE ********************** QUOTING BASED OFF OF TODAY'S COPPER RATES **********************

1 2040ft 190 WIRE THHN-250-BLK-37STR-CU 2500R S 6265.870/M 12782.37 20509603 6 X 340FT

340ft 41418 WIRE THHN-1/0-BLK-19STR-CU-2500R 2992.960/m 1017.6 20505409 1 X 340FT

3 465ft 303625 OMNI A30104-BEL 1/4C VNTC 90C M4 13925.720/m 6475.46 600V TC-ER #6 BARE GRND BELDEN 28166A - SPECIAL ORDER -

4 4 269456 OMNI A11212 12/12C VNTC N/S E2 2974.290/m 1234. 600V TC-ER - SPECIAL ORDER -

This is a Quotation.

J?rico are firm for 30 da,yo, aubjEI

SURPLUS PROPERTY BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: May 20, 2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Sale of Surplus Property

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval for sale at auction of surplus property.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

All Tri-Dam equipment is evaluated on an annual basis to determine its usefulness and whether it meets current needs. The attached Surplus Property Report lists the unused equipment staff is requesting to remove from service. The report includes a description of each item to be removed.

All items will be sold at public auction to ensure the maximum value is received.

FISCAL IMPACT: unable to determine (revenue)

ATTACHMENTS:

~ Resolution TOP 2021-03

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) Surplus Attachment A

Net Book Asset# Description Model Mileage Serial I VIN # Value 4281 1998 CAT Perkins Standby Generator, 12SkW, Diesel 1869 I 1800 N/A U684465D $ - TRI-DAM PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. TOP 2021-03 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District meeting as the Joint Board of Directors of the Tri-Dam Project adopt this Resolution.

WHEREAS, the Tri-Dam Project, hereinafter referred to as the "Project" may, under the provisions of Section 22500 of the Water Code, dispose of property of the PROJECT which it finds no longer necessary for PROJECT purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Board of Directors find that the property listed is no longer necessary for PROJECT purposes, and that it is in the best interest of the PROJECT to dispose of the surplus property in Attachment A:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Board of Directors

1. Authorizes Tri-Dam Project staff to dispose of said surplus and salvage property by sealed bid to the highest qualifying bidder;

2. Authorizes Tri-Dam Project staff to dispose of, by any reasonable and appropriate means, any said property not sold by sealed bid.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Joint Board of Directors of the OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and of the SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT for the TRI-DAM PROJECT this 201" day of May 2021 by the following vote:

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SO. SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Thomas Orvis, President Robert Holmes, President

Steve Knell, Secretary Peter M. Rietkerk, Secretary

Page 1 of 1 TULLOCH 1 AND 2 BATTERY REPLACEMENT BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Jarom Zimmerman

SUBJECT: Tulloch Unit 1 and 2 Station Service Battery Replacement

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the replacement of the Tulloch unit 1 and 2 station service battery bank.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standard PRC-005-2, Protection System Maintenance, requires powerhouses to maintain and test station service batteries on regular intervals. These batteries ensure that a 125 VDC power supply is maintained to the instrumentation and control systems in the powerhouse when the plant is not operating, and the emergency backup generator is in the process of starting or is unable to start. PRC-005-2 requires quarterly inspections, 18-month testing, and 6-year capacity or load testing of station service battery banks.

The station service batteries for Tulloch units 1 and 2 are in need of replacement. The batteries will not pass the NERC-required load testing, the battery rack is heavily corroded and has to be supported by blocks of wood on the battery room floor, and the battery is 22 years old, when typical service life on these batteries is 12-15 years.

We have provided 3 quotes, but the lowest quote did not bid the correct type of battery for our application, so we recommend awarding to Sierra Utility Sales, the next lowest quote.

FISCAL IMPACT: $32,242.49

ATTACHMENTS: Geo. E. Honn Co., Inc. quote $23,208 plus tax & freight Sierra Utility Sales quote $32,242.49 incl. tax & freight Roger-Strong Assoc. $34,750.00 plus tax

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) SIERRA UTILITY SALES 1054 41ST AVE Ene~ SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 831-464-2250 KATIE BARDWELL; [email protected]

Customer Name: TRI-DAM PROJECT TULLOCH POWERHOUSE

Address: 31885 OLD STRAWBERRY RD

City, State, Zip: STRAWBERRY, CA 95375

Attention: DANIEL HOGUE Quote#: 16325

Phone#: 209-965-3214 Date: 3/16/2021

Material

Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total

ENERSYS FLOODED LEAD ACID BATTERY, MODEL # 2ESG- 13. CAPACITY IS RATED 418AH @ 8-HR RATE. SAN 1 30 $799.00 23,970.00 JAR/PVC COER, SPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.215. MULTI-CELLJAR $ CONSTRUCTION (2-CELLS, 4V).

ENERSYS IEEE 693 HIGH SEISMIC BATTERY RACK, MODEL 2 # EEHS2S084AP. CO NFIGURATION IS 2-STEPS. 2 $2,125.50 $ 4,251.00 DIMENSIONS: 84"L X 35.5"W X 21"H. WEIGHT: 412#

$ -

$ -

Labor

Item Description Quantity Unit Price Total

$ -

$ - Service Terms and Co nditions EnerSys standard terms and conditions, as set forth at http://terms.enersys.com, shall govern all serv ices offered to customer under this service quote and provided to customer as a result or this Labor Subtotal: $ - service quote regardless of any additional or different previsions contained In any document or communication from the customer, except to the extent that any such additional or different terms are Material Subtotal: embodied in a written document signed by an authorized officer of EnerSys. $ 28,221.00 Quote Details: Payment terms: Net30 Shipping (est) $ 1 975.47 Proposal based on customer's request I specifications Freight Terms: PP&A Scrap Credit Lead Time: 8-10 weeks to ship ARO (If Applicable) FOB: Factory: Various Issue PO to EnetSys, c/o Sierra Utility, 1054 41" Ave Santa Cruz CA . Net Total: 95062 $ 30,196.47 . PH: 831464-2250 FAX: 831464-9009 . Email: [email protected] Quotation/Prices valid for 30 days from date of issue Please visit our website www.enersvs.com for product specifications and additional information about EnerSys® Terms: visit terms.enersys.com

«> 2021 EnerSys 3/17/2021

Rogers-Strong Associates Inc.

I QTY IPARTNUMBER I DESCRIPTION I PRICE I ToTAL I LEAD-TI M E !coMMENTS 30 2ESG-13 418AH FLA BATIERY $825.00 $24,7SO.OO 8-10WEEKS 2 EEHS2S084AP 2 STEP RACK FOR TE ABOVE $3,500.00 $7,000.00 10-12 W EEKS 1 FREIGHT SHIPPING FOR THE ABOVE $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTALS $34,750.00

ALL PRICING IS FOB FACTORY

PURCHASE ORDERS SHOULD BE MADE 0 UT TO:

ENERSYS 2366 BERNVILLE RD. READING, PA 19605

AND FAXED OR EMAILED TO:

ROGERS-STRONG ASSOCIATES (801) 467-3907 FAX (801) 486-4778 OFFICE [email protected]

QUOTE VALIDITY: 30 DAYS Geo. E. Honn Co., Inc.

853 A Catting Court Vacaville, CA 95688 Phone: (707)455-0241 Fax: (707)455-0245 Website: https://www.honn.com E-mail message sent 03-19-2021

To: Tri-Dam Project Attn: Daniel Hogue Honn Quote#: SAM1998 From: Karen Braida for Scott Moyie Type: Firm b"• Action Battery Wholesalers dba BAE Batteries USA Quotation I 5 u l· PG&E Tilloch Power House

Dear Daniel,

The following is the quotation you requested:

PAINTED FRAMES PAINTED STRUT RAILS WITH RAIL INSULATORS 6 EAGLE-21·100-INT N/A 2.00 $764.00 $1 ,528.00 Integrated Eagle spill containment UL Recognized, 60 mil corrosive­ resistant liner, 4" coated, 14 Gauge steel barriers, system includes UL recognized neutralization and absorption pillows Total($) $23 ,208.00

Page 1/2 Purchase orders should be made out to Action Battery Wholesalers dba IIAE Batteries USA c/o the Geo. E. Honn Co .. Inc.

Lead-time: Batteries 2-6 Weeks ARO to Ship I Subject to prior sales Rack and Spill containment 2- 4 weeks ARO to ship 1 Subject to prior sales F.O.B.: Factory, Somerset, WI Freight: Prepaid and Added to Invoice Terms: Net 30 Days with ?reapproved Credit Validity: 30 Days

Quote Clarifications I Exceptions: Please note we are providing the above quote based on the request for a 400Ah battery system. The battery racking is being offered based on the photos provided, and minimal cable changing that should be required. Please review the included rack drawings to confirm. The negative cable will likely have to be pulled back through conduit and shortened. the jumper from rack to rack may need to be replaced with a longer cable based on the proposed 2-tier racking.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the above quotation. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Regards,

Karen Braida

Page 212 BAE SEGURA OPzS Technical Specification for Stationary VLA -Cells 1. Application The BAE OPzS Series flooded tubular plate cells are one of the most enduring lead acid batteries on the market today. They are ideally suited for stand-by operations as well as for capacitive loads. They perfectly meet requirements for bridging times between 1h to more than 1Oh. Application Uses: Power generation plants Electrical utilities applications Telecommunications Microwave radio systems Emergency lighting Outdoor enclosures Photovoltaic applications 2. Types, capacities, dimensions, weights

1 min c1 C4 Cs Length Type c12 R; lk Width Height Weight Weight Lead zs·c zs·c 2s•c 2s·c 2s•c 1) 2) (L) (W) (H) dry filled mass

Amps Ah Ah Ah Ah mn kA inch inc h inch lbs lbs lbs u. V/cell 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2 OPzS 100 162 55 88 104 120 1.52 1.37 4.06 8.11 15.95 20.1 31.9 15.5 3 OPzS 150 230 83 128 160 180 1.06 1.96 4.06 8.11 15.95 24.8 36.2 20.4 4 OPzS 200 284 110 172 208 240 0.84 2.46 4.06 8.11 15.95 28.2 39.6 24.2 5 OPzS 250 338 137 216 264 300 0.70 2.98 4.88 8.11 15.95 33.7 47.8 29.3 6 OPzS 300 386 165 260 312 360 0.60 3.47 5.71 8.11 15.95 39.9 56.6 34.4 5 OPzS 350 401 194 320 384 420 0.57 3.61 4.88 8.11 20.47 44.0 63.5 38.2 6 OPzS 420 453 233 380 456 504 0.49 4.18 5.71 8.11 20.47 51.7 75.0 45.0 7 OPzS 490 496 272 448 536 588 0.44 4.69 6.54 8.11 20.47 59.1 86.1 51.7 6 OPzS 600 469 299 532 672 720 0.47 4.41 5.71 8.11 27.44 72.8 104.4 63.2 7 OPzS 700 631 349 620 784 840 0.36 5.66 8.27 7.52 27.44 92.8 135.6 77.6 8 OPzS 800 706 399 708 896 960 0.32 6.36 8.27 7.52 27.44 102.8 144.2 87.2 9 OPzS 900 685 449 800 1008 1080 0.33 6.2 8.27 9.17 27.44 113.3 166.2 96.8 10 OPzS 1000 797 499 888 1120 1188 0.28 7.25 8.27 9.17 27.44 123.5 175.0 106.5 11 OPzS 1100 806 549 980 1232 1308 0.28 7.36 8.27 10.83 27.44 134.5 197.5 116.1 12 OPzS 1200 916 599 1068 1344 1428 0.24 8.41 8.27 10.83 27.44 144.1 205.9 125.8 11 OPzS 1375 969 634 1280 1520 1632 0.24 8.38 8.27 10.83 33.27 160.3 233.5 136.4 12 OPzS 1500 1026 692 1396 1656 1776 0.22 9.48 8.27 10.83 33.27 170.7 243.3 148.0 13 OPzS 1625 1299 750 1512 1792 1920 0.16 13.03 8.43 15.71 32.36 200.2 303.8 163.1 14 OPzS 1750 1367 808 1628 1936 2076 0. 15 13.82 8.43 15.71 32.36 210.1 313.9 174.1 15 OPzS 1875 1428 865 1744 2072 2220 0.14 14.43 8.43 15.71 32.36 220.9 323.9 185.3 16 OPzS 2000 1496 923 1860 2208 2364 0.13 15.2 8.43 15.71 32.36 232.3 334.2 197.0 17 OPzS 2125 1693 980 1980 2360 2532 0.12 16.91 8.35 19.17 32.36 259.5 386.0 214.8 18 OPzS 2250 1803 1038 2096 2496 2676 0.11 17.55 8.35 19.17 32.36 268.7 394.8 225.8 19 OPzS 2375 1827 1095 2212 2632 2820 0.11 18.36 8.35 19.17 32.36 279.5 404.8 237.0 20 OPzS 2500 1982 1153 2328 2768 2976 0.11 18.92 8.35 19.17 32.36 290.8 415.0 248.7 22 OPzS 2750 2098 1269 2560 3048 3264 0.10 19.92 8.35 22.68 32.36 320.5 471 .7 271.4 24 OPzS 3000 2211 1384 2792 3328 3564 0.09 21.26 8.35 22.68 32.36 342.2 491.7 293.8 26 OPzS 3250 2320 '1499 3024 3600 3852 0.09 22.49 8.35 22.68 32.36 363.8 511.4 316.3 1) Internal res1stance from IEC 60896-1 1; 2) Short c1rcUtt current from IEC 60896-11; All data 1s subject to change. He ight (H) is the maximum distance between container bottom and top of the bolts in assembled cond~ ion . 3. Terminal positions

