DOCSLIB.ORG

Sierra Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sierra Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document SIERRA VALLEY GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN CONCEPT DOCUMENT Prepared for: Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Sierra Valley Groundwater Basin PO Box 88 Chilcoot, CA 96105 http://www.sierravalleygmd.org/ Last Revised: June 1, 2020 Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document Prepared by: Greg Hinds, Hinds Engineering Email: [email protected] Phone: 530-401-0000 Author’s Notes: This document is a compilation of available and relevant information assembled for the purpose of streamlining the development of the Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (SV GSP). This document also includes draft text for GSP components that are required to be developed through the stakeholder engagement process. Such text is suggested for use as a starting place for said process. This document was originally being prepared as a draft GSP beginning in early 2018 when the prospect of obtaining grant funding for GSP development was uncertain. In early 2019, after a second round of SGMA grant funding was announced and the Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District (SVGMD) began to feel confident they would be able to apply for and receive funding for GSP development, the document title was changed and the approach to the development of this document evolved. It was decided by the SVGMD Directors that continuing to develop this document would be worthwhile, given the uncertainty associated with the timeline of the grant award and the likelihood that the time remaining for GSP development after receiving the award would be relatively limited. It was also decided that the format should be kept consistent with GSP formatting for ease of use of this document in the development of the actual SV GSP. The preparer of the SV GSP may use any of the content herein as they see appropriate, taking into account the following: • Much of the content in this document (especially within Chapters 1 and 2) is objective information from existing referenced documentation and from correspondences with various local individuals and entities. Such objective information is considered reliable, but should not be assumed to be 100% accurate or up-to-date or assumed to be “best available information”. • A certain portion of the content of this document (especially within Chapters 3 and 4) is draft text for GSP components that are required to be developed through the stakeholder engagement process and should be used only to supplement that process. Such content was drafted with the intention to reflect the perspective of the SVGMD Directors to the best ability of the author based on experiences/interpretations while attending monthly SVGMD Board of Director Meetings from 2016 to present. The resulting approach can be summarized as prioritizing clear compliance with SGMA while working toward an effective Plan that will not be overwhelming or cost- prohibitive to implement and will employ adaptive management to achieve sustainability. It is my sincere hope that this document will prove useful in the development of a SGMA-compliant, effective GSP for the SV Subbasin which reflects public values and ensures protection of the resources of the Sierra Valley while preserving the local way of life. Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District i Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document Table of Contents Executive Summary (Reg. § 354.4) .................................................................................................... vii ES 1.0 Introduction Summary................................................................................................... vii ES 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan ......................................................... vii ES 1.2 Sustainability Goal .................................................................................................... viii ES 1.3 Agency Information ........................................................................................................... x ES 1.4 GSP Organization ............................................................................................................. xi ES 2.0 Plan Area and Basin Setting Summary ........................................................................... xi ES 2.1 Description of the Plan Area ............................................................................................ xi ES 2.1 Basin Setting ....................................................................................................................xiii ES 3.0 Sustainable Management Criteria Summary ............................................................... xvi ES 3.1 Sustainability Goal .......................................................................................................... xvi ES 3.2 Measurable Objectives .................................................................................................... xvi ES 3.3 Minimum Thresholds ....................................................................................................xvii ES 3.4 Undesirable Results .......................................................................................................xvii ES 3.5 Monitoring Network ................................................................................................... xviii ES 4.0 Summary of Management and Project Actions to Achieve Sustainability ................ xix ES 5.0 Plan Implementation Summary ..................................................................................... xx 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan ............................................................... 2 1.2 Sustainability Goal (Reg. § 354.24)........................................................................................ 4 1.3 Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) ....................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Plan Manager ................................................................................................................. 6 1.3.2 Organization and Management Structure of the GSA ................................................ 6 1.3.3 Legal Authority of the GSA .......................................................................................... 7 1.3.4 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs ...... 8 1.4 GSP Organization .................................................................................................................. 9 2.0 Plan Area and Basin Setting ..................