DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report March 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report March 2015 WATER MANAGEMENT GOAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY Final Report March 2015 Water Management Goal Investment Strategy Final Report March 2015 Executive Summary Executive Summary The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated the Investment Strategy in support of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) Water Management Goal. The purpose of the Investment Strategy is to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors (Friant Contractors) as a result of releasing Restoration Flows. The objective of the Investment Strategy is to develop, evaluate, and prepare a prioritized set of implementable projects that could help achieve this goal. Reclamation, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, approximately 20 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement Priority Projects. The Investment Strategy Report provides the following information and tools: • A list of Priority Projects evaluated at an appraisal level that support the Water Management Goal of the SJRRP. Each project document includes implementation requirements, as well as appraisal-level cost estimates and designs, which will allow Reclamation and project proponents to quickly advance these projects when funding opportunities arise. • Detailed evaluation criteria and metrics that represent a structured, repeatable, and scalable planning framework to evaluate projects of varying types and scales at different stages of development. The criteria and metrics are used to assess a project’s cost- effectiveness, ability to reduce Friant Contractors’ Recovered Water Account balances, implementation complexity, completeness in definition, and contribution to multi- purpose benefits. When Federal or other funding opportunities become available, Reclamation will consult the Investment Strategy for projects that could be implemented in whole or in part. Sources of Federal funds could include SJRRP Part III funds, other Reclamation funds, other Federal agency funds, state funds, and other opportunistic sources. Priority Projects that best meet the specific funding objectives and requirements will be selected; therefore, the Priority Projects will not necessarily be implemented in the order of their ranking. Should a Priority Project proponent decide to apply for a Reclamation- or self-identified funding opportunity, Reclamation will assist with the preparation of funding applications, as appropriate and practicable. The Investment Strategy is a living document that Reclamation will maintain and update. As projects are completed, they will be removed from the Priority Project list. A project may be removed, added, or updated per project proponent request at any time provided it is consistent with the Investment Strategy approach and evaluation criteria. Reclamation will perform an annual, high-level review and a comprehensive update every five years to ensure the Investment Strategy continues to be relevant and consistent with the priorities and needs of the SJRRP Water Management Goal. Investment Strategy 1 – March 2015 San Joaquin River Restoration Program Page left blank intentionally. 2 – March 2015 Investment Strategy Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Authorization ................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Organization of this Report ............................................................................ 1-4 2.0 Evaluation Guidelines ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Initial Project Screening ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Preliminary Evaluation and Initial Scoring.................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Preliminary Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ..................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Initial Scoring..................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Appraisal Evaluation and Refined Scoring .................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Appraisal Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ........................................ 2-6 2.3.2 Refined Scoring ................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3 Water Supply and Conveyance Competition ..................................... 2-6 3.0 2015 Investment Strategy Findings ..................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................... 3-1 3.2 2015 Investment Strategy Development Process ........................................... 3-1 3.3 Initial Project Screening ................................................................................. 3-4 3.4 Preliminary Evaluation and Initial Scoring.................................................... 3-6 3.4.1 Priority Projects ................................................................................. 3-9 3.4.2 Projects not Evaluated Further ......................................................... 