"""'

2 OPzS 100 to 6 OPzS 600 7 OPzS 700 to 12 OPzS 1500 13 OPzS 1625 to 16 OPzS 2000 17 OPzS 2125 to 26 OPzS 3250

BAE USA Energy from Batte ries Te c tm~ cal Specification fo r BAE SEGURA OPzS

4. Design Positive electrode Tubular- plate with a polyester gauntlet and solid grids in a co rro sion­ resistant PbSb1 .6SnSe - alloy Negative electrode Round-grid flat plate in low antimony alloy with long-life expander material Separation Micro porous separator Electrolyte Sulphuric acid with a density of 1.24 kg/1 Container High impact, transparent SAN (Styrol-Acrylic-Nitrile}, UL-94 rating: HB Lid High impact SAN in dark grey color, UL-94 rating: HB Flame arrestors Includes standard ceramic arrestors with optional ceramic flip-top funnel arrestors ace. DI N 40740 available Pole - bushing 100% gas and electrolyte tight, sliding, injection moulded "Panzerpol" Kind of pole M10 brass insertion lntercell connectors Insulated solid copper connectors with cross-sections of 90, 150 or 300 mm' depending upon application Inter-tier connectors Flexible insulated copper cables Connector screw M10 stainless steel with insulated cap Kind of protection IP 25 regarding DI N 40050, touch protected according VBG 4.

5. Charging IU - characteristic lmax without limitation U = 2.23 V/cell +/-1%, between 10°C and 30°C (50°F an d 86°F) t.U/t.T = +/- 0.003 V/K below 10°C in the monthly average Float current 20mA/1 OOAh, increasing to 30mA/1 OOAh at the end of life Equalize charge U = 2.33 to 2.40V/cell, time limited Charging time up to 90% 6h with 1.5·11 o initial cu rrent, 2.23 V/cell, 80% C3 discharged

6. Discharge characteristics Reference temperature 25°C (77°F) Initial capacity 95% or better at time of delivery Depth of discharge (DOD) Norma lly up to 80% Deep discharges More than 80% DOD or discharges beyond final discharge voltages (dependent on discharge current) have to be avoided

7. Maintenance Every 6 months Check and record battery voltage, pilot cell voltage and temperature Every 12 months Check and record battery voltage, cell voltages and temperatures

8. Operational data Operational life 20+ years in stand-by operation, float at 20°C to 25°C (68°F to 77"F) Water -refilling -interval Up to 3 years, float at 20°C to 25°C (68°F to 77°F) IEC 60 896-1 cycles > 1500 Self-discharge App. 3% per month at 20°C (68 °C) Operational temperature -20°C to 55°C (-4°F to 131°F); recommended 1o oc to 30°C (50 oF to 86"F) Standard DIN 40736 part 1 Tests according I EC 60896-1 1 Safety standard, ventilation DIN EN 50272-2 Transport Subject to DOT Regulations- See SDS for details

BAE Batteries USA • 484 County Road V V • Somerset WI 54025 TEL (715) 247-2262 FAX (715) 247-5741 www.baebatteriesusa.com

BAE IusA En ergy fr om Batteries U&051B CHANGE OF MEETING LOCATION BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: May 20, 2021 Staff: Genna Modrell

SUBJECT: Designate the date of one Tri-Dam Project regular meeting in Strawberry.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action related to designating the date of one Tri-Dam Project regular meeting in Strawberry.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Each year we typically hold one board meeting in Strawberry. This is authorized pursuant to Water Code 21377.5: which would permit Tri-Dam to conduct up to four regular board meetings annually at the Tri-Dam Project office located in Strawberry, California.

Listed below are upcoming meeting date options.

June 17, 2021

July 15,2021

August 19, 2021

FISCAL IMPACT: None

ATTACHMENTS: None

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Jarom Zimmerman

SUBJECT: Represented Employee Wage Increase

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action to approve the represented employee wage increase.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Per Section 7.1 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the IBEW and Tri-Dam, each year during the pay period that includes June 1, the base wage ranges shall be increased for all represented employees by three (3%) percent, in accordance with the Exhibit A attached.

FISCAL IMPACT: All represented employee wages increase by 3%

ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A from the MOU

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF WAGES JUNE 1, 2018 THROUGH MAY 31,2024

5/31/2018 6/1/2018 6/1/2019 6/1/2020 6/1/2021 6/1/2022 6/1/2023 Departme~t I Title Modifier Basis Base 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Maintenance Electrician Journeyman $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Electrical Machinist Journeyman $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Machinist Welder Journeyman $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Machinist Mechanic Journeyman $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Equipment Operator Journeyman $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Technician Journeyman 7.00% over Journeyman $49.99 $51.49 $53.03 $54.63 $56.26 $57.95 $59.69 laborer 55.00% of lowest paid journeyman $25.70 $26.47 $27.26 $28.08 $28.92 $29.79 $30.68 Any new Laborer can be hired at 60% or 65% of lowest paid Journeyman based upon quafiflcatlons and experience, at the discretion of management.

Maintenance Apprentice Oto 6 Months 76.00% of base rate $31.96 $32.91 $33.90 $34.92 $35.97 $37.05 $38.16 7 to 12 Months 80.00% of base rate $33.64 $34.65 $35.69 $36.76 $37.86 $39.00 $40.17 13 to 18 Months 84.00% of base rate $35.32 $36.38 $37.47 $38.59 $39.75 $40.95 $42.17 19 to 24 Months 88.00% of base rate $37.00 $38.11 $39.26 $40.43 $41.65 $42.90 $44.18 25 to 30 Months 92.00% of base rate $38.68 $39.84 $41.04 $42.27 $43.54 $44.84 $46.19 31 to 36 Months 96.00% of base rate $40.37 $41.58 $42.82 $44.11 $45.43 $46.79 $48.20 Over 36 Months 100.00% of base rate $42.05 $43.31 $44.61 $45.95 $47.32 $48.74 $50.21 Apprentice positions@ 100% equals 90% of applicable Journeyman.

Technician Crew Leader 110.00% of highest paid Technician $54.99 $56.64 $58.34 $60.09 $61.89 $63.75 $65.66 Maintenance Lead 104.00% of Technician $51.99 $53.55 $55.16 $56.81 $58.51 $60.27 $62.08

Operations Roving Operator $46.72 $48.12 $49.57 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16 $55.79 Shift Operator 0 to 6 Months 76.00% of base rate $37.11 $38.22 $39.36 $40.55 $41.76 $43.01 $44.31 7 to 12 Months 80.00% of base rate $39.06 $40.23 $41.44 $42.68 $43.96 $45.28 $46.64 13 to 18 Months 84.00% of base rate $41.01 $42.24 $43.51 $44.81 $46.16 $47.54 $48.97 19 to 24 Months 88.00% of base rate $42.96 $44.25 $45.58 $46.95 $48.36 $49.81 $51.30 25 to 30 Months 92.00% of base rate $44.92 $46.26 $47.65 $49.08 $50.55 $52.07 $53.63 31 to 36 Months 96.00% of base rate $46.87 $48.28 $49.72 $51.22 $52.75 $54.33 $55.96 Over 36 Months 100.00% of base rate $48.82 $50.29 $51.80 $53.35 $54.95 $56.60 $58.30 Any new Shift Operator can be hired at any level above based upon q~afifications and experience, at the discretion of management. Shift Operator full rate equafs104.5% of Roving Operator. Relief Operator $0.08 over Roving Operator $46.80 $48.20 $49.65 $51.13 $52.66 $54.24 $55.87 Lead Operator 104.00% of Technician $51.99 $53.55 $55.16 $56.81 $58.51 $60.27 $62.08

23 CANYON TUNNEL PROGRESS UPDATE BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: May 20, 2021 Staff: Forrest Killingsworth (SSJID) Canyon Tunnel Project Manager

SUBJECT: Canyon Tunnel Progress Update Presentation and Discussion

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action recommended.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Since February of 2019, District staff from OlD and SSJ ID along w ith a team from Condor Earth have progressed towards completion of a 60% design for a new Joint Supply Canal ("JSC") bypass tunnel. The contemplated tunnel is currently referred to as the "Canyon Tunnel". Th e Canyon Tunnel would bypass a risk prone portion of the Joint Supply Canal between Goodwin Dam and the primary access ramp, providing for a safer work environment and additional reliability (in terms of su pply) for the districts and their constituents. The bypass tunnel was an alternative recommended by Co ndor as a result of a Ha zard Study completed in October of 2017. The tunnel is anticipated to be approximately 12,000 feet long and 19 feet in diameter.

60% Tunnel Design Progress Summary The 30% Tunnel Design was completed and the 60% Tunnel Design was initiated in April of 2020. The primary goals of the 60% design are to refine the recommended alignment for the tunnel, to identify the preferred upstream portal alternative (above or below Goodwin Dam), and to update the construction cost estimate developed in the 30% design. Originally, the completed 60% design was sched uled to be presented to the Tri-Dam Board in May of 2021. While the primary elements of the 60% design have been completed, staff is recommending not to finalize the 60% design until additional efforts have been made toward investigating new alternatives that exist at the upstream portal location. In September of 2020, the design team provided a presentation to the SSJ ID board that included a ha za rd assessment regarding slope failure risks above t he Goodwin diversion location. Following the presentation, the general consensus (from a preliminary perspective) of the preferred portal alternative was to locate the tunnel portal above the dam which would tie directly into the Goodwin pool. Later in the 60% design effort, Provost and Pritchard was secured as a sub­ co nsultant to Condor to provide recommendations related to the headwork orientation for both upstream and downstream portal alternatives. During that process, Provost and Pritchard helped identify two additional sub­ alternatives (4 total) that may provide additional benefits to the project. Additionally, it was recognized that the upstream portal alternative could potentially trigger some substa ntial environmental permitting concerns.

As a result, rather than finalize the 60% design with four (4) potential upstream portal alternatives, staff has directed Condor to advance the upstream analysis to reevaluate the preferred alternative. It is anticipated that consultation from an environmental permitting specialist will be a critica l element in identifying a preferred design. Staff is expecting proposals from Ja cobs Engineering and Provost and Pritchard (both qualified Master Services consu ltants to SSJ ID) to support the districts in preparing an environmental sco ping recommendation along with support in the upstream alternatives analysis.

A description of remaining work to be completed along with an introductory description of each alternative can be found in Attachment A. The Draft 60% Design Plans can be found in Attachment B, which incl ude sketches of each alternative as well. Representatives from Condor Earth will be providing a virtual presentation highlighting the work completed to date along with a detailed explanation of the four portal alternatives. 60% DESIGN CONTRACT BUDGET UPDATE: Contract Amount for 60% Design: $1,055,137 Total Billed to Date: $ 916,296 Remaining Budget: $ 138,841

The 60% design effort is well within budget and the remaining funds authorized by the boards are sufficient to support the remaining work recommended by staff. No contract amendments or adjustments to the approved fees are believed to be necessary at this time.

2021 CANYON TUNNEL BUDGET UPDATE: $600,000 was included in the annual budget ($432,000 SSJID & $168,000 OlD) for work related to the Canyon Tunnel in 2021. The budgeted amount was anticipated to finalize the 60% design, to begin the 90% design, and to initiate the environmental permitting and CEQA compliance process.

To date, $221,357 has been spent towards the Canyon Tunnel in 2021. Proposals from Environmental Consultants are anticipated in the coming months which should help clarify expectations related the necessary funds to support the agency permitting/CEQA work. No adjustments to the budget appear to be necessary at this time.

ANTICIPATED NEAR TERM SCHEDULE: • May 2020: Provide 60% Tunnel Design Progress Update Begin Upstream Portal Alternatives Analysis • June 2020: Engage Environmental Consultant for Preliminary Evaluation • August 2020: Finalize Upstream Portal Alternatives Analysis Identify Preferred Upstream Portal Design • September 2020: Finalize 60% Tunnel Design Documents • October 2020: Begin 90% Design Engage Environment Consultant to begin Environment Permitting/CEQA Compliance

Other parallel efforts related to the Canyon Tunnel will involve: (1) the continuation of video documentation and public release of videos (4 total); (2) discussion and negotiations with landowners; and (3) potential legal consultation regarding upstream portal alternatives.