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Description of the Plan Area (Reg. § 354.8).......................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features (Reg. § 354.8 b) .................... 24 2.1.1.1 Plan Area, Exclusive Agencies, and Adjacent Basins ........................................... 24 2.1.1.2 Adjudicated Areas, Other Agencies, and Areas Covered by Alternative ........... 25 2.1.1.3 Jurisdictional Boundaries ........................................................................................ 25 Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District ii Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document 2.1.1.4 Land Use and Water Sources .................................................................................. 26 2.1.1.5 Groundwater Well Density and Groundwater Dependent Communities .......... 29 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs (Reg. § 354.8 c, d, e)...... 30 2.1.2.1 Existing Water Resources Monitoring Programs .................................................. 30 2.1.2.2 Existing Water Resources Management Programs ............................................... 33 2.1.2.3 Conjunctive Use Programs...................................................................................... 33 2.1.2.4 Incorporating Existing Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs to the GSP ................................................................................................................................ 34 2.1.2.5 Limits to Operational Flexibility from Existing Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs .......................................................................................................... 35 2.1.3 Land Use Elements/Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans (Reg. § 354.8 f) 35 2.1.3.1 Summary of General Plans and Other Land Use Plans ........................................ 35 2.1.3.2 Description of How Land Use Plan Implementation May Change Water Demands or Affect Achievement of Sustainability and How the GSP Addresses Those Effects 37 2.1.3.3 Description of How Implementation of GSP May Affect the Water Supply Assumptions of Relevant Land Use Plans ............................................................................ 37 2.1.3.4 Summary of Processes for Permitting New or Replacement Wells in the SV Subbasin ................................................................................................................................... 37 2.1.3.5 Information Regarding the Implementation of Land Use Plans Outside the SV Subbasin that could Affect the Ability of the GSAs to Achieve Sustainable ...................... 38 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Trip Summary Report for Sierra Nevadas, California: Chico NE, SE
    \ FIElD TRIP SUMMARY FOR SIERRA NEVADAS, CALIFORNIA CHICO NE, SE AND SACRAMENTO NE I. INTRODUCTION Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the actual wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topo~raphy. This information is weighted with seasonality and conditIOns at both dates of photography and ground truthing. The project study area was located in northern California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Ground truthing covered the area of each 1:100,000: Chico NE, Chico SE, and Sacramento NE. This field summary describes the data we were able to collect on the various wetland sites and the plant communities observed. II. FIELD MEMBERS Barbara Schuster Martel Laboratories, Inc. Dennis Peters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service III. FIELD DATES July 27 - August 2, 1988 IV. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Type: Color Infrared Transparencies Scale: 1:58,000 V. COLLATERAL DATA U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles Soil Survey of HI Dorado Area. California, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey of Nevada County Area. California, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1 Soil Survey of Sierra Valley Area. California. Parts of Sierra. Plumas. and Lassen Counties, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Tahoe Basin Area. California and Nevada, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Amador Area. California, 1965. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooking in Prehistory: Evidence from the Sugar Loaf
    COOKING IN PREHISTORY: EVIDENCE FROM THE SUGAR LOAF SITE IN SIERRA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA AND THE EASTERN SIERRA ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology ____________ by Marilla M. Martin Fall 2014 COOKING IN PREHISTORY: EVIDENCE FROM THE SUGAR LOAF SITE IN SIERRA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA AND THE EASTERN SIERRA A Thesis by Marilla M. Martin Fall 2014 APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH: _________________________________ Eun K. Park, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Frank Bayham, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must first thank my thesis committee, Dr. Antoinette Martinez and Dr. Frank Bayham for their constant encouragement from the beginning of my journey through graduate school until now. You have both made this process meaningful, fun, and productive. Next, I must recognize the enormous support and patience I have received from all the members of my work family at the Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office. Jill Poulsen, Amy King, Valda Lockie, and Missi Nelson, all your kind words and support got me through this process. David Jack Scott, thank you for frequently inquiring to see if my thesis was done yet, I’m happy to report that it finally is! Thank you to my work mentor, my friend, and one of many proofreaders, Sharynn-Marie Blood for your unwavering support, time, and patience. The BLM also provided financial assistance that made this thesis possible.
    [Show full text]
  • California & Oregon
