Acronyms & Abbreviations

Appendix 9: FERC License Status and Documentation

View Public Comments & Responses >

This appendix includes an overview of the extensive data collection effort that informed the planning process for the Land Conservation Plan (LCP), including detail on specific GIS layers used in the existing conditions analysis.

Licensing and Other Regulatory Records

Since the Watershed Lands are predominately associated with PG&E’s hydroelectric projects that are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), much of the data used in the LCP planning process was obtained from documents prepared as part of FERC relicensing processes.  FERC documents proved to be an excellent source of information on biological, cultural, and recreation resources in particular, since these items are required to be examined in detail during a FERC relicensing (or licensing) process for hydroelectric facilities.

Documents from FERC projects that have been licensed within the last few years generally provide the most comprehensive information.  Projects that have not been relicensed for many years have the least amount of information available.  Appendix 8 lists each FERC-licensed project relevant to Watershed Lands, the current license status of the project, and a brief summary of documents used in the development of the LCP.

Lands outside of the FERC boundary (the boundary that encapsulates lands and facilities that FERC determines necessary for hydroelectric project operation) are generally not studied to the same extent, if at all, as lands within the FERC boundary.  As a result, little information is available on those lands.

With the exception of a few small (less than 5 megawatt) projects in Butte, Lassen, and Plumas Counties, all of PG&E’s hydroelectric projects operate under FERC licenses. There are 26 FERC licenses in total; all but one contains watershed lands.  Of the 25 project licenses that contain watershed lands, some were recently issued, while others are quite old dating as far back as the mid-1950s and early 1960s.  In addition, a number of PG&E’s hydroelectric projects are in varying stages of the relicensing process.  Several of the projects have recently begun the relicensing process, and two more will begin the relicensing process in the next few years.  Several other projects have recently submitted license applications and are awaiting FERC’s environmental analysis, other Federal and State permitting, and the eventual issuance of new License Orders.  Six projects have recently completed the relicensing process and received new licenses, while several more are not expected to begin relicensing until 10 to 20 years from now.

Information Generated from License Orders and Required Plans

Most FERC-related information analyzed during the LCP planning process was obtained from the FERC eLibrary, an electronic warehouse of all submitted and issued documents related to FERC-licensed projects.  The eLibrary generally contains documents from about 1989 to the present.  PG&E produced copies of requested documents not available online.  Only documents that were believed to contain valuable, relevant information were requested from PG&E, and therefore not every FERC license-related document was obtained.

License applications, License Orders, biological studies, Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, and documents regarding Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) such as Biological Assessments and Biological Opinions were reviewed.  Documents produced by the USDS Forest Service (USFS) including 4(e) conditions, monitoring reports, comment letters, or other relevant documents posted to the FERC eLibrary website were also utilized.

Cultural monitoring reports are prepared in compliance with associated management and monitoring plans regarding cultural resources (e.g., Cultural Resources Management Plan).  These management plans require frequent monitoring of cultural sites to ensure that resources are preserved and to protect against adverse impacts.  Monitoring reports include actions to enhance cultural resources when additional measures are needed to ensure their long-term preservation.  When available, cultural monitoring reports were reviewed during development of the LCP.

FERC mandates that hydropower licensees create and implement a recreation plan for each project, which addresses the preferred activities and needs of visitors to areas within the project license.  Licensees such as PG&E typically conduct and compile a comprehensive Recreation Use and Needs Study for the project area.  Each of these sources of recreation resource data was carefully reviewed during development of the LCP.

PG&E Records and GIS Data

Much of the data used in the planning process was provided by PG&E.  In addition to the FERC documents described above, PG&E provided lease documents, the 1999 Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA), timber management and timber harvest plans, and GIS layers.  Additional information was obtained through personal communications with PG&E staff.

Leases

Tabular information on over 238 leases on Watershed Lands was provided by PG&E, including the lessee name or names, a brief description of the lease and the type of lease, the associated hydropower project or facility name, the lease period and fee, State Board of Equalization (SBE) parcel number(s), and whether or not the lease is located within a FERC Project boundary.  Scanned copies of lease documents were provided by PG&E in electronic form.