CLOSING The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a 60% progress update to the districts. At this point, a significant milestone has been reached in the project design. The tunnel alignment has been refined and finalized, details of four (4) potential portal alternatives have been generated, and cost estimates for each alternative have been developed. From here, feedback from staff and directors will be a critical step in progressing the project forward. Following this meeting, as the upstream analysis progresses, a sub-committee of the Tri-Dam Board may be called to further evaluate the preferred portal alternative.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A- Memorandum- 60% Design Remaining Scope (prepared by Condor Earth) Attachment B- Draft 60% Design Plans (including all four upstream portal alternatives)

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes!No) Doornenbal (Yes!No) Orvis (Yes!No) Santos (Yes!No) Tobias (Yes!No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes!No) Holmes (Yes!No) Kamper (Yes!No) Roos (Yes!No) Weststeyn (Yes!No) ATTACHMENT A CONDOR EARTH 21663 Brian Lane, P.O. Box 3905 Sonora, CA 95370 209.532.0361 Fax 209.532.0773 \VWW.condorearth.com

MEMORANDUM

TO: Forrest Killingsworth - SSJID

COPY: Andy Kositsky and Jon Ingram - Condor

FROM: Scott Lewis, Principal

DATE: May 12, 2021

PROJECT NO.: 4320F1/Task 3

SUBJECT: 60% Design- Remaining Scope Update Upstream Portal Alternatives Analysis Canyon Tunnel

INTRODUCTION This Memorandum (Memo) documents the recommendations of Condor Earth (Condor) related to our 60% design scope for the conceptual upstream portal location alternatives for the proposed Canyon Tunnel project for South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID).

Condor presented our proposed design efforts in our Proposal for Engineering Services- 60 Percent Design, dated April9, 2020. This Memo is a result of our May 4, 2021 conference call with SSJID personnel after rev iew of Condor's DRAFT 60% Design Drawings that include four alternatives for the upstream portal.

To date, Condor has completed the following scope for our 60 percent design efforts: • Subsurface investigation for tunnel alignment • Subsurface investigation for potential downstream portal location • Subsurface investigation for potential upstream prefetred alternative portal location • Coordinated with subconsultants for conceptual tunnel intake, outlet and diversion gauging structures design • Prepared conceptual plan for Ram Pump replacement • Met with landowners to begin land entitlement discussion • Prepared and submitted the Project Description to be used for discussions with CEQA subconsultants • Updated and submitted the DRAFT hazards analysis reporting at the upstream portal site • Updated and submitted the DRAFT Geologic Data Report • Prepare and submitted the DRAFT Geotechnical Baseline Report outline 60% Design Remaining Scope Update- Upstream Portal Alternati ves Analysis Canyon Tunnel- South San Joaquin Irrigation District Page 2

• Prepared and submitted DRAFT 60 percent design drawings

Condor's DRAFT design repot1 is pending submittal while evaluating additional alternatives for the upstream portal and probable construction costs for each. Condor has prepared this Memo to document our proposed remaining scope, schedule and budget.

REMAINING SCOPE OF WORK Condor has worked with Provost and Pritchard (P&P) to develop the conceptual design alternatives for the upstream po1tal and intake structures of the Canyon Tunnel project. We have developed four alternatives along with pros and cons identified and probable costs for each alternative. Alternative 1A is located in the forebay upstream of Goodwin Dam with a concrete cap and new gates; Alternative 1B is located in the forebay upstream of Goodwin Dam with a concrete cap and stop logs, plus a downstream portal structure with gates; Alternative 2A is located downstream of Goodwin Dam with the existing structures and gates to remain as is; and Alternative 2B is located downstream of Goodwin Dam with the existing structures and gates to remain, plus addition of a concrete cap and walls to protect the structures from rockfalls.

In order to move forward with the 90 percent phase of the Canyon Tunnel project, we recognize that each of the identified alternatives need to be further evaluated and discussed with SSJID and OlD personnel and Boards. We propose to further investigate and evaluate these alternatives as part of the 60 percent design effort before moving into the fmal design phases of the 90 percent efforts.

Condor anticipates the following work to be completed under the 60 percent design phase: • Working with the owners, consultants (including CEQA scoping) and design team to further evaluate the options, including cost, risk and pennitting agency factors • Meet with SSJID and OlD persotmel and Boards to present the four alternatives, and provide follow up discussion and consideration resulting in selecting the preferred alternative • Updating our DRAFT design report to include the preferred alternative only, including an update to the Probable Construction Cost Estimate ·

SCHEDULE Condor will coordinate with the project team to further investigate and evaluate the alternatives and wi ll coordinate a fmal60% design presentation to the SSJID and OlD Boards. We anticipate this work will take 6 to 10 weeks (or as needed) and the first evaluation team meeting will take place in mid- to late-July (pending coordinating schedules and SSJID engagement of a CEQA scoping consultant). We anticipate our DRAFT design report and probable cost estimate can be finalized and submitted within 3 weeks of selecting the preferred alternate for the upstream portal location. Condor anticipates an in-person presentation at a Tri-Dam Board meeting to present the fmal 60% design and summary of documentation, as well as our 90 percent design approach and estimate (likely September/October Board meeting pending schedules).

BUDGET SUMMARY Condor's budget for 60% design is $1 ,055,137. Our current billing to date is $856,883, with pending charges (to be invoiced May 15) approximately $59,413, leaving a remaining budget balance of$138,841. We anticipate that the proposed remaining scope of work will be covered by the remaining budget and will continue to monitor the budget closely. We will notify SSJID if/when we reach 95% billed and evaluate remaining scope and budget if necessary.

CONDOR~ 60% Design Remaining Scope Update- Upstream P01t al Altematives Analysis Canyon Tunnel- South San Joaquin ln·igation District Page 3 CLOSING The goal of SSJID, OlD, TDP and Condor is to design and construct a tunnel faci lity/structure that requires minimal maintenance, that will last 100 + years, as well as continue to function in the event of a significant rock fall event.

Please contact us with any questions.

Attachment PRELIMINARY Design Development 60% SSJID Canyon Tunnel Drawings, DWG 0. 1 through DWG 5.3, dated April 28, 2021

X:\Project\4000_prj\4320 SSJID14320F I Canyon Tunnel 60%\Correspondenceu\1 2021 0512 SSJID Canyon Tunnel Scope Update - US Portal Alternates Analysis.docx

CONDOR" CANYON TUNNEL PROJECT 60 PERCENT DESIGN

GENERAL NOTES SURVEY CONTROL

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO IMPROVE THE SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (SSJID) AND UAV AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED IN JULY 2020 BY ERIK OHLSON & ASSOCIATES. SEE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT (OlD) EXISTING JOtNT SUPPLY CANAL. AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SHEET 0.2 FOR 1\.NNEL PORTAL COORO&NATES BYPASS TUNNEL

2. FADED BACKGROUND REPRESENTS EXISTING TOPOGRAPHC AND SITE FEATIJRES BASED ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, AN> Tt-E TOPOGRAPHIC AND SITE INFORMATION FROM THE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED 9Y EAIKOHLSON & ASSOCtATES , UAV AERIAL OATEOQ.AJLY 2020 AND TRI-STATE SURVEY LTO, AERIAL lMAGERY OATEOOB MAY2006. FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL CUA UTY ACT (CEOA) PLANNING AND PERMITIING PURPOSES. CONDOR A SSUMES THAT ALL EARTH'NORKS AND TUNNEL EXCAVATION SPOILS WILL BE PERMANENTLY 3. , BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DISPOSED OF AT AN APPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION ' .-\. ~ SEE SHEET 3.2 FOR PROPOSED TEMPORARY SPOILS STOCKPILE PLAN AND CONFIGURATION NOR

VATK>N SCOPE OF WORK: THE WORK CONSISTS OF CO NSTAt BYPASS TUNNEL ALONG THE EXISll SAN J OAQUIN IRRIGAllON OISTRIC" SUPPLY CANAL \(P&P) WORK INCLUDES: ) UPSTREAM (P&P) I DOWNSTREAM (P&P) A. TUNNEL AND PORTAL CONSTRl B. CANAL MODIFICATION NEAR n \(P&P) C. CANAL PLUGS D. PORTAL ACCESS ROAD J(P&P) E. TEMPORARY FACIUn ES F. WATER FLOW CONTROL STRUC

SYMBOLS

SECTION AND ELEVATION SECTIONJELEVATIONIOETAIL IDe.NTIFICATION ~= SECTIONJELEVATIONJOETAIL LOCATION

REVISION &­ REVISION NUMBER o- AREA OF REVIStON

ABBREVIATIONS: .. AGCREG4l[ BASE ROCK FOR FUU. DEPTlt REct.AMo\TlON PRf PAVEWENT RE»FFRCCNC FABRtC ASAW..nc CONCRETE .... FINISH F\...OOR GRADE PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE lNC1i "' ...... F1NISH CRADE PIIC POLYWM. CK.ORID£ APE ""AVE AVEIIAOE "'Fl FlOW UN< P.W. PROCESS WASTt: .... roc FAC£ Of CONCR£T[ R RAiliUS BF BOTTOW OF R)()"1''C fS fliiSH SURfiC( RCP RElHfORCED CONC. APE IIHC BECIH HORIZONTAl. CURVE FlBER RDNFORCED CONCRETE s SlDPE BIC -BOTTOM OF KEY FRS ""' FlBER REINFORCED SliOTCRETE SCH SCHEDUU: BW BOTTOM OF WALL FT FOOT so STORW DRAIN CDF COKTROLUD DENSITY Fll CB CAAOE BRE:AIC SF SQUARE FEET CIP CAST-IN-PlACE CAl. CAIJ..ON sc SUBCRADE CPP CORRUCAlm PlAST'IC PIPE HIM HOT MIX ASPHALT ss SANITARY SEWER .. CENT[R UKE INV INVERT SAO SEE ARCHITECTURAL OOCUMDITS CWP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE IN INCH sco SEE CMI.. DOCU~ CPP CORRUGATt:D PlAS1lC PIPE 10 INSIDE DIAME'TIR SCE STABlJZED CONSTRUC110N Of1'lW.ICE CONC CONCRETE LBS POUNDS SU> SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMOO'S CY CUBIC YARD LF LJIIEAA FEET SWD SEE WEcw-N!CAL DOCUloiENTS 01 OIIOt' M£T ...... SS1l SEE STRUCTURAl DOCUU.ENTS OIA OIAIIETER """WH MAHHOI.E STA STATION ...... u • SWPPP STORM WAliR POI...UJTlON PRtVEJrmOH . OIAIIETER ...... -··· , s A

POINT No. 01 , UIS , U/S

2 0/S

BASIS FOR SEA

•• ElEVATIONS St- ..... LOCKEI

1. UPSTREAM ACC ALTERNATE 1 C

2 EQUIPMENT AC AVAILABLETHF SUPPLY CANAL

(N) RAM F"UMP AND STORAGE T.-.NK "'\

_l \ EG I I I I -- ( • \ I I _I CNfYOtH\IHHE~LL-Y a""":\ /\..'"'/ I I t& v I T\ 1.2_A1.2.L I I ' s ,.. 5=0~3.. T l I I I I I I /

100+00 90•00 85•00 80•00 75+00 70• 00 65+00 60• 00 45+00 40•00 35+00 30+00 25+00 20•00 15+00 ------12012' TUNNEllENQTH------

0 200 VERT: ,...... ~ SCH..E iH FEET HORIZ. 0H c::::ot""' LEGEND SCAlE IH FIE.ET 9... CORE HOLE LOCATIONS

1. STATION NUMBERS ARE AP~ROX I MATE AND FOR REFERENCE ONLY

2. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ARE SHOWf\.1 ON SHEET 1.1,

3. TUNNEL PLAN AND PROFILE SHO\IVN IS FOR UPSTREAM PORTAL ALTERNATE 1 ONLY. SEE SHEETS 2.0 AND 2.1 FOR ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS AT THE UPSTREAM PORTAL. ---,- Mtm I ___! .. I I ) I 1 ['-t------~ ...... ______I I i i ! I ' 1/ i ------...... I i I ! ! I JV i i ! I Tm I i I i ! L ------i~-~j_%or------i------i---.>j_

10+00 15+00 20+00 :25+00 30+00 35+00 40+00 45+00 50+00

I I • I" I ~~~ I§ i I • 0 I I''' /,..~ ~ I I I ~~ i ' I I! ------l------...... J______I Mtm I ! ~ ... __ ' II I I -- I I ,I .-f------+------f------+li''-----~------+---+------~------·~· ------~====~~o="--.cc-----c~I---.'-..J._/o--~'1---c;~~ I - n 11 1 j I ------' ,' I I li1 1 ' i i - I I i i I i 1 1 200 '__ -"Ti_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_',,.- ___ 1______,+-· ______t-'-'"__ __,,_-_- __-_-_'c'"'c---+1 ___-:,_------.-.orl __ 1 1 ~~? ~~ -----co>~-c·_-_-_- ~------~-'-~------f--.~-----"90-+-- Jgo ', ! .' ', 't ;>,..,.... --r- ...... ___ .,. ... , ... --+------~-~-~-~~ ------+------+------~,?----+-~~------~->+~-~-~-=------+~------+------~~~c-+-~------f-- 1 ~------______, / .•. I I -----~------' I I I 70+00 80+00 85+00 90+00 95+00 100+00 10$+00 115+00

VERT: SCALE IN FEET

HORIZ: • SCALE IN FEET SHOWN FOR UPSTREAM PORTAL ALTERNATE 1 ONLY. SCALE: PS SHOWN

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC CONTACT. DASHED WHERE UNCERTAIN; COREHOLE-VERIFIED CONTACT. SOLID 04.28.2021

TABLE MOUNTAIN l.ATITE- PROMINENT FLOWS OF DARKLATITE CHARACTERIZED BY ABUNDANT LABRADORITE PHENOCRYSTS FOR PLAN REVIEW ONLY """ Nt1T t=t1J::! rt1NC::.TJ::!I JrTJf1N 279.81 SOFT TBMALTE ------,,,, FOR FUR" ::-1 APPROXII FINAL SECTION AREA 258.58SOFT FINISH FLOOR (FF) PER DRAWING "'"~ 1510 '\l 6" MIN. l 1003 s.OOOPSI FR '111l 9.16' I CONCRETE I I -:,. ... ·~· .• .. ~:. . . .. :. · .. ~ I l I 4.99' ~""""j i""'T'SIE~I....., ~'"""411 II Tl- ' ' SUBGRADE

1.22' 1.:14'

SCALE IN FEET SCALE IN FEET SCAL.EINFEET SHOIM< 8 UPSTREAM PORTAL.AL.T~RNATE 2 c }SEENOT£2 SCALE:Il.T.S.