3-11 3.5 Appraisal Evaluation and Refined Scoring .................................................. 3-13 3.5.1 Appraisal Evaluation ........................................................................ 3-13 3.5.2 Scoring and Ranking ........................................................................ 3-13 3.5.3 Water Supply Competition and Conveyance Analysis .................... 3-19 3.6 Findings........................................................................................................ 3-24 4.0 Next Steps for Investment Strategy Implementation ........................................ 4-1 4.1 Intended Use of the Investment Strategy ....................................................... 4-1 4.2 Maintaining and Updating the Investment Strategy ...................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Ad Hoc Addendum ............................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 Annual Reviews ................................................................................. 4-2 Investment Strategy i – March 2015 San Joaquin River Restoration Program 4.2.3 Five-Year Updates ............................................................................. 4-2 4.2.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 4-3 4.3 Funding Investment Strategy Projects ........................................................... 4-3 5.0 References .............................................................................................................. 5-1 Tables Table 2-1. Project Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ......................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2. Relative Weights for the Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ............................. 2-5 Table 3-1. Investment Strategy Meetings ........................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-2. Priority Projects Identified for Further Evaluation ....................................... 3-10 Table 3-3. Retained Projects Not Evaluated Further in the Investment Strategy .............................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-4. Summary of Priority Projects and Scores ..................................................... 3-17 Table 3-5. Water Supply Sources for Priority Projects.................................................. 3-20 Table 3-6. Summary of Priority Projects Yield, Cost, and Cost- Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 3-24 Figures Figure 2-1. Investment Strategy Evaluation Process ...................................................... 2-1 Figure 3-1. 2015 Investment Strategy Development Process .......................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2. Water Management Areas and Friant Contractor Boundaries ...................... 3-5 Figure 3-3. Geographical Distribution of Screened Initial Projects and Retained Projects ................................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-4. Locations of Retained Projects Evaluated During the Preliminary Evaluation Phase .............................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-5. Process for Selecting Priority Projects .......................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-6. Location of Priority Projects with Corresponding Project Types .................................................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-7. Summary of Priority Project Evaluation Results, Compared to the Preliminary Evaluation Results .................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-8. Priority Projects Rankings using the Overall Composite- Weighted Score .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The
    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity Impared Water Bodies and Numerical Limits
    Surface Water Bodies Listed as Impaired by Salinity or Electrical Conductivity on the 303(d) List1 Salinity Del Puerto Creek Hospital Creek Ingram Creek Kellogg Creek Knights Landing Ridge Cut Mountain House Creek Newman Wasteway Old River Pit River, South Fork Ramona Lake Salado Creek Sand Creek Spring Creek Tom Paine Slough Tule Canal Electrical Conductivity Delta Waterways (export area) Delta Waterways (northwestern portion) Delta Waterways (southern portion) Delta Waterways (western portion) Grassland Marshes Lower Kings River Mud Slough North Salt Slough San Joaquin River Temple Creek 1 List adopted by the Central Valley Water Board in June 2009. This list has not been approved by the State Water Board or U.S. EPA. Central Valley Water Bodies With Numerical Objectives for Electrical Conductivity or Total Dissolved Solids SURFACE WATERS GROUNDWATER Sacramento River Basin Tulare Lake Basin Hydrographic Units Sacramento River Westside Feather River Kings River American River Tulare Lake and Kaweah River Folsom Lake Tule River and Poso Goose Lake Kern River San Joaquin River Basin San Joaquin River Tulare Lake Basin Kings River Kaweah River Tule River Kern River Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sacramento River San Joaquin River So. Fork Mokelumne River Old River West Canal All surface waters and groundwaters Delta-Mendota Canal designated as municipal and domestic Montezuma Slough (MUN) water supplies must meet the Chadbourne Slough numerical secondary maximum Cordelia Slough contaminant levels for salinity in Title Goodyear Slough 22 of the California Code of Intakes on Van Sickle and Chipps Regulations. Islands .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Description of Contractors and Exchange Partners