Proponent’s Environmental Assessment

PG&E provided the 12-volume PEA that summarized PG&E's determination of market values for the proposed auction and ownership transfer of hydropower facilities and related assets.  The PEA was prepared by PG&E and filed with the CPUC on October 29, 1999, however, PG&E did not move forward with the sale of these assets.  The PEA describes the environmental setting and analyzes potential environmental effects for each “watershed region.”

Personal Communications

Personal communication with PG&E staff also provided valuable information.  During site visits, PG&E provided site-specific and historical information not readily available in documents. PG&E employees responsible for FERC license compliance provided useful about the Watershed Lands.  Throughout the planning process, PG&E responded to questions about site-specific and FERC-related information and documents. 

Current PG&E Timber Management and Timber Harvesting Plans

The Stewardship Council consulted with PG&E regarding PG&E’s forestry management practices.  PG&E provided data such as timber harvest forecasts and plans, overviews of timber sales, harvest rationale for selected areas, maps, information on the number of timbered acres, and type of management for all timber management units (TMUs) located on Watershed Lands.

PG&E provided maps of the TMUs to better understand the environmental context of forest stands, as well as their internal classifications of the timberlands, which include some 52,000 acres.  In many cases, these maps provided information on the larger forest matrix, including adjacent land management issues.

GIS Data

A large collection of GIS data was provided by PG&E (see Appendix Table 9-1).  Data included both confidential and public data layers.  Public data layers received from PG&E included information on census areas and demographics, soils, vernal pools, cities, streams, rivers, waterbodies, geology, public lands, and township and range locations.  Other layers included city boundaries, elevation contours, parks, fault lines, and recreation facilities.  Additional layers depicting the PG&E service area, SBE parcels, and topographic quadrants were received.  Data related to TMUs were also received, including information on landslides, slope types, springs, and TMU acreage.  Data on archaeological sites were buffered appropriately to protect the location of cultural resources.  PG&E also provided assorted parcel data for 19 counties.

Agency GIS Data

Federal and State agencies and non-profit organizations provided various GIS layers related to the Watershed Lands, with a focus on habitat data (see Appendix Table 9-2).  These data were analyzed and viewed to determine the adjacent and greater environmental setting of the planning area.  A limited amount of data was also received on recreation, forest, and agricultural resources.  No other comprehensive public GIS information was available for the other BPVs.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) queries were conducted on all watersheds and planning units for the known (recorded) occurrences of special status species.  The CNDDB datasets include information submitted by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) as well as relevant information from documented sightings of special status species.  Special status species are those protected under the categories of threatened, endangered, candidate, or other species of concern by such groups as the USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and plants listed as rare by the California Native Plant Society.  As the database is dependent on data submissions from biologists, and not all documented sightings of special status species are included, the database is not exhaustive.  Nonetheless, the CNDDB provided information on habitat distribution for special status species and historic location accounts of extirpated species.

The Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) dataset was considered during the planning process.  CBI created this dataset for The Trust for Public Land (TPL) to assist them with making decisions about strategic land acquisitions.  Thus, while the dataset is robust for TPL’s purposes, it does not include data for all PG&E lands and also excludes some extremely sensitive data.  Data from the USFS, BLM, and the California Wilderness Association supplemented the CBI dataset, bolstering the available geographic information.

CalVEG GIS data were also reviewed.  This dataset, maintained by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), is a compilation of a variety of remote sensing vegetation mapping sources.  While this dataset is extremely limited due to accuracy issues, it was used to help determine high value habitat locations on PG&E lands.

Existing grazing areas were geographically analyzed by viewing GIS information from BLM and the USFS.  Each agency produced grazing allotment maps, which were used to determine adjacency with PG&E lands.

Other Public Documents

Many additional public documents were used to obtain information regarding Watershed Lands.  County general plans, agency resource management plans, as well as other resource plans and reports were used in the planning process.

County Plans

Because the Watershed Lands are located across many counties, numerous county plans were reviewed to gain information on existing conditions on the Watershed Lands, and related goals and policies, listed in Appendix Table 9-3.