COMPETENT ROCK RELATIVELY FREE OF FRACTURES PUMPED GROUT

L::~:~_ 1"0 (No.S)x 8-FT. {TYPOC~~~~5~S I __ EPOXY COATED R '?""/ '\\ WITH CENTRALIZERS

,. ',,, LOOSE ROCK

/ 1 0 /\BLOCK /Z'ID POLYTUBI:AIR , (No. S) t;;AADE 75 EPOXY \ sL1ED'LtNE EXTENDS TO COATED ROCK DOINEL \ END OF ROCK 00\I\IELS \ \ \ I i-i/2"0DRILLHOLE / ~--/: W' ./' 6''x6"x3J8"EPOXY / COATED STEEL I"!.ATES

I I I i" EPOXY COATED NUT I AND WASHER. USE EPOXY COATED I N) 10-GPM S..PHASE EVEL WASHERS, AS .iuaMERSIBU: PUMP ~ECESSARY, TO ACHIEVE I UNIFORM BEARING I 1 .. EPOXY COATED NUT AND WASHER. USE EPOXY COATED BEVEL WASHERS, AS NECESSARY, TO ACHIEVE UNIFORM BEARING SCALE IN FEET L 0 TUNNEL CEMENT GROUT ROCKDOWEL TYPE 1 • 4, STRUCTURALs~~~~.s. NEW RAM PUMP SCA!..E:N.T.S. SCALE: N.T.S. 0 05 SECTION BAJ FU"

2 EX I PR<

3 REI

ALTERNATE 2 INVERT ELEV 339 00' SEE SHEET 2 1

I ' GOODWIN DAM I \ I \ \ I \ I RTAL SHORING v-CABLE GUIDE 'I

(N) REINFORCED \ CONCRETE CAP GOODWIN RESERVOIR (SEE NOTE 3) \ I

IEJ TRASH RACK \ \ m----·-~ I ' \ -17' ! I '

I BARGE \ LANDING I / --

------~------·~ 1

-I ;G ------~------~ ~0 , \ ..sHOTCilE'I'£ ...... pORl,trl. 1 310 - - ~ I -

\ \ \ ',.------+------~ ~0 \ \ ENG\NE.ERE.O fll\.. p.1 90' coMPACTION EG s :'l'3g' --- ' I I ,.-____ ------~------~~ ~--+------1~--~~------1 ~~~---.- _o--~------=-=---=--==:::J-=-~_::.::9..::---~-=--==--'«~'" (E!C,.,.,.._,....,EI<' BARBED WIRE FENCE ~

STAGING AREA

------·--·------Ec ------t------1--i-! 370 t ==--=------=---=~~------+------+-+~'" o CONCRETE INVERT ~15' WIDE BERM- ! ·= I -ROAD- : i t 1 ------'" ,.,-,i------''c------f 1 ~ r i' ~ / ~ r ~o-,f------TUNNEL (PROJECTED)""" li r,M.l t ! L c~~ i I II I ~ 1 wo-1:------' I j I - i I 320 ' 1+00 2+00 2+04 ~~~.~,,c------L------

SCAlE IN FeOT noN 0 PORTAL ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION

r t

I /~DDONC~ETE I~ I ELE'/:341> I

------

------I CANYON I ------TUNNEL I ------I T I 1+00 2+00 2+81

SCALE IN l'l:ET ." _·, ,... ·(E) BR1oGE(1MPRO\iEi. · ,_ <'·''"""'" -..,..-. ' 18" STARTER COUPLER CAST INTO PRECAST STRUCTURE FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS FRESNO VALVES SERIES 6000·10C 20-10C SLIDE GATE, OR APPROVED FLAT BACK FLAP GATE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. NOTCH GATE STEM EQUIVALENT FOR POINT OF ZERO OPENING.

TRASH RACK CAST-IN-PLACE 18" 100 18" 100 PSI PIP 3,000 PSI CONCRETE CANAL PLUG PSI PIP GATEVALVE0 '"' '" CAST-IN"PlACE 3,000 PSI CONCRETE

ENGINEERI:D FILL AT 90% COMPACTION 18"P_LP

MBI CONCRETI: PRODUCTS MBI CONCRETE PRODUCTS INVERT TO BE CONSTRUCTED UPON PRI:CAST CANAL GATE He:ADWALL. PRECAST CANAL GATE He:ADWALL, ""'"" l'liiRr::O:.llnC' liPPO:.rnn:n RV O:Nr::IN ..O:o:l ,.,,., """'"~"~" ~~'"""' ~··~ LOCATIONS. PLACE DRAIN STRIPS AGAINST EARTH PRIOR TO SHOTCReTE SHOVEL..CUTTOP APPLICATION. -......

FILTER CLOTH

PLASTIC DRAIN STRIP

' ~··. .· .. . . : . ~- Z'IZI PVC WEEP HOLE, EXTEND ,... ~ . PIPE FROM DRAIN TO OUTSIDE OF CUT ROUND HOLE FOR 2"0 PVC SHOTCRETE WA1..1.. PIPE THROUGH PLASTIC DRAJN. . DO NOT CUT FILTER CLDTJ-i . ATTACH PIPE TO PLASTIC DRAIN WlfflTAPE.

@ DRAIN STRIP/WEEP HOLE DETAIL B :":REo:::~:~~!'!RsLoPEs SCAI.E:N..T.S. SCALE: N.T .S. AWAY FROM SHOTCReTE, ORAT NOTE: DRAIN TO CANAL OR SHOTCRETESURFACE AT DISCHARGE POINT. HARD ROCK SUBSTRATE.

4X4-W4.0XW4.0 WELDED WIRE FABRIC

PREPARED TOUCH-UP EPOXY COATING SUBGRADE ON SAW CUT BAR ENDS

6'" X f1' X m'' EPOXY COATED BEARING PLATE

GUN FINISH

RETAINING WAL.l.. (;\ SHOTCRETE FACING

------····· ··-···-···· --- NOTES s R T• Fl

3 El u s c

L<

I' \ \ \ I \

•tVE STRUCTURE \ S HATCH \ ~ CASLEGUIOE rE

13675 I \ (E) TRASH RACK ' I GOODWIN RESERVOIR \ \ m----\ --· I 'I \ \

I BARGE ' LANDING \ :3<6 I / s R

T• Fl

3 Ll

AlTERNATE 2 INVERT ELEV: 339.00' SEE SHEET 2,1

(E) SP ILLWAY STRUCTURE. REMOVE GATE. LEAVE OPEN. I I' \ \ I \

WE STRUCTURE \ S HATCH I ~CABlE GUIDE fE

t3G7 5 \

(E) TRASH RACK \ \ GOODWIN RESERVOIR

------~E-) TRASH I RACK \ ;----\ --· \ •IT \ I \

I BARGE ' LANDING t346 \ I /

s R

ALTERNATE 2 INVERT ELEV: 339.00' S EE SHEET 2.1

400

390

.:G 17__ , 380

\ \ ' GOODWIN RESERVOIR ' ' ' 370

' I ', I \ I \ \ J - \ I ,_ 360 I \ I \ I '1 1 I 1 ---1 1\ 350 1 I I I I 339.00 I I \~ 340 \ ' \ ' ' 330 0+00 .0+60 CONCRETE CJ>J> OVER CANAL TO PROTECT FRO M ROCKFAll \ \ _j I \ \ I 400 \ GOODWIN DAM \

390 ~CABLE GUICE

\ --, 380 \ \ \ I GOOOW1N RESERVOIR ...... -----~------+------~ 370 \ ... \ ' \ \ ' \ I ------!---\-- 380 \ \ ;---- ~~-·

350 I 1 ' 1 l I 1 1 1 1_E .00 \ 340 \~, 1 \ \ BARGE ' lANDING 330 I 0•00 -0• 60 I / STAFF REPORTS GENERAL MANAGER BOARD REPORT jarom Zimmerman May 20,2021

1. The May DWR B-120 forecast was published and the inflows to New Melones are expected to be around 388,000 ac-ft. As of May 10, Donnells and Beardsley have a combined storage of approximately 83,000 ac-ft. which is about half-full, so we do not expect to fill both reservoirs this year. Our FERC license requires us to release additional flows below Donnells and Beardsley each spring, called Minimum Supplemental Flows. Given that the April-july forecast is less than 50% of average (actual forecast is 38% of average), we are allowed by our license to reduce the Abay releases from 135 cfs to 50 cfs, which will help generate a little extra through Sand Bar throughout the year. With only 50 cfs required in the river channel and 140 cfs being the minimum flow at which we can run the Beardsley unit, we plan to cycle Beardsley so that we don't just waste the 50 cfs past Beardsley all year. This will include drawing Abay down to release the 50 cfs requirement with Beardsley Dam and Powerhouse not releasing any water, and then we will start the Beardsley unit to fill Abay back up. This cycle will be approximately 36 hours, and we will have to staff the unit for the few hours that it is running each day. If we don't do this, we waste 50 cfs down the river for the rest of the year, which would be a loss of over $15,000/month.

2. We have offered the Natural Resources Summer Intern position to a great candidate who has accepted the position and starts in a couple of weeks.

3. Tri-Dam is going to enter into the Adopt-A-Highway program and adopt a 4-mile stretch of Highway 108 above the Strawberry office. This will be a great opportunity for us to serve the local community and it should not require much of a time commitment from staff.

4. CAL FIRE came out to perform the inspection of the logging below the Strawberry office and confirmed that everything looked good with no issues. Given the dry weather already this year, the logging was a great investment to further protect the Tri-Dam facilities from wildfires.