    Final EA-15-022 Appendix A Description of Contractors and Exchange Partners Summary of Cross Valley Contractors The following description characterizes each Cross Valley Contractor and associated subcontractor: County of Fresno The County of Fresno has a water service contract (Contract No. 14-06-200-8292A-IR15) for up to 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) that is provided for municipal and industrial (M&I) uses to specific developments within its CVP service area. The County draws its water directly from Millerton Lake after its Delta supply has been exchanged for Friant supplies with Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison). The County’s CVP water supplies have been administered by Arvin-Edison for the last 20 years pursuant to an agreement between the County and Arvin-Edison. County of Tulare The County of Tulare has a water service contract (Contract No. 14-06-200-8293A-IR15) for up to 5,308 AFY of water. The County of Tulare is comprised of 10 subcontractors (both agricultural and M&I) and all are located in the same geographical area as the Friant Division Contractors. Of the 10 subcontractors, only five have routinely taken water deliveries via the County of Tulare’s contract in recent years. The County of Tulare’s CVP contract supply is divided among the 10 subcontractors as shown below: Alpaugh Irrigation District (Alpaugh) – up to 100 AFY (agricultural) Atwell Island Water District (Atwell Island) – up to 50 AFY (agricultural) City of Lindsay – up to 50 AFY (M&I) City of Visalia – up to 300 AFY (M&I) Fransinetto Farms LLC – up to 400 AFY (agricultural) Hills Valley Irrigation District (Hills Valley) – up to 2,913 AFY (agricultural) Saucelito Irrigation District (Saucelito) – up to 100 AFY (agricultural) Stone Corral Irrigation District (Stone Corral) – up to 950 AFY (agricultural) Strathmore Public Utility District (Strathmore) – up to 400 AFY (M&I) Styro-Tek, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California
    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California By WILLARD W. DEAN fPith a section on GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS IN THE KERN RIVER BASIN By KEVIN M. SCOTT FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-610922 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ Cl Introduction.____________ _ ________________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________________ 3 Precipitation__ ____________________________________________________ 5 General description of the floods___________________________________ 9 Kern River basin______________________________________________ 12 Tule River basin______________________________________________ 16 Kaweah River basin____________________________--_-____-_---_- 18 Miscellaneous basins___________________________________________ 22 Storage regulation _________________________________________________ 22 Flood damage.__________________________________________________ 23 Comparison to previous floods___________-_____________--___------_
    [Show full text]
  • Jockusch Et Al in 2012
    Zootaxa 3190: 1–30 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California with descriptions of two new species ELIZABETH L. JOCKUSCH1, IÑIGO MARTÍNEZ-SOLANO1,2, ROBERT W. HANSEN3, & DAVID B. WAKE4 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 75 N. Eagleville Rd., U-3043, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC) (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ronda de Toledo, s/n 13005 Ciudad Real, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] 316333 Deer Path Lane, Clovis, CA 93619-9735, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 4Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 3101 Valley Life Sciences Building, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3160, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Slender salamanders of the genus Batrachoseps achieve relatively high diversity in the Kern Canyon region at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada of California through high turnover of species with small geographic ranges. The status of several populations of Batrachoseps in this region is enigmatic, and both morphological and molecular data have suggested that some populations do not belong to any of the currently recognized species. Identification of species in this region is com- plicated by the apparent extinction of Batrachoseps relictus in the vicinity of its type locality in the Lower Kern River Canyon. Here we analyze a comprehensive morphological dataset to evaluate diversity in the Kern River Canyon region.