General plans for most counties containing PG&E Watershed Lands were obtained and reviewed.  In particular, information regarding land use planning and open space was utilized throughout the planning process.  Such information detailed existing open spaces within the county, planned open space areas, as well as planning related to development and open space protection.

State and Federal Agency Data

The Watershed Lands are adjacent to public land with various agency ownership patterns and management methods; thus, many agency plans were reviewed to fully understand adjacent management strategies, goals, management practices, and guidelines.  National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) lands provided information on the setting as well as adjacent land management prescriptions.  Relevant USFS plans that were reviewed are listed in Appendix Table 9-4.  BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) provided information on the BLM’s land management prescriptions for adjacent lands in the lower elevations in the Sierra foothills and in the Fall River Valley of Shasta County.  Relevant BLM plans that were reviewed are listed in Appendix Table 9-5.

Plans produced by DFG, USFWS, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, CDF, and other governmental agencies and watershed groups were also reviewed to provide input into the Watershed Lands.  Relevant plans that were reviewed are listed in Appendix Table 9-6.

Other agency sources were reviewed to better understand the resources, habitat value, and watershed-related species of the lands, such as USFWS documents (e.g., recovery plans and conservation agreements).  Information from DFG was also reviewed, including species accounts and lists for special animals, special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens.

Web Searches

The internet was utilized extensively to supplement existing information and sources.  Information related to all of the BPVs was obtained.  This web information was confirmed using other literature sources when possible.

Data Variability

The availability of data relevant to the Watershed Lands varied considerably across geography.  This variation was related to the accessibility of background material and how recently it had been updated, particularly for FERC-related data.  Plans and documents were in varied states of detail and relevance to the LCP planning process, ranging from just recently updated, to outdated, to currently under revision.

With the exception of field visits and personal communication with community members, the planning process did not include collecting original data or conducting comprehensive field assessments of the land.  This type of effort will likely be undertaken as needed during the development and implementation of Volume III.

Stakeholder Input

The Stewardship Council made significant outreach efforts to engage government agencies, non-profit and community groups, Native American entities, the public, and other stakeholders during the planning process for the LCP.  Chapter 5 provides detailed information on the outreach program.

Government Agencies

Government agencies informed the planning process through verbal comments provided at community and targeted meetings as well as through written comments submitted to the Stewardship Council.  The Stewardship Council staff conducted meetings with many government agencies to discuss the Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and characteristics of the Watershed Land in relation to natural resources, recreation, cultural and historic resources, agriculture, forestry resources, management issues, and potential disposition.  Meetings were held with the BLM, USFS, DFG, CDF, as well as numerous county Boards of Supervisors.  These agencies provided existing conditions information and highlighted outstanding management issues related to access, development, PG&E facilities, and unauthorized uses.  The agencies also provided possible suggestions for BPV enhancement and management actions that would be compatible with their own management. 

Non-profit and Community Groups

Non-profit and community groups were invited to attend Stewardship Council Board of Directors meetings, Stewardship Council field trips, and regional public meetings.  Numerous watershed and recreation groups, resource conservation districts, land trusts, and other non-profit organizations participated in these public meetings.  In addition, Stewardship Council staff made presentations to and met separately with many non-profit organizations to present the land planning process and to seek input.  Organizations provided valuable information on Watershed Lands and informed the planning process through verbal comments provided at public meetings as well as through written comments submitted to the Stewardship Council.

Native American Entities

Targeted meetings were held with numerous Native American entities to discuss the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation, and the land planning process.  During these meetings, input was received from representatives in an effort to integrate their concerns while developing enhancement measures.  Native American entities were also invited to attend Stewardship Council Board meetings, field trips, and regional public meetings.  Numerous representatives participated in these public meetings and provided verbal and written comments to Stewardship Council staff.  Some Native American entities have provided information regarding cultural resources on Watershed Lands through verbal as well as written comments that are held in confidence by the Stewardship Council at the group’s request.  Native American entity outreach is further discussed in Chapter 5.

Public Comments

Public comments were received through various means, including public meetings, Board of Directors meetings, written and electronic comment submissions, as well as Stewardship Council field trips.  All forms of comments were reviewed and used to verify and supplement existing conditions information.  Chapter 5 describes the process undertaken to coordinate with interested members of the public, including community meetings, media outreach, and partnerships.