5. We are having an issue with the Donnells governor not meeting the CAISO performance criteria. The unit appears to be responding appropriately, so we believe it may be an issue with a delay in the set-point signal getting to Tri-Dam once it is input by CAISO. We have requested additional data from CAISO to further troubleshoot the issue. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANAGER BOARD REPORT Chris Tuggle May20, 2021

OPERATIONS: Reservoir Data (A/F):

FACILITY STORAGE MONTH CHANGE Donnells 22,065 10,600 Beardsley 46,506 9,118 Tulloch 61,530 4,570 New Melones 1,461,454 (77,570) Outages:

Plant Dates Duration Cause Donnells 04/13/21 2:38 h/m Governor Tuning Tulloch #2 04/20/21 4:06h/m Governor Issues Replace bad coil Operations Report:

New Melones Inflows: Total inflows for water year 20/21: 262,169 A/F. District Usage:

Total District usage for the water year 20/21: 140,454 A/F. Precipitation: Total precipitation for the month of April was 1.31 inches. Other Activities: 1. PG&E Line outages. 2. Worked with the Maintenance Technicians and Segrity Control Systems on the Donnells Governor testing. MAINTENANCE: Donnell: 1. Equipment in service. Beardsley: 1. Equipment in service. Sandbar: 1. Equipment in service. Tulloch:

1. Equipment in service. Mise: 1. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and repairs. 2. Tulloch E-Gen Upgrade. 3. Prepare cottages for summer usage. 4. Gather data for CMMS program. May I, 2021 DRAINAGE DRAINAGE WATER WATER RECOVERY 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 AVERY 163 104,320 0.880 91,802 68,851 64,261 59,671 55.081 50,491 45,901

SO. FORK 67 42,880 0.880 37,734 28,301 26,414 24,527 22,641 20,754 18,867

MIDDLE FORK AT DONN ELLS 230 147,200 0.880 129,536 97,152 90,675 84,198 77,722 71,245 64,768

MIDDLE FORK AT BEARDSLEY 309 197,760 0.880 174,029 130,522 121 ,820 113,119 104,417 95,716 87,014

TOTAL 344,960 303,565 227,674 212,495 197,317 182,139 166,961 151 ,782

MELONES DRAINAGE AREA 904 578,560 :vtELONES INFLOW TO DATE 251,393 May I. 202 1

PROJECTED SNOW RUNOFF 182,139 Projected April to J uly •·unoff (60% RECOVERY) STORAGE ON May I, 2021 MAXSTOR DIFFERNCE UPSTREAM STORAGE RETENTION 50.000 NEW MELONES 1,458,807 2,419,523 (960,716) DONNF.LLS 23,434 64,3 25 (40,891) PRO.JECTED MELONES INFLOW 383,532 on Scptcmbc•· 30, 2021 BEARDSLEY -'6,658 '17,802 (5 1,144) NEW SPICER 83,232 189,000 (1 05.768)

TOTAL 153,32-' 351 ,127 (197.803) ~ · . . . ·~ "' .. . ·oo· p .·. - ~ .· P: :-:?:-·-:-:-: : ~ -: :-:-:·>> 9: · ..o. . ',q"' · · - ~ : ·.· 0 · 0 • • 0 . 0· .. . :- ~ :-: • 0 ·O ·, ·.·.·.·•· 0 .. ~ -:·.· . ·:·.·: ? : ·.o . ·. · . ~ ·o · · · p .· · · · · · o · "' ' '? ...... ··i9s8:59 ;~~.;~~~~~~- ~· ~·~·~~·~·-·~~~~~~ ----·~ · ·-·~ · ·~ ······ . . . . -. II : :-: :· :-:-. . :1959'60. I ~ II :; ...... I-i .. ' •.•. • .. . .. · _1~69·~1 -- I 0 ...... :1961:62 ~ .. ., -i . • . . . ~ ,~-:-:-.. : -:-:-: :: ~9$2:6~ •I • :- 1953'6~ . .I "' I .'1964 ·65'::::::::::::::, :------· ~ . ·: 1966'671~65,~6 • -c ~ : : ;9~7;6~ " I , , , , , II ~ :.·: i969:7o1~6?·~9 :::::::::::::::::=:::::---- . -1970'71 ::::::::::::::::-·{ · )~7i·tz :

. '1972-73 ' : ·i9Z3)4· ::::::::::::::::::~::::- ...... ' 19741975·76'15 · ::::::::::::----~-~)t ··-- - ~··· . ..;..&....;.· .. . ' 19-iG;Ti 1 \ .-...... · i9?7)~ · :: v.; <<:­ . . . . ~~ .. 1978'19 . :· i"""t :.::: : 1~1~-w '1980,81 " ·0 ··· , i9~1 : 8~ : '\. ·. ~ :·· ..1982 ' 83 ': (=)~ ' .: 1~83-~4 .. .1'!'1 .\ . . . ~ . .'. 1984,85. . . tl ...... ·- 19~s : ss . ·;o...... : 19~6,8~ ...... ""~·' . . . .·i9$8)~1987.81l '. :::::::::::::. •• : ...... '::J. . '...... 1989 '90. :::::::::::::::...... 1~90 ·~1 :

. ·i1991-91'992:93 . ::::::::::::::=~---~------::-=::::<: . ·v.;. · . ... . : . ~9~3 ;9~ . ( ...... )~94·~5 : ...... '.1995.96 ...... ')>' ' ' · i9~6:9? · :-.....<· :-· :-: . .1997'98 . . . . . ·. .ro ...... ')~9~-w1999.00' ::::::::::::::::::.• ~. > ~ ::-::: : -1ooe:o1 :1 ·. .QJ...... 2001 ~ 02 . • ~V .\of --·.. . '2002·03 ,. .. . i'T'\ .. . >ioo3:o4 · . ~ - ~ .. . : . 1oq4:o~ - , · : z

... 2012'13 . :::::::;::::::::·I ..2Q13 ·i4 '

. ·iOis:lG'2014.15 ::::::::::::=~-----J~' -- : ': 2018.19~~; ~:~: . .~~.. 1:-.. . ·1019'20 ...... ~ . · :zozo ,il. , . · · BEARDSLEY PRECIPITATION

YEAR JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY J UNE 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 O.Q3 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 0.1 1 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 O.D7 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 2010-1 1 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 2013-1 4 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 76.07 201 7-18 0.00 0.09 1.44 0.50 7.34 0.42 5.20 0.76 14.50 3.70 1.02 0.00 34.97 2018-19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 8.21 3.07 9.84 15.37 8.97 2.07 7.43 0.46 57.34 2019-20 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 1.39 10.58 2.09 0.08 7.50 3.87 3.09 0.33 29.56 2020-21 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.00 2.38 3.40 7.28 2.44 2.83 1.31 19.97 Current Year

Average 0.15 0.21 0.72 2.18 4.78 5.95 6.60 6.26 5.81 3.42 1.95 0.64 38.19 2020-21 +/- (0.15) 0.02 (0.62) (2.18) (2.40) (2.55) 0.68 (3.82) (2.98) (2. 11) (1 .95) (0.64) (18.22)

ANNUAL AVERAGE

IN CHES+/- ANNUAL AVERAGE (18.22) *Updated as of 05/10/21* PERCENT OF AN NUAL AVERAGE 52% 5/10/2021 8120

B-120 WATER SUPPLY FORECAST SUMMARY

UNIMPAIRED FLOW FOR· MAY 2021 (Provisional data. subject to change)

Report generated: May 10. 2021 13:12 APRIL-JULY FORECAST SUMMARY (IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET)

Trinity River at Lewiston Lake 270 42 210 350 Scott River near Fort Jones 38 Sacramento River above 110 37 McCloud River above Shasta Lake 210 55 Pit River above Shasta Lake 570 56 Total Inflow to Shasta Lake 900 51 760 1,030 Sacramento River above Bend Bridge 1,180 49 980 1,400 Feather River at Oroville 630 37 460 820 Yuba River near Smartville 380 39 280 500 below 480 40 380 610 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Cosumnes River at Michigan Bar 31 25 23 4S Mokelumne River Inflow to Pardee 190 42 150 240 Stanislaus River below Goodwin Res 2.60 38 190 360 Tuolumne River below La Grange 520 44 430 660 Merced River below Merced Falls 240 39 180 320 San Joaquin River inflow to Millerton Lk 370 30 250 500 TULARE LAKE Kings River below Pine Flat Res 330 27 230 450 Kaweah River below Terminus Res 60 21 45 80 Tule River below Lake Success 6 10 4 10 inflow to Lake Isabella 75 16 50 105 NORTH LAHONTAN Truckee River, Lake Tahoe to Farad accretions 100 40 Lake Tahoe Rise, in feet 0.3 22. West Carson River at Woodfords 21 40 East Carson River near Gardnerville 80 44 West Walker River below Little Walker 80 52 East Walker River near Bridgeport 12 20 NOTES

• 50 year average are based on years 1966 to 2015.

• Unimpaired runoff represents the natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to or from other watersheds.

• Groundwater changes due to human activity are not considered. Forecasted runoff assumes median conditions subsequent to the date of forecast. Runoff probability ranges are statistically derived from historical data.

• The 80% probability range is comprised of the 90% exceedence level value and the 10% exceedance level value.

• The actual runoff should fall within the stated limits eight times out of ten.

• Forecast point names are based on USGS gage names. - CONTACT INFORMATION FIRST NAME LAST NAME EMAIL PHONE Sean de Guzman [email protected] (916) 572-2208 Andrew Reising Andrew [email protected] (916) 574-2181 Ashok Bathulla [email protected] (916) 574-2634 Lauren Alkire [email protected] (916) 574-1433 Anthony Burdock Anthony [email protected] .gov (916) 574-2637

cdec. water.ca .gov/reportapp/javareports?name=B 120 1/1 REGULATORY AFFAIRS BOARD REPORT Susan Larson May 20,2021

FERC Compliance

• Tulloch Day Use Site. Bid documents were circulated, with a due date of May 6, 2021. Two bids were received, but only one was responsive. One of the issues that arose during finalization of the plans, and preparation of the water and sewer connections was the uncertainty of actual connection points for the CCWD (Calaveras County Water District) infrastructure. There are a number of different water and sewer lines crossing the adjacent properties, requiring current CCWD to perform additional investigation into their system in this region. Some of their facilities have not actually been accepted into their "maintained system", thus CCWD provided comments during Tri-Dam's bidding process, that proposed alternatives for the "off-site" connections for both water and sewer. Although Tri-Dam prepared a bid addendum that asked contractors to provide bid amounts for the alternatives, staff is not comfortable proceeding with the uncertainty of pricing until we have a fully defined scope of work for both water and sewer. The two tasks for full definition of the water and sewer connections are as follows:

a. Prepare plans for a new line extension from Tri-Dam's property to the fully approved water service line (a distance of approximately 600'), and install a new line meeting current CCWD standards. CCWD has indicated that if Tri-Dam prepares the engineering plans and installs the new line as part of this project, CCWD will reimburse Tri-Dam for the costs of the offsite work. Tri-Dam would then just be responsible for the onsite lateral connection to the new line, meter, etc. b. There is an existing sewer line that is capped at the property line, that is believed by CCWD to be the original service line for Tri-Dam's property and the adjacent properties to the west. CCWD has requested that Tri­ Dam, have the line tv scoped to determine it's status, as if the line is functional it would provide the best alternative in their opinion. Once the line is evaluated, the improvements required, if any, would also be defined and contractors could provide a specific bid amount rather than an estimate.

Given the delays faced in obtaining County permits, the volatility of the current construction market, and the need to know the offsite water and sewer requirements with certainty, Staff has decided to cancel the current bidding cycle. Staff is proceeding to define sewer and water connections and anticipates re-bidding the process within the next couple of months.

Mr. Jaruszewski and I contacted each of the firms that had attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting, to explain the project's status and rationale behind the cancellation. All firms concurred with that decision, and noted that a summer/fall bidding process would actually suit their firms better. Staff will also be allowing the contractor to propose a work schedule, to provide better flexibility and hopefully more advantageous pricing for Tri-Dam. • Continued work on the Inundation Mapping and EAP. Following receipt of comments from DSOD and FERC, the documents and maps were updated and re-submitted to both agencies. On May 10, 2021, DSOD advised that the maps and reports were acceptable, and they will be processing the approval notification. FERC comments are still pending. After that process is complete, the document with maps will proceed to review and authorization by CaiOES.

Permit and Other Assignments

• Work on permits, site reviews and compliance questions for various properties at Tulloch. Respond to daily inquiries from the public. Permits, inspections and file documentation. • Tulloch compliance matters, as required. GENERATION REPORT Tri-Dam Project Generation & Revenue Report TRI-DAM PROJECT , __-_. ----- 2021

Donnells Beardsley Tulloch Project Total Average 2021 Net Avoided 2021 Average 2021 Net 2021 Average 2021 Net 2021 Average 2021 Net 2021 Generation Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy Generation Generation Energy (1958-2018) (kWh) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2018) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2018) (kWh) Revenue (1958-2018) (kWh) Revenue JAN 17,389,989 11,052,034 - $884,163 3,150,048 1,454,471 $116,358 4,271,885 1,575,855 $126,068 24,811,922 14,082,360 $1,126,589 FEB 17,229,608 15,224,781 - $1,217,982 2,927,753 1,356,506 $108,520 5,024,913 2,306,786 $184,543 25,182,274 18,888,073 $1,511,046 MAR 23,070,659 8,146,307 - $651,705 3,584,274 1,743,745 $139,500 7,580,691 6,998,744 $559,900 34,235,623 16,888,796 $1,351,104 APR 31,686,865 19,684,384 - $1,574,751 4,717,464 2,156,914 $172,553 10,811,027 14,149,852 $1,131,988 47,215,356 35,991,151 $2,879,292 MAY 41,216,149 - $0 5,799,593 $0 12,131,040 $0 59,146,782 - $0 JUN 42,555,036 - $0 6,336,073 $0 12,084,818 $0 60,975,928 - $0 JUL 36,444,466 - $0 6,629,514 $0 12,609,174 $0 55,683,154 - $0 AUG 27,568,740 - $0 6,269,748 $0 11,868,293 $0 45,706,781 - $0 SEP 20,111,167 - $0 5,223,523 $0 8,577,620 $0 33,912,310 - $0 OCT 12,743,535 - $0 3,752,220 $0 4,664,124 $0 21,159,879 - $0 NOV 12,042,987 - $0 2,794,775 $0 2,487,256 $0 17,325,019 - $0 DEC 14,354,891 - $0 3,713,920 $0 3,288.702 $0 21,357.513 - $0 Total 296,414,092 54,107,507 - $4,328,601 54,898,907 6,711,636 $536,931 95,399,542 25,031,238 $2,002,499 446,712,540 85,850,380 $6,868,030