    [Show full text]
  • Terminus Reservoir: Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna
    Terminus Reservoir: Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna, Archeology, History Terminus Reservoir Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna, Archeology, History TERMINUS RESERVOIR Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna, Archeology, History By Lorin E. Berryman, Reports Control Officer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District Dr. Albert B. Elasser, Research Anthropologist Robert H. Lowie, Museum University of California, Berkeley August 1966 Prepared under the Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the National Park Service TABLE OF CONTENTS index.htm Last Updated: 08-Sep-2008 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/smithsonian/terminus-reservoir/index.htm[7/11/2012 2:55:36 PM] Terminus Reservoir: Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna, Archeology, History (Table of Contents) Terminus Reservoir Geology, Paleontology, Flora & Fauna, Archeology, History TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Terminus Dam and Reservoir — Kaweah River, California Geology and Paleontology Geologic History Physiography Stratigraphy Regional Structure Paleontology Flora and Fauna Native Occupation of the Terminus Reservoir Region Archeological Investigations Historical Sketch Linguistic and Cultural Boundaries Pattern of Occupation — Primary Foods The Pictographs Summary of Excavations Greasy Creek Site Slick Rock Village Site Cobble Lodge Site Conclusions Spanish Exploration of the Kaweah River Basin American Exploration and Settlement The Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage Program Notes List of Common and Scientific
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of Southwestern Sequoia National Park, Tulare County, California
    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Geologic Map of Southwestern Sequoia National Park, Tulare County, California By Thomas W. Sisson and James G. Moore Open-File Report 2013–1096 2013 U. S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Work ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Metamorphic Rocks ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Metasedimentary Rocks ............................................................................................................................. 2 Fossils ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Metavolcanic Rocks ................................................................................................................................... 4 Structure ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Timing of Deformation ................................................................................................................................ 6 Metamorphism and Metamorphic
    [Show full text]
  • Water Budgets for Major Streams in the Central Valley, California, 1961-77
    WATER BUDGETS FOR MAJOR STREAMS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 1961-77 By James R. Mullen and Paul Nady U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 85-401 Regional Aquifer-System Analysis oo i i l o o Sacramento, California 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Services Section Federal Building, Room W-2234 Western Distribution Branch 2800 Cottage Way U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento, California 95825 Box 25424, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 (Telephone: [303] 236-7476) CONTENTS Page Abstract--------- --------------------------------------------------- i Introduction----- ------------------------------------------ ______ i Method --- --- --- --- --- ------- -- - 4 Base period------------------------------------------------------ 5 Acknowledgments-------------------------------------------------- 5 Selected references--------------------------------------------------- 6 Schematics, explanations, and water-budget tables--------------------- 7 Kern River------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Tule River -- - - --- ------- 13 Kaweah River---------------------------------------------------------- 17 Main stem-------------------------------------------------------- 17 St. Johns River --- ------ 21 Kings River----------------------------------------------------------- 25 San Joaquin River-------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Summary of Available Water Supplies
    Draft EA-17-020 Appendix A: Summary of Available Water Supplies Summary of Available Water Supplies This appendix includes a summary of available water supplies for the Cross Valley Contractors and their potential exchange partners. Cross Valley Contractors The seven Central Valley Project (CVP) Cross Valley Contractors (Table 1) are geographically located within the Friant Division but receive their CVP water supplies from the Delta. Due to direct conveyance hurdles, Cross Valley Contractors obtain their CVP supplies either by direct delivery from the Cross Valley Canal or via transfers associated with exchange agreements with participating contractors pursuant to Article 5(a) of their water service contracts. Table 1 Cross Valley Contractors Contract Quantity Contractor Contract Number (acre-feet per year) County of Fresno1 14-06-200-8292A-IR16 3,000 County of Tulare2 14-06-200-8293A-IR16 5,308 Hills Valley Irrigation District3 14-06-200-8466A-IR16 3,346 Kern-Tulare Water District3 14-06-200-8601A-IR16 40,000 Kern-Tulare Water District (from Rag Gulch Water District)4 14-06-200-8367A-IR16 13,300 Lower Tule River Irrigation District3 14-06-200-8237A-IR16 31,102 Pixley Irrigation District 14-06-200-8238A-IR16 31,102 Tri-Valley Water District3 14-06-200-8565A-IR16 1,142 1County of Fresno includes Fresno County Service Area #34 2County of Tulare includes the following subcontractors: Alpaugh Irrigation District, Atwell Water District, City of Lindsay3, City of Visalia, Hills Valley Irrigation District3, Saucelito Irrigation District3, Smallwood Vineyards, Stone Corral Irrigation District3, Strathmore Public Utility District, and Styrotek, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron Giganteum) Groves of the Sierra Nevada, California-An Updated Annotated List