Board Member Constituencies

Each Board member may report to, and back from, their appointing constituent, and ensure that consensus decisions rendered by the Board take into account the views of that constituent, provided that each director acts at all times in accordance with his or her fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Stewardship Council.  All Board members have provided written comments and/or oral comments during Planning Committee meetings to ensure that the Stewardship Council takes into account a broad and diverse set of interests during the LCP process.

Site Visits

Numerous site visits were conducted to view the Watershed Lands.  PG&E Land Managers often attended site visits to provide access to non-public areas as well as local knowledge about the existing conditions and management of the parcels.  Easily accessible parcels were viewed in detail while those lacking road access were often viewed from a distance.  Photographs and written notes were taken while on site visits.  Maps were also used to assist in identifying Watershed Lands and existing conditions.

Stewardship Council Field Trips

Stewardship Council field trips were opportunities for Board members to tour and learn about Watershed Lands.  PG&E land managers, PG&E foresters, lessees, and other people with local knowledge were present on Stewardship Council field visits to further inform Board members about the current management and condition of the lands.  Information learned on Stewardship Council field trips was then used by Board members to inform their constituencies, increase general knowledge of the Watershed Lands, and to provide input during the planning process.


Appendix Table 9-1: GIS Data Layers Provided by PG&E

Description

Data Layer

Selected Attributes

Confidential Data Layers

Location/General Locale

 

Area of influence

aoi

City name, city seat

City boundaries

gis_citybnd

Name, population

Major parks & recreation areas

gis_parks

Name

City boundaries

gis_places

City name

Population density

gis_popdens

Population density

100' contours

gis_contour

Elevation

State Board of Equalization (SBE )parcels

PGE_wshed_SBE

SBE number, type, description, watershed, etc.

2 mile buffer of parcels

pge_wshed_sbe_2mibuff

None

Topo quadrangle index

PUB_quad24k.shp

Quadrangle id, quadrangle name, etc.

Timber Management  Features

 

Slides

gis_tmu_slides

ID

Slope type

gis_tmu_slopetype

Slope class, TMU name

Springs

gis_tmu_springs

ID

TMU units

gis_tmu_units

Unit name, acres

Archeological sites

TMU_archsites_poly

Notes, comments, reference number

Archeological sites

TMU_archsites_pt

Notes, comments, reference number

Archeological sites

TMU_archsites_ln

Notes, comments, reference number

PG&E Facilities & Sites

 

 

PG&E Facilities

gis_allfacil

Facility name, type (substation, powerhouse, PP, meter station, junction, switch), address, voltage, owner

Access points

gis_hyd_accpts

Type, comments

Electric Distribution Lines

edsa_distline_sdo

kV, type

Electric Transformers

edsa_transformers_sdo

Feeder number, address

Electric Structures

gad_structures_sdo

Tower number, type

Electric Transmission Lines

gad_tline_sdo

kV, Line name, OH/UG

Gas Pipeline

gas_pipespec_sdo

Route, width

Conveyance

gis_hyd_conveyance_sdo

Canal conveyance type (flume, penstock, tunnel, gunite box, pipe, siphon) material, ownership, GPS date

Crossings

gis_hyd_crossing

Canal crossing type, substructure, diameter, GPS date

Miscellaneous Canal Points

gis_hyd_miscpts

Cross gates, alarm stations, canal drains, sidewater devices

Hydro Access Roads

Hydro_accessrds

Type, name, watershed

Bridges

hydro_bridges_sdo

Owner

Diversions

hydro_diversions_sdo

Place of use, Class of Water

ETI Gauge

hydro_etigage_sdo

Station name, gauge type

Helipad

hydro_heliport

Location

Microwave Site

hydro_microwavesite_sdo

Number of devices

Dams

hydro_pgedams_sdo

Dam name, type, status

Snow Gauges

hydro_snogage_sdo

Basin, interval, operating agency

Stream Gauges

hydro_streamgage_sdo

Description

Snow Gauges

PGE_sno_gauge

Basin, interval, operating agency

Stream Gauges

PGE_stream_gauge

Description

Hydro Telecom Lines

hydro_telecomln_sdo

Underbuilt

Fault lines

PGE_faults

Type, age

FERC boundary (clipped)

PGE_fercbnd_poly

None

Recreational Facility

PGE_recfacil

Name, facility type

PG&E service area

pge_service

None

PG&E service area mask

pge_service_mask

None

Water Rights POD

PGE_waterrightsPOD

Watershed, FERC project, number, etc.