Note: Price per MWh is $80.00

Tri-Dam Power Authority - Sand Bar

Average 2021 Net PG&E 2021 Energy Generation Generation Coordination Total Revenue (1958-2018) (kWh) Payment Revenue JAN 4,663,654 1,740,974 $139,278 $0 $139,278 FEB 3,946,606 899,860 $71,989 $0 $71,989 MAR 5,290,014 1,365,702 $109,256 $0 $109,256 APR 6,873,822 2,249,798 $179,984 $0 $179,984 MAY 8,065,189 $0 $0 $0 JUN 8,750,023 $0 $0 $0 JUL 9,133,101 $0 $0 $0 AUG 8,560,581 $0 $0 $0 SEP 6,928,285 $0 $0 $0 OCT 4,898,944 $0 $0 $0 NOV 2,947,604 $0 $0 $0 DEC 5,554,123 $0 $0 $0 Total 75,611,948 6,256,334 $500,507 $0 $500,507

---· ------CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS • May 7, 2021 • No. 1640 • Page 4

WESTERN PRICE SURVEY [7] Temporary End to Maintenance Average Peak Power Prices Boosts SoCal Natural Gas Values Thurs., 04/29-Thurs., 05/06 Southern California Gas Co. is wrapping up mainte­ nance activities at the Honor Rancho storage facility, putting upward pressure on regional natural gas prices. so In April 29 to May 6 trading, most Western natural 40 gas prices rose by between 3 cents and as much as 30 30 cents. SoCal CityGate gas gained the most, adding 30 cents to reach $3.52/MMBtu. 20 SoCalGas "is no longer reporting significant 10 reductions in storage capacity injections" at Honor 0- - Rancho, allowing the system to balance and clear­ ing excess gas supply from the market, which in turn 4/29 4/30 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 alleviates the downward pressure on SoCal CityGate prices over the past three weeks, the U.S. Energy - - - -Mid-Columbia - cos Information Administration said in its weekly report. But additional maintenance is expected begin­ _...... _SP1S ning May 9, when the Aliso Canyon storage facility is expected to go off line for routine maintenance that will last about two weeks. Average Off-Peak Prices However, "consumption declines in supply regions" kept Northern California and Pacific Northwest natural gas prices Thurs., 04/29- Thurs., 05/06 low, according to the EIA Pacific Northwest demand declined 200 MMcf per day week over week, which kept prices at de liv­ 40 ely hubs such as Sumas and Opal lower. The EIA also attrib­ uted the plice decrease to regional temperatures that were as 30 much as 14 degrees Falwenheit above nonnal. 20 Between April 29 and May 6, both El Paso-Permian Basin and SoCal Border natural gas shed 3 cents to 10 end at $2.67 and $2.91/MMBtu, respectively. PG&E 0 ~~-L~~~L-~~-L~~--~ CityGate remained flat at $3. 91/MMBtu. Henry Hub values ticked up 5 cents to $2.89/MMBtu by May 6. 4/29 4/30 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 Meanwhile, Northwest daytime power prices fol­ lowed regional natural gas prices lower. Mid-Columbia lost the most, dropping $9.40 to end at $26.50/MWh. - - - - Mid-Columbia - cos South of Path 15 peak power rose the most among • .,._ SP15 Western hubs, up $6.15 to $39.45/MWh. Off-peak prices posted nominal gains save for Mid-C, which shed $1.35 to end at $27.40/MWh. Palo Verde night­ time power picked up $2 to end at $38/MWh by May 6. Average Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) Northwest Power Pool demand was 61,637 MW I Th.04/29 Tues., 05/04 Th,OS/06 May 6. California Independent System Operator demand -- I reached 31,338 MW May 5, which should be the week's Henry Hub 2.84 3.00 2.89 high. That same day, thermal generation on the CAISO Sumas 2.66 2.75 2.69 grid reached 15,535 MW, meeting almost half of the day's demand. Total renewables peaked at 17,539 MW May 1, Alberta 2.26 2.33 2.35 which was roughly 68 percent of the day's demand. Malin 2.75 2.85 2.81 In April, the average high peak price at Henry Opal/Kern 2.67 2.79 2.75 Hub was $2.93/MMBtu, $1.06 more than in 2020 Stanfield 2.62 2.75 (see "Price Trends," next page). 2.71 Western natural gas hub prices increased by PG&E CityGate 3.91 3.88 3.91 between 69 cents and as much as $2.51 compared with SoCal Border 2.94 2.97 2.91 the year prior. In April, SoCal Border natural gas lifted SoCal CityGate 3.22 3.48 3.52 to $4.19/MMBtu, compared with $1.68/MMBtu in 2020. Likewise, average Western power prices in the month EP-Permian 2.70 2.70 2.67 increased by between $10 and as much as $42.75. EP-San Juan 2.64 2.74 2.76 California-Oregon Border gained the most year over year, up $42.75 to $65/MWh. -Linda Dailey Paulson Power/gas prices courtesy Ener{ox

Copyright © 2021, NewsData LLC. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Ending At Midnight- May 10, 2021 CURRENT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

LEGEND

Capacity Historical (TAF) Average

2 448 2000 % or Capacity I%o r Hlstoncal Average 1000

0 Folsom Lake 53% 164% 38% 149%

2420 2000 2030

1000 1000

0 0 Don Pedro Reservoir 1025 68% 191 % 0 Lake McClure 44% 171%

2039

1000

0 Millerton San Lu is Reservoir Data Not Updated 49% 157% Data From: May 9 1000 52: ] II 0 Pine Flat Reservoir Millerton Lake 37% 157% 44% 161%

13~ J- --~~r- Lake Perris Castaic Lake 90% 1 107% 73% 1 81 %

Graph Updated 05/11/2021 07:18AM FISHBIO ------RSHBIO~ ______

1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925

May 10, 2021

Tri Dam Project Jarom Zimmerman P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364

Re: April2021 Invoices

Dear Mr. Zimmerman:

Enclosed are invoices tor consulting services provided by FISHBIO during April. Services provided for each project are summarized below.

Lifecvcle monitoring Lifecycle monitoring activities during April included operation of the Oakdale RST and data management, including finalizing weir data collected during tall 2020. We also worked on final edits to the 2020 0. mykiss census report. More information is provided in the enclosed San Joaquin Basin Field Report.

Publications We worked on edits to the 0. mykiss manuscript during April to address peer review comments that were received in February.

Non-Native Investigation/ Predator Studv The third and fourth field sampling events for the 2021 season were conducted in early and late April, respectively. Effort continued on processing and analyzing data collected during 2020 and drafting the 2020 study report. During April we also enjoyed the pleasure of providing tours to Directors, managers, and staff of the Districts to see sampling and data collection first-hand in the field. A reporter from Ag Alert also joined during one of the tours allowing the work to be featured in a news article, a copy of which is enclosed. As water temperatures rise and the juvenile salmon outmigration season draws to a close, the final sampling event will be completed the week of May 17. ------~FISHBIO ------

1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925

Budl!et Summarv

Lift-cycle 2021 Monitorinf! Publications Consultinf! Non-natives TOTAL Jan $ 31 ,458. 12 $ $ $ 30,217.58 $ 61,675.70 Feb $ 27,555.99 $ 655.00 $ 4,760.00 $ 77,095.42 $ 110,066.41 Mar $ 14,998.08 $ 957.50 $ $ 69,170.73 $ 85,126.31 Apr $ 31,365.02 $ II 330.00 $ $ 105 646.2 1 $ 148,341.23 TOTAL $105.377.21 $ 12.942.50 $ 4,760.00 $ 282129.94 $ 405,209.65 Estimated 2021 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 500 000.00 $ 825 000.00 RemaininK $ 94,622.79 $ 87 057.50 $ 20 240.00 $ 217 870.06 $ 419,790.35

Sincerely, ~~ Andrea Fuller ------~FISHBIO

SJB April Field Report

Juvenile Outmigration Monitoring

The Calaveras River rotary screw trap (RST) operated 17 out of 30 days during April. A total of 104 young-of-the-year (YOY; <100 mm), 53 Age 1+ (100-299 mm) and one adult (> 299 mm) 0. mykiss were captured, increasing the combined season total to 1,410 (F igure 1). A total of339 fish have been implanted with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags this season.

200 Calaveras River Rotary Screw Trap 0. mykiss Count 500 (Shelton Road)

160 400 .:. .::: u"' 120 300 .:.c·~"' ;:-.. >:: c 80 200 "' ~ ....."'"- Q"' "' 40 100 u"'

o .g,~~J;;~,r~.a-, /r.;h:lk;~~t~E~~r:gb.diJW~~o.a:~D.Ab..AaJELIDI,!JgM~. o 1-Nov I- Dee 31-Dcc 30-.lan 1-Mar 31-Mar 30-Apr

- Daily Catch - NIIG Bcllota • No SalllJllc Figure I. 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).

The Stanislaus River RST at Oakdale (RM 40) operated continuously during April. A total of 461 juvenile were captured, increasing the season total to 15,412 (Figure 2). Daily Chinook Catch was low throughout the month and ranged from zero to 72 fish. Releases from Goodwin Dam fluctuated from approximately 400 cfs to 1,350 cfs as pat1 of the spring pulse period intended to stimulate smolts to migrate downstream. No trap efficiency releases were conducted during April due to few wild fish captured in the trap and unavailability of Merced hatchery fish.

The Stanislaus River RST at Caswell (RM 9) operated continuously during April. A total of 54 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 123 (Figure 3). Daily Chinook catch ranged from zero to 13 during the month. No trap efficiency releases were conducted during the month of April due to the lack of wild fish captured in the trap and unavailability ofMerced hatchery fish.

2 ------~FISHBIO - --- -

Stanislaus River Rotary Screw Trap C hinook Salmon Count 600 (Oakdale) 1,600

450 1,200 ~ .::: ~ .!: ~ ~ 0 u ii: ~ ... 0 0 300 800 > c "' .::: C2 u "':I ~ !! .!!2 ~ c 0 150 400 <: cii

AAW~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feh 2 1-Feh 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr

- Daily Catch - Goodwin Outnow lliP Flow e No Sam1>lc Figure 2. Daily Chinook salmon catch at the Stanislaus Rive.r rotary screw tJ·ap at Oakdale and Stanislaus River flow at Goodwin Dam (GDW) and Orange Blossom Bridge (OBB). Note: Catch peaked at 2,553 on 1129/21,2,416 on 1130/21 and 690 on 1131121.

Stanislaus River Rotary Screw Trap C hin ook Salmon Count 50 (Caswell State Park) 1,500

40 I ,200 ~ ~ .::: ~ .!: ~ ~ 0 u 30 900 ii: ~ ... 0 0 "'> c ii .::: u 600 "':I !! ~ .!!2 ~ c 0 <: 300 cii

1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr

- D:1ily Catch - Goodwin Outnow RIP Flow • 'o S ample Figure 3. Daily Chinook salmon catch at the Stanislaus River rotary screw trap at Caswell and Stanislaus River flow at Goodwin Dam (GDW) and Ripon (RIP).

The Tuolumne River RST at Waterford (RM 34) operated continuously dming April. A total of 87 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured, increasing the season total to 1,843 (Figure 4). Daily Chinook Catch was low throughout the month and ranged from zero to 21 fish. Releases from La Grange Dam fluctuated from approximately 160 cfs to 2,300 cfs as part of the spring pulse period intended to stimulate smolts to migrate downstream. Base flows are currently at 165 cfs on the Tuolumne River, and water temperatures are warming up as ambient air temperatures increase. It is likely the water temperature tlu·eshold for RST sampling at Waterford will soon be exceeded.

3 ------~FISHBIO

The Tuolumne Ri ver RST at Grayson (RM 5) operated continuously during April. A total of 11 juvenile Chinook salmon were captured this season (Figure 5). Three juvenile Chinook salmon were captured on April 18 a few days after flow peaked at approximately 2,300 cfs at La Grange Dam. Water temperatures at Grayson exceeded the threshold allowed for RST sampling (70°C) on May 5 and sampling was terminated for the season. No juvenile Chinook salmon were captured at Grayson after April 18.

Tuolumne River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count 200 (Waterford) 2,500

160 2,000 ,-., ~ .c ._.u u ~ ~ to~ 0 u fi:: .:.c 120 1,500 ... 0 ~ 0 .... .c....= iia ~ u 80 1,000 b =s ·; .E! Q 0 40 500 ~

JtW.I.IbJQW~~~r,t,..,.,~.,..U.....,I,...,..,...,~o !-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr

- Daily Catch - La Grange Flow Modesto Flow • No Sample Figure 4. Daily Chinook sa lmon catch at the Tuolumne River rotary screw trap at Waterford and Tuolumne River flow at La Grange Dam (LGN) and Modesto (MOD).