    The Natural Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron Giganteum) Groves of the Sierra Nevada, California-An Updated Annotated List Dwight Willard1 Abstract: Giant sequoias naturally occur in the Sierra Nevada, California, names.) In contrast, many groves became known by single, in 65 groves, described in an annotated list. The grove list significantly accepted names by the early 20th century. Sequoia National differs from prior published giant sequoia grove lists, primarily as a result of more consistent application of objective criteria of geographic isolation Park groves were comprehensively and systematically listed and minimum giant sequoia group size in grove identification. The grove by the 1930's. However, comprehensive grove lists for the list also reflects significant gains in knowledge of giant sequoia natural entire Sierra Nevada were unsystematic prior to 1969. distributions during recent years. The first comprehensive and more systematic grove list for the entire Sierra Nevada was in Rundel (1969, 1972). Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) naturally Rundel's list was more closely based on geographic distinction occurs in the Sierra Nevada, California, primarily in isolated than any prior list, and it reflected his scientific study of concentrations traditionally known as groves. Sequoia actual sequoia distribution. Rundel's list is the basis for the locations are most easily described by reference to named familiar post-1972 descriptions that giant sequoias occur groves, though a relatively few giant sequoias occur apart in "75 groves." His grove list used historical tradition as from recognized groves, in the same localities. the basis for some grove identifications, and he did not Significant additional giant sequoia location research consistently apply an identification criterion of minimum since the early 1970's makes the following updated annotated sequoia group size.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and Its Alteration by Dams
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and Its Alteration by Dams Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ss794fc Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 4(1) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Lindley, Steven T. Schick, Robert S. Agrawal, Aditya et al. Publication Date 2006 DOI 10.15447/sfews.2006v4iss1art3 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and its Alteration by Dams STEVEN T. LINDLEY1, ROBERT S. SCHICK1, ADITYA AGRAWAL2, MATTHEW GOSLIN2, THOMAS E. PEARSON2, ETHAN MORA2, JAMES J. ANDERSON3, BERNARD MAY4, SHEILA GREENE5, CHARLES HANSON6, ALICE LOW7, DENNIS MCEWAN7, R. BRUCE MACFARLANE1, CHRISTINA SWANSON8 AND JOHN G. WILLIAMS9 ABSTRACT Effective conservation and recovery planning for Central Valley steelhead requires an understanding of historical population structure. We describe the historical structure of the Central Valley steelhead evolutionarily significant unit using a multi-phase modeling approach. In the first phase, we identify stream reaches possibly suitable for steelhead spawning and rearing using a habitat model based on environmental envelopes (stream discharge, gradient, and temperature) that takes a digital elevation model and climate data as inputs. We identified 151 patches of potentially suitable habitat with more than 10 km of stream habitat, with a total of 25,500 km of suitable habitat. We then measured the dis- tances among habitat patches, and clustered together patches within 35 km of each other into 81 dis- tinct habitat patches. Groups of fish using these 81 patches are hypothesized to be (or to have been) independent populations for recovery planning purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2015 Tule River Basin Irwmp Group
    INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE TULE RIVER BASIN NOVEMBER 2015 TULE RIVER BASIN IRWMP GROUP TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TULE RIVER BASIN IRWMP GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 - PLAN DOCUMENT 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Cooperating Partners ................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Acronyms/Abbreviations ............................................................ 1-5 CHAPTER 2 - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 2.1 Background of the Tule River Basin IRWMP ............................ 2-1 2.1.1 Governance .................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Historical Plan .............................................................. 2-3 2.1.3 Consistency with the State of California Planning Efforts and Statutory Requirements ........................... 2-9 2.2 Development of a Formal, Written Plan 2.2.1 Stakeholder Advisory Group ....................................... 2-10 2.2.2 Memorandum of Understanding Group ....................... 2-10 2.2.3 Coordination with Kaweah River Basin Plan Development ................................ 2-11 2.2.4 Coordination with Tulare Basin JPA Development ..... 2-12 2.2.5 Coordination with Southern Sierra Plan Development ................................ 2-13 2.2.6 Technical Analysis ......................................................
    [Show full text]