Public Data Layers

Description

Data Layer

Selected Attributes

General Locale

 

 

Navigation rivers

Hyd_nav

Link name, river name, etc.

Streams and rivers

hydl

Description, names, code, etc.

Waterbodies

hydp

Codes

Streams and rivers

PUB_hydl

Description, names, code, etc.

Waterbodies

PUB_hydp

Codes

GNIS places, clipped to PG&E

PUB_GNIS

Item name, type, county, etc.

Public lands, 2003

PUB_pctl03_1

Property name, administrative area, manager, etc.

Public lands, 2004

pctl04_1

Property name, administrative area, manager, etc.

Census tracts

tracts2k

Description, population, miscellaneous demographic info

Urban centers

urbs2k

Name

Topo quad index

q24kca

Quadrangle id, Quadrangle name, etc.

 

 

 

Demographic Data

 

 

Township & ranges

PUB_plstrfill

Township and range, meridian

Population density

PUB_popdens

Density

Block groups

blkgrps2k

Miscellaneous census, demographic data

Blocks

blocks2k

Miscellaneous census, demographic data

1990 urban footprint

gis_urbca1990

City name

2000 urban footprint

gis_urbca2000

City name

1990 urban footprint (clipped to PG&E)

PUB_urbca1990

City name

2000 urban footprint (clipped to PG&E)

PUB_urbca2000

City name

GNIS place point info

gnis02

Item name, type, county, etc.

Geologic Data

 

 

Soils data

ca_soils_utm

Description, group, name, etc.

Geological fault zones

faults

 

Soils data

PUB_statsgosoil

Description, soil group, etc.

Generalized soil map

PUB_usgsgeo

Ptype

Generalized geology map

usgs_geomap

Ptype

Habitat and Species

 

 

Vernal pools

gapdata_vpools

Quadrangle name, county, type, etc.

Vernal pools

PUB_vpools

Quadrangle name, county

Recreation Facilities

 

 

Recreational Facility

Hydro_recfacil

Name, facility type

Parcel Data Layers from California Counties

Description

Data Layer

Selected Attributes

Assorted parcels in Yuba County

apn_yuba

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Tuolumne County

apn_tuolumne

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Tulare County

apn_tulare

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Tehama County

apn_tehama

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Siskiyou County

apn_siskiyou

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Plumas County

apn_plumas

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Placer County

apn_placer

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Nevada County

apn_nevada

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Merced County

apn_merced

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Mendocino County

apn_mendocino

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Madera County

apn_madera

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Lake County

apn_lake

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Kern County

apn_kern

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Fresno County

apn_fresno

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in El Dorado County

apn_eldorado

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Calaveras County

apn_calaveras

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Butte County

apn_butte

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Amador County

apn_amador

Assessor Parcel Number, owner, address

Assorted parcels in Lassen County

digitized_lassen

Owner only

Source: PG&E 2004.


Appendix Table 9-2 GIS Data Layers Provided by Agencies and Non-Profit Organizations

Description

Source

Comments

Federal wilderness areas

BLM

 

Detailed roads by county

USGS DLG

 

Planning units

EDAW

 

California Natural Diversity Database

CNDDB

 

Existing point, line and polygon features

EDAW

 

Alternative point, line and polygon features

EDAW

 

Major rivers

CalTrans

 

Detailed streams

NHD

 

Late Successional Reserves

USFWS

7 mile buffer was added

California land ownership

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

 

Compilation of significant natural areas

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem project

Obtained from CBI

Fire history from 1654 to 2002

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Farm land and monitoring and rating info

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Springs and seeps

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Grazing allotments on BLM land