    1 CALIFORNIA & OREGON 5TH – 19TH AUGUST 1999 This was a two-week trip with Alan Johnston. The idea was to travel up the Californian & Oregon coast, then go inland, travelling south through the Bend area, Crater Lake, Klamath Basin and back into California through the Sierra Valley and Yuba pass, then head down to Monterey and Bodega Bay for two pelagics, with the last few days birding around Point Reyes and San Francisco. Itinerary Day 1 – 5th August. Landed at San Francisco Airport. Drove up the USF 101 & SH 1 to Bodega Bay, birding around Stinson Beach and Bolinas Bay. Motel in Santa Rosa. Day 2 – 6th August. Left Santa Rosa and drove up the USF 101 to Crescent City. Birded at the Caltrans Rest Area, Woodley Island Marina, Arcata Marsh, Trinidad Head & the Elk Head Trail. Spent the evening around Crescent City and at Lake Earl. Motel in Crescent City. Day 3 – 7th August. Crescent City to Newport. This was the Oregon part of the trip. Drove up the USF 101 to Newport. Due to torrential rain we didn’t really bird after a good scout around Crescent City Harbour and area. Stopped at Gold Beach Harbour, Mt. Humbug SP, Takenitch Lake campsite, Siuslaw River Mouth and at a pond north of Glendana. Motel in Newport. Day 4 – 8th August. Newport to Sisters, via Corvalis and Albany along the USF 20. Birded early morning at the south jetty and the Marine Science Centre, then late morning at Yaquina Head. On the way to Sisters, birded Foster Reservoir campsite, Peter Green Reservoir, Hummer feeders at Soda Fork, Lost Lake, Indian Ford campsite/road area and Cold Springs campsite.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Sierra to the Sea the Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed
    From the Sierra to the Sea The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed © 1998 The Bay Institute of San Francisco Second printing, July 2003 The Bay Institute of San Francisco is a non-profit research and advocacy organization which works to protect and restore the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and its watershed. Since 1981, the Institute’s policy and technical staff have led programs to protect water quality and endangered species, reform state and federal water management, and promote comprehensive ecological restoration in the Bay/Delta. Copies of this report can be ordered for $40.00 (includes shipping and handling) from: The Bay Institute of San Francisco 500 Palm Drive Novato, CA 94949 Phone: (415) 506-0150 Fax: (415) 506-0155 www.bay.org The cover is taken from an engraving showing the entrance to the middle fork of the Sacramento River near modern-day Steamboat Slough, in C. Ringgold’s 1852 series of navigational charts and sailing directions for San Francisco Bay and Delta. Printed on recycled paper From the Sierra to the Sea The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed July 1998 The Bay Institute FROM THE SIERRA TO THE SEA: THE ECOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA WATERSHED Table of Contents Page CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I. Background.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A General History of Sierra County
    A General History of Sierra County Author: William G. Copren EARLY BEGINNINGS The area now comprising Sierra County, California has been occupied for over 5,000 years. Ancient petroglyphs, which are scattered from Kyburz Flat to Lacey Meadows and Hawley Lake, bear witness to the existence of early Native Americans in the region. The Miwok tribe lived here, mostly on the west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Washoe tribal area included the region that is now Eastern Sierra County, including the Sierra Valley. IMMIGRATION In 1844 the first American immigrants passed through what is now southeastern Sierra County on their way up the Truckee River. By the next year migrant groups had found a route through Stampede and Dog Valleys that avoided the need to move their dray animals in the river. The Donner Party apparently used this trail to reach their winter camps in 1846. By 1847 thousands of migrants had moved Big Lucy over this trail to California. That year, members of Stephen Kearney’s Washoe Indian Woman Mormon Battalion returned to the East along this route. In 1848 gold with papoose was discovered at Sutter’s Mill precipitating the Gold Rush of 1849. Despite the frantic quest for gold, none of the travelers thus far had remained in this area. SETTLEMENT Cut-eye Foster’s Bar on the western boundary of Sierra County appears to be the first location occupied by migrant miners in late 1848 or early 1849. Miles and Andrew Goodyear were mining at the present site of Goodyears Bar in early 1849, and they sent workers up to the forks at the North Fork of the Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • Loyalton Resource Supply Assess Report Final Redacted 20210204
    BIOMASS FUEL AND LOG SUPPLY AVAILABILITY AND COST ASSESSMENT FOR A BIOMASS POWER FACILITY AND SAWMILL COLLOCATED AT LOYALTON, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: February 4, 2021 Final Report REDACTED VERSION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TSS Consultants wishes to thank individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in support of this investigation. These include, but are not limited to: • Amy Berry, Chief Executive Officer, Tahoe Fund • John B. Jones, Jr., Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Boyd, Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Turner, Chief Operations Officer, Sierra Valley Enterprises • Jon Shinn, Forest Products Manufacturing Consultant • Steve Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council USFS Vegetation Management, Contracting and Biomass Utilization Staff: o Larry Swan, Regional Office o Tim Howard, Regional Office o Dan Smith, Eldorado National Forest o Brian Garrett, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o Victor Lyon, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o David Fournier, Tahoe National Forest o Annabelle Monti, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest o Will Brendecke, Plumas National Forest • Coreen Francis, State Forester, California and Nevada, Bureau of Land Management • Mike Vollmer, Forester, Nevada Division of Forestry • Steve Brink, Vice President, California Forestry Association • Bob Rynearson, Forester, W.M. Beaty and Associations • Mike Mitsel, Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries • Dan Porter, The Nature Conservancy • Craig Thomas, The Fire Restoration Group • Niel Fischer, Forest Manager, Collins Pine Company • Nic Enstice, Sierra Nevada
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Valley Aquifer Delineation and Ground Water Flow
    Sierra Valley Aquifer Delineation and Ground Water Flow Prepared for Randy Wilson, Director Plumas County Planning Department 520 Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971 530-283-7011 and Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District Loyalton, CA By Burkhard Bohm Hydrogeologist CHG lic. #337 Plumas Geo-Hydrology PO Box 1922, Portola, CA 96122 530-836-2208 Final Report December 27, 2016 Page 1 of 69 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6 Previous work conducted in SV ................................................................................... 6 Scope of the current study ........................................................................................... 7 2. Groundwater Recharge Areas in Sierra Valley ......................................................... 8 Groundwater recharge area defined