10 Tuolumne River Rotary Screw Trap Chinook Salmon Count 2,500 (Grayson)

8 2,000 ,-., ~ ~ ~ 0 6 1,500 l'.i:...... ~ iia ~ 4 1,000 =e c= 2 500 ~

o ~~~am~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 1-Jan 18-Jan 4-Feb 21-Feb 10-Mar 27-Mar 13-Apr 30-Apr

- Daily Catch - La Grange Flow Modesto Flow • No Sample Figure 5. Daily C hinook salmon catch at the Tuolumne River rotary screw trap at G•·ayson and Tuolumne River flow at La Grange Dam (LGN) and Modesto (MOD). 4 ------~FISHBIO ______

Native Fish Plan

The third sampling event was conducted over eight days between March 31-April I 0 using two catarafts. All 39 units were sampled during the third sampling event (78 total site visits). Discharge levels at the Ripon USGS gauge averaged 35 l cfs (range= 368 to 383 cfs) during the sampling events. A total of910 target predatory fishes were captured. Of these, 660 were black bass (73%) and six were striped bass (<1 %). In comparison, black bass made up 74% of the predatory fish during the first 2021 sampling event in February and 63% of the predatory fish in the second 2021 sampling event in March. Catch rates were almost 20% higher during the third sampling event (approximately 11.7 predators per site visit) compared to the second sampling event (approximately 9.6 predators per site visit) and consisted largely of YOY black bass. A total of 490 predatory fish were marked with a PIT tag during the third event. In addition, 77 YOY black bass (<80 mm) were given a caudal fin clip because they were too small for PIT tags. Recaptures of fin-clipped YOY black bass will allow us to estimate abundance of this age class in units where they were successfully recaptured during subsequent sampling events. A total of 97 predatory fish were recaptured during the third sampling event (77 PIT tagged and 20 fin-clipped) with 14 from tagging effotis in either 2018 (n= l ), 2019 (n=5) or 2020 (n=8), and 52 from earlier tagging efforts in February and March 2021. The fin -clipped recaptures consisted of YOY black bass clipped during both the second and third sampling events. Diet samples were collected from 59 individual predators over the course of the sampling event. Pre! iminary field observations identified several probable juvenile Chinook salmon in the diet samples of striped bass and black bass.

The fourth sampling event was conducted over seven days between April 22-30 using two electrofishing boats. All 39 units were sampled during the fourth sampling event (78 total site visits). Discharge levels at the Ripon USGS gauge averaged 35 1cfs (range = 588 to 1,210 cfs) during the sampling events. A total of 623 target predatory fishes were captured for a catch rate of 8.0 predators per site visit. Of these, 372 were black bass (60%) and 36 were striped bass (6%). The average size of black bass captured increased from 124 111m FL during event three to 158 111m during event four. A total of 67 predatory fish were recaptured during the fourth sampli ng event ( 64 PIT tagged and 3 fin-clipped) with 19 from tagging efforts in either 2019 (n=6) or 2020 (n= 13 ), and 32 from earlier tagging effmis during events one tlu·ough tlu·ee. Diet samples were collected from 152 individual predators over the course of the sampling event. Preliminary field observations identified several probable juvenile Chinook salmon in the diet samples of striped bass and black bass.

ARIS/E-fishing

Seven sites were sampled in three different regions of the South Delta in April 2021. Sampling was limited to two days due to high water temperatures exceeding our permitted limit at many of our sampling sites. In total, 97 target fish were captured (82 black bass, 10 striped bass, and

5 ------~F&Hmo ______fi ve catfi sh), 46 stomach samples were collected, 79 fi sh were PIT-ta gged, and one previously PIT-tagged fi sh was recaptured. Minnows, silversides, and various sunfi sh species comprised the 66 non-target fi sh that were captured in April. The largest fish captured was a largemouth bass measuring just under 23 inches in the Old River region.

Fyke Trapping

Fyke traps sampled 18 days during at four trapping sites. A total of 23 7 target species were captured in April bringing the season total to 305 fish (Table 1). This month's catch represented our highest total of the year by far and was nearly four times higher than the previous month. The increase in catch during April cotTesponded with pulse flows from area tributaries, a trend we have observed during previous years. This increase in catch also coincides with the timing of the ammal striped bass spawning run in the Central Valley.

Table 1. Summary of ta r·get species carrtured dur·ing April fy ke sam lling. Sturgeon Species Blewett Bend Alegre Lorenzon Grand Total Striped Bass 47 13 60 21 141 Black Bass II 6 4 5 26 Channel Catfish 33 9 9 2 53 White Catfish 4 5 6 2 17 Grand Total 95 33 79 30 237

Striped bass have accounted for nearly 61% (n= 186) of all fish captured so far this season with a total of 303 PIT tags deployed. Three notable large striped bass were captured in early April with sizes ranging from 4 1 inches to 44.7 inches (Figure 2). Overall, striped bass total length ranged from 14.9 to 44.7 inches and averaged 21.4 inches (SD = 5.8 inches). A large green sturgeon was captured in the Sturgeon Bend fyke on April 1 (Figure 6). The green sturgeon is federally listed as a threatened species, and as such our take is limited to two fish per season. The fish was photographed to verify identification, scanned for PIT tags and released in good health.

Figure 6. Striped Bass (left) and G r·een Sturgeon (right) captured during April sampling. 6 ------~FISHBIO - - ---

Temperatures at the Blewett site, which is located 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with the Stanislaus River, exceeded pem1it thresholds after the Tuolumne River pulse flow subsided. As a result, operations were suspended at Blewett on Friday April 30. Temperatures at remaining site exceeded the sampling threshold during the first week of May. Fykes wi ll resume sampling if/when temperatures may decrease following increased river flow from the tributaries.

We recaptured a total of seven tagged fish in April, representing the second greatest number recorded in one month behind June 2019 (n= ll). Fortunately, five of the seven recaptures in April were originally tagged in the fyke traps, meaning that they will contribute toward our primary objective of estimating population size. Previously, we had only recaptured two other fi sh that were originally tagged in the fyke traps. The other recaptured fi sh in April came from anglers and one fish that was detected by a passive PIT antenna operated near Caswell in the Stanislaus River. We have now logged a total of 69 recaptures/resightings of fish that were originally tagged in the zykes (Figure 7).

Stf11cd Bass (n=57)

6 Black Bass (n=28)

• Ctlamet Catfish (n= 1)

\M11IB Callish (n::3)

0 25 50 N I I I I I I I Miles A Figure 7. Location of recaptu•·ed fish from throughout the Central Valley.

7 CLOSED SESSION Notes: TRI-DAM

POWER

AUTHORITY REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAY 20,2021 Start time is immediately following the Tri-Dam Project meeting which begins at 9:00 AM

Oakdale Irrigation District* 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 * SEE BELOW FOR INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION

NOTICE: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

A COMPLETE COPY OF THE AGENDA PACKET WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WEB SITE (www.oakdaleirrigation.com) ON MONDAY, MAY 17,2021 AT 9:00A.M. ALL WRITINGS THAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND RELATE TO AN AGENDA ITEM WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED TO A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING NOTICED ABOVE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WEB SITE (www.oakdaleinigation.com).

INFORMATION FOR SPECIAL MEETING DURING SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER (Effective 3/27/2020- until further notice):

Pursuant to Califomia Govemor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, a local legislative body is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public who wish to participate and to provide public comment to the local legislative body during the current health emergency. The Tri-Dam Project and Tri-Dam Power Authority Board of Directors (Tri-Dam Directors) will adhere to and implement the provisions of the Govemor's Executive Order related to the Brown Act and the utilization of technology to facilitate patticipation.

*The location of the Tri-Dam meeting will be at the offices of the South San Joaquin Irrigation Dist1ict, 11011 Highway 120, Manteca and the Oakdale Irrigation Office located 1205 East F Street, Oakdale. These sites will be utilized as call-in centers only for some or all Directors who will be communicating via teleconference. Be advised these facilities are currently closed to public access due to implemented protection measures for the COVID-19 viius. The public will not be granted access to these facilities.

**Public members who wish to participate, listen to, and provide comment on agenda items can do so by telephone by calling (669) 900-9128, then entering Meeting ID: 439-287-1020. All speakers commenting on Agenda Items are limited to five (5) minutes. Members of the public may also submit public comments in advance by e-mailing [email protected] by 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 19, 2021.

In addition to the mandatory conditions set forth above, the Tri-Dam Directors will use sound discretion and make reasonable effmts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the provisions of the Brown Act, and other applicable local. laws regulating the conduct of public meetings.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a person requiring an accommodation, auxiliary aid, or service to participate in this meeting should contact the Executive Assistant at (209) 840-5507, as far in advance as possible but no later than 24 hours before the scheduled event. The best effort to fulfill the request will be made.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Brad DeBoer, Herman Doomenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos, Ed Tobias

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2

Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be acted upon under one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a request is made to the Board President by a Director or member of the public. Those items will be considered at the end of the consent items.

1. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of April 15, 2021 . 2. Approve the April financial statements and statement of obligations.

ACTION ITEMS ITEM3 3. Discussion and possible action related to designating the date of one Tri-Dam Power Authority regular meeting in Strawbeny.

ADJOURNMENT ITEMS 4-5

4. Commissioner Comments. 5. Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MEETING MINUTES BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Tri-Dam Power Authority April 2021 Minutes

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend Approval of April15, 2021 Minutes

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April15, 2021 Manteca, California

The Commissioners of the Tri-Dam Power Authority met at the offices of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District located in Manteca, California, on the above date for conducting business of the Tri-Dam Power Authority, pursuant to the resolution adopted on October 14, 1984. President Weststeyn called the meeting to order at 9:39 a.m.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: OlD COMMISSIONERS SSJID COMMISSIONERS BRAD DeBOER BOB HOLMES LINDA SANTOS DAVE KAMPER TOM ORVIS JOHN HOLBROOK ED TOBIAS MIKE WESTSTEYN HERMAN DOORNENBAL RALPH ROOS

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

ALSO PRESENT: Jarom Zimmerman, General Manager, Tri-Dam Project; Brian Jaruszewski, Finance and Administrative Manager, Tri-Dam Project; Genna Modrell, Admin. and Finance Assistant, Tri-Dam Project; Susan Larson, Compliance Coordinator, Tri-Dam Project; Steve Knell, General Manager, OlD; Peter Rietkerk, General Manager, SSJID; Mia Brown, General Counsel, SSJID; Tim O'Laughlin, Counsel

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

CONSENT CALENDAR

ITEM #1 Approve the regular board meeting minutes of March 18, 2021.

Commissioner Holbrook moved to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Commissioner Orvis seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

Page 1 TDPA April15, 2021 ACTION CALENDAR

ITEM #2 Discussion and possible action regarding monthly and year to date financial statements, statement of obligations and investment report.

Brian Jaruszewski presented the monthly and year to date financials and responded to Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Holmes moved to file the financials as submitted. Commissioner Doornenbal seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #3 Discussion and possible action regarding Resolution TDPA 2021-01 Surplus Property.

Brian Jaruszewski presented one item to be declared surplus and responded to Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Holbrook moved to approve as presented. Commissioner Santos seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #4 Discussion and possible action to approve the FERC annual/and fees for 2021.

Jarom Zimmerman presented the annual land use fee invoice from FERC.

Commissioner Orvis moved to approve as presented. Commissioner Holbrook seconded the motion.

The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: DeBoer, Doornenbal, Orvis, Santos, Tobias (OlD); Holbrook, Holmes, Kamper, Roos, Weststeyn (SSJID) NOES: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None

ITEM #5 Commissioners Comments Commissioner DeBoer acknowledged staff for a job well done.

Page 2 TDPA April15, 2021 ADJOURNMENT

President Weststeyn adjourned the meeting at 9:49 a.m.

The next Board of Commissioners meeting will be May 20, 2021 at the offices of Oakdale Irrigation District, Oakdale, California immediately following the Tri-Dam Project meeting, which commences at 9:00 a.m.

ATTEST:

Jarom Zimmerman Secretary Tri-Dam Power Authority

Page 3 TDPA April 15, 2021 FINANCIALS BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: 5/20/2021 Staff: Brian Jaruszewski

SUBJECT: Tri-Dam Power Authority April 2021 Financial Statements

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend Approval of April 2021 Financial Statements and Statement of Obligations

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Financial Statements (Balance Sheet and Income Statement) for Tri-Dam Power Authority are presented monthly for approval. Note that these are unaudited financial statements. As such, they include accruals for certain revenues and expenditures.

Also submitted for approval is the Statement of Obligations for Tri-Dam Power Authority.

FISCAL IMPACT: See Attachments

ATTACHMENTS: Tri-Dam Power Authority Financial Statements Tri-Dam Power Authority Statement of Obligations

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No) Tri-Dam Power Authority Balance Sheets (Unaudited)

April 30, 2021 March 31, 2021 April 30, 2020 1 Assets 2 Cash $ 960,362 $ 877,132 $ 1,658,500 3 Short-Term Investments 1,086,324 1 ,085,138 1,078,902 4 Accounts Receivable 179,984 109,256 349,810 5 Prepaid Expenses 13,835 27,670 11,294 6 Capital Assets 45,381,032 45,381,032 45,327,371 7 Accumulated Depreciation (22,250,289) (22,210,102) (21 ,758,780) 8 Intangible Assets 9 Other Assets 11 11 152 10 Total Assets 25,371,260 25,270,136 26 667,249 11 12 13 Liabilities 14 Accounts Payable 135,382 76,839 323,239 15 Other Current Liabilities 7,079 16 Long-Term Liabilities 26,786 26,786 20,833 17 Total Liabilities 162,168 103,625 351,151 18 19 Net Position 20 Net Position - Beginning of Year 27,233,484 27,233,484 31,878,621 21 Additional Paid in Capilal 385,873 385,873 385,873 22 Distributions (2,504,000) (2,504,000) (6,439,000) 23 YTD Net Revenues 93,735 51' 154 490,604 24 Total Net Position 25,209,092 25,166,511 26,316,099 25 26 27 Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 25,371,260 $ 25 270 136 $ 26,667 249 Tri-Dam Power Authority Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending April30, 2021

Percent of MTD MTD MTD Budget PriorYear PriorYear 2021 2021 Budget Budget Actual Variance MTD Actual MTD Var Budget Remaining Operating Revenues 2 Power Sales $ 504,080 $ 179,984 $ (324,096) $ 349,810 $ (169,826) $ 6,048,956' 91% 3 Other Operating Revenue NA 4 Total Operating Revenues 504,080 179,984 (324,096) 349,810 (169,826) 6,048,956 91% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 27,563 39,453 11,890 46,831 (7,378) 330,759 64% 8 Benefits and Overhead 18,884 19,090 206 19,841 (752) 226,604 75% 9 Operations 1,903 (1,903) 3,513 (3,513) 22,830 100% 10 Maintenance 13,625 3,306 (10,319) 5,275 (1,969) 163,500 94% 11 General & Administrative 22,640 36,850 14,210 17,455 19,395 271,682 59% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 41,667 40,187 (1 ,480) 40,991 (804) 500,000 76% 13 Total Operating Expenses 126,281 138,886 12,605 133,905 4,980 1,515,375 73% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 377.798 41,098 (336,700) 215,905 (174,807) 4,533,581 97% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses} 18 Investment Earnings 1,667 1,483 (184) 1,370 112 20,000 78% 19 Interest Expense NA 22 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses} 1,667 1,483 (184) 1,370 112 20,000 78% 23 24 Net Revenues $ 379,465 $ 42,581 $ (336,884) $ 217,275 $ (174,694) $4,553,581 97% 25 26 27 Memo: 28 Capital Expenditures $ 39,000 $ $ (39,000) $ $ 156,000 100% Tri-Dam Power Authority Statement of Revenues and Expenses Month Ending April 30, 2021

Percent of YTD YTD YTD Budget PriorYear Prior Year 2021 2021 Budget Budget Actual Variance Actual Variance Budget Remaining Operating Revenues 2 Power Sales $ 2,016,319 $ 500,507 $ (1,515,812) $ 910,635 $ (410,128) $ 6,048,956 92% 3 Other Operating Revenue NA 4 Total Operating Revenues 2,016,319 500,507 (1,515,812) 910,635 (410,128) 6,048,956 92% 5 6 Operating Expenses 7 Salaries and Wages 110,253 92,224 (18,029) 108,437 (16,214) 330,759 72% 8 Benefits and Overhead 75,535 43,158 (32,377) 49,999 (6,841) 226,604 81% 9 Operations 7,610 7,590 (20) 15,853 (8,263) 22,830 67% 10 Maintenance 54,500 14,176 (40,324) 18,969 (4,793) 163,500 91% 11 General & Administrative 90,561 89,876 (685) 69,959 19,917 271,682 67% 12 Depreciation & Amortization 166,667 163,250 (3,417) 163,963 (714) 500,000 67% 13 Total Operating Expenses 505,125 410,273 (94,852) 427,182 (16,908) 1,515,375 73% 14 15 Net Income From Operations 1,511,194 90,233 (1 ,420,960) 483,453 (393,220) 4,533,581 98% 16 17 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 18 Investment Earnings 6,667 3,502 (3,165) 7,151 (3,650) 20,000 82% 19 Interest Expense NA 22 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 6,667 3,502 (3,165) 7,151 (3,650) 20,000 82% 23 24 Net Revenues $1,517,860 $ 93,735 $ (1 ,424, 125) $ 490,604 $ (396,869) $ 4,553,581 98% 25 26 27 Memo: 28 Capital Expenditures $ 52,000 $ $ (52,000) $ $ $ 156,000 100% General Ledger Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund

User: BJaruszewski Printed: 5/111202 1 I : I 0:36PM Period 0 I - 04 Fiscal Year 202 I

Fund Description Budget Period Amt End Bat Variance Encumbered Available % Available

2 Operations 2 Electric Expense Labor 105,648.00 45,3 16.78 45,3 16.78 60,33 1.22 0.00 60,33 1.22 57.11 2 Electric Expense OH 70,874.00 19,259.31 19,259.3 1 51 ,614.69 0.00 51.614.69 72.83 2 Powerhouse Supplies 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Furnishings & Misc. Equipment 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00 2 Powerhouse Utilities 15.000.00 1,259.66 1,259.66 13,740.34 0.00 13,740.34 91.60 2 Streamgaging 6,330.00 6,330.00 6,330.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Depreciation 500,000.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 0.00 500.000.00 100.00 2 Operations 699,352.00 72,165.75 72,165.75 627,186.25 0.00 627,186.25 89.68 2 Maintenance 2 Comms & Security Labor 147,297.00 22,421.45 22,42 1.45 124,875.55 0.00 124,875.55 84.78 2 Comms & Security OH 98,214.00 13,050.88 13,050.88 85, 163. 12 0.00 85, 163.12 86.7 1 2 Safety Supplies 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00 2 Maint & Repairs - Facilities 30,000.00 6,231.47 6,231.47 23,768.53 0.00 23,768.53 79.23 2 Maint & Repairs to Plant 70.000.00 7,944.55 7,944.55 62,055.45 0.00 62,055.45 88.65 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 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2.000.00 100.00 2 Power Line Repair & Maintenanc 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 100.00 2 Communications & Security 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5.000.00 100.00 2 Routine Road Maintenance 15.000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 100.00 2 Shop Supplies 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Equipment Rental TOP 24,000.00 0.00 0.00 24,000.00 0.00 24,000.00 100.00 2 Equipment Operation & Maintena 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Maintenance 409,011.00 49,648.35 49,648.35 359,362.65 0.00 359,362.65 87.86 2 Administrative 2 Administrative Labor 77,815.00 24,485.6 1 24.485.61 53,329.39 0.00 53,329.39 68.53 2 Administrative OH 57,5 16.00 10,847.96 10,847.96 46,668.04 0.00 46.668.04 81.14 2 Office Expense 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 APPA & NHA Dues 7,750.00 6,923.91 6,923.91 826.09 0.00 826.09 10.66 2 Legal Fees General Matters 20.000.00 5,090.00 5,090.00 14,910.00 0.00 14,910.00 74.55 2 Auditing Services 8,912.00 2,657.00 2,657.00 6,255.00 0.00 6,255.00 70.19 2 Engineering Consulting 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10.000.00 100.00 2 Haz Mat Business Plan 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00 2 Liability & Property Insurance 166,020.00 41 ,504.85 4 1,504.85 124,5 15.15 0.00 124,515. 15 75.00 2 Property and Use Taxes 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00

GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (0511 1/2021 - 0 I: I 0 PM) Page I Fund Description Budget Period Amt End Bat Variance Encumbered Available o/o Available

2 FERC Admin & Land Fees 23,000.00 2,429.86 2,429.86 20,570. 14 0.00 20,570.14 89.44 2 USFS Campground Fee 34,000.00 17,435.32 17,435 .32 16,564.68 0.00 16,564.68 48.72 2 Administrative 407,013.00 111,374.51 111,374.51 295,638.49 0.00 295,638.49 72.64 2 Capital Exp Fixed Asset 2 Exci Coi to Goi repl 33,000.00 0.00 0.00 33,000.00 0.00 33,000.00 100.00 2 Stop log gate reseal 18,000.00 0.00 0.00 18,000.00 0.00 18,000.00 100.00 2 51E Mech relay rep! 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.00 2 Rep! Power Line Poles 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 100.00 2 Capital Exp Fixed Asset 156,000.00 0.00 0.00 156,000.00 0.00 156,000.00 100.00 Expense 1,671,376.00 233,188.61 233,188.61 1,438,187.39 0.00 1,438,187.39 0.8605 Total 2 Tri Dam Power Authority 1,67 1,376.00 233,188.61 233,188.61 I ,438, 187.39 0.00 I ,438, 187.39 86.05 Expense 1,671,376.00 233,188.61 233,188.61 1,438,187.39 0.00 1,438,187.39 0.8605 Total

GL- Expense vs Budget with Encumbrances by Fund (05/11/2021 - 0 I: I 0 PM) Page 2 Tri-Dam Power Authority Cash Flow 2021

Power Other Cash Monthly Net YTD Net Cash Month Sales Receipts Payments Distributions Cash Flow Flow Jan $ 566,824 $ 835 $ 13,078 $ 2,504,000 $ (1,949,419) $ (1 ,949,419) Feb 139,278 548 8,530 131,296 (1,818,123) Mar 71,989 636 1,025,184 (952,559) (2,770,682) Apr 109,256 296 26,321 83,231 (2,687,452) May (2,687,452) June (2,687,452) July (2,687,452) Aug (2,687,452) Sept (2,687,452) Oct (2,687,452) Nov (2,687,452) Dec (2,687,452) Total $ 887,347 $ 2,315 $ 1,073,114 $ 2,504,000 $ (2,687 ,452)

Budget $ 6,048,956 $ 20,000 $ 1,171,375

Budget $ Debt Payments (P&I) 1,015,375 O&M Payments 156,000 Capital Payments $ 1,171,375 Tri-Dam Power Authority

Statement of Obligations

April 1, 2021 to April 30, 2021 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS

Period Covered April 1, 2021 to April 30, 2021

Total Obligations: 7 checks in the amount of ==,;$;;26;;;,~3,;;;2,;1;;;·2;;;9= (See attached Vendor Check Register Report)

CERTIFICATION

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Thomas D. Orvis John Holbrook

Ed Tobias Robert A. Holmes

Linda Santos Dave Kamper

Herman Doornenbal Ralph Roos

Brad DeBoer Mike Weststeyn

To: Peter Rietkerk, SSJID General Manager:

THE UNDERSIGNED, EACH FOR HIMSELF, CERTIFIES THAT HE IS PRESIDENT OR SECRETARY OF THE TRI· DAM POWER AUTHORITY; THAT THE AMOUNTS DESIGNATED ABOVE HAVE 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 DRAWN 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,

Mike Weststeyn, President Date Jarom Zimmerman, General Manager Date Secretary Authority April Checks by Amount

!I TRI·DRM PRIIJECTI,I

Check Vendor No Vendor Date Description Amount

208184 10755 USDA Forest Service 04/09/2021 Annual Sandbar Campground Fee 17,435.32 208186 10501 O'Laughlin & Paris 04/15/2021 Legal Matters 3,070.00 208188 10373 Industrial Electrical Co. 04/23/2021 Governor Motor Repair 2,633.24 208187 10289 Federal Energy Reg. Commission 04/23/2021 Annual Land Use Fees 2,429.86 208189 10900 Chase Cardmember Service 04/29/2021 651.56 208185 11343 Tim O'Laughlin 04115/2021 80.00 208183 10320 General Supply Co. 04/09/2021 21.31

Report Total: $ 26,321.29 CHANGE OF MEETING LOCATION BOARD AGENDA REPORT

Date: May 20, 2021 Staff: Genna Modrell

SUBJECT: Designate the date of one Tri-Dam Power Authority regular meeting in Strawberry.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action related to designating the date of one Tri-Dam Power Authority regular meeting in Strawberry.

BACKGROUND AND/OR HISTORY:

Each year we typically hold one board meeting in Strawberry. This is authorized pursuant to Water Code 21377.5: which would permit Tri-Dam to conduct up to four regular board meetings annually at the Tri-Dam Project office located in Strawberry, California.

Listed below are upcoming meeting date options.

June 17,2021

July 15, 2021

August 19, 2021

FISCAL IMPACT: None

ATTACHMENTS: None

Board Motion:

Motion by:------Second by:------

VOTE: OlD: DeBoer (Yes/No) Doornenbal (Yes/No) Orvis (Yes/No) Santos (Yes/No) Tobias (Yes/No)

SSJID: Holbrook (Yes/No) Holmes (Yes/No) Kamper (Yes/No) Roos (Yes/No) Weststeyn (Yes/No)