BLM

Obtained from CBI

Off-road vehicle recreation areas

BLM

Obtained from CBI

Recreation management areas

BLM

Obtained from CBI

Timber sales and harvest information

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Grazing range allotments

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Private water district boundaries

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Pacific Crest Trail

 

Obtained from CBI

Wilderness Study Areas

BLM

Obtained from CBI

CWC proposed additional Wilderness Areas

CWC/ Citizens wild

Obtained from CBI

CWC proposed additional Wild and Scenic Rivers

CWC/ Citizens wild

Obtained from CBI

Special management areas

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Wilderness Areas

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Local and regional parks

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Northern spotted owl habitat

USFWS

Six Rivers, Mendocino, and Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Website data

California red-legged frog critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

Critical refuges

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Federally listed Chinook salmon units

Bonneville Power Administration

Obtained from CBI

Existing conservation plans and activities

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Natural community conservation plans & habitat conservation plan

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Restoration plans

California Resources Agency Legacy Project

Obtained from CBI

Riparian conservation areas

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Wild, scenic and recreation rivers

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Little Kern golden trout critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

Modoc sucker critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

15 vernal pool species critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

California condor critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

Willow flycatcher habitat

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Protected Activity Centers for spotted owls

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

Least Bell’s vireo critical habitat

USFWS

Obtained from CBI

Invasive exotic species point locations

Eldorado National Forest

Obtained from CBI

Deer emphasis areas

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Invasive exotic species point locations

Tahoe National Forest

Obtained from CBI

Forest carnivore tracking results 1996-2000

USFS

Obtained from CBI

Note: GIS data from other agencies were reviewed to help assess existing conditions.  The Stewardship Council recognizes that these data were gathered for other purposes and are not presumed to be complete.


Table 9-3: County Plans

Plan

Date

Alpine County General Plan

2005

Amador County General Plan

1993

Auburn/Bowman Community Plan (Placer County)

1999

Butte County 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter 7

2004

Calaveras County General Plan

1996

El Dorado County - parcel zoning information & zoning code

2006

Fresno County General Plan

2000

Kern County General Plan

2004

Lake County General Plan

2005

Madera County General Plan

1995

Mariposa County General Plan Update (draft)

2005

Mendocino County General Plan

1981

Merced County Year 2000 General Plan

2000

Nevada County General Plan

2005

Placer County General Plan

1994

Plumas County - parcel zoning information & zoning code

2006

Shasta County General Plan

2004

Tehama County General Plan Update and Goals

2005

Tehama County Voluntary Oak Woodland Management Plan

2005

Tuolumne County - parcel zoning information & zoning code

2006

Tuolumne County General Plan

1996

 

Table 9-4: Forest Service Plans and Other Documents

Document

Date

Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1988

Feather River Scenic Byway Implementation Strategy

1996

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1992

McCloud River Coordinated Resource Management Plan [USFS & other signatories]

1991

Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1995

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1988

Off-Highway Vehicle Inventory Maps (all Forests)

2006

Sequoia, Lassen, and Plumas National Forest Maps

2001

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1995

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Forest Wide LSR Assessment

1999

Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1991

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

2004

Stanislaus National Forest - Forest Plan Direction

2005

Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

1990

 

Table 9-5: BLM Plans

Plan

Date

Alturas Resource Management Plan

2006

Carrizo Plain Natural Area Plan

1996

Folsom Resource Area Sierra Management Framework Plan Amendment (MFP)

1988

Redding Resource Management Plan & Record of Decision (ROD)

1993

 

Table 9-6: Other Plans

Entity

Plan

Date

California Department of Fish and Game

Hat Creek Wild Trout Management Plan

1999

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

State of the Watershed Report - Pit River Sub-Watershed

2003

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Recovery Plan for Shasta Crayfish

1998

Western Shasta Resources Conservation District (RCD) & Cow Creek Watershed Management Group

Cow Creek Management Plan

2005

Butte & Plumas County Fire Safe Councils and CDF

Community Wildfire Protection Plan - CDF Butte Unit Service Area

2005

Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy

Deer Creek Watershed Management Plan

1998

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Tulare Unit – Fire Management Plan 2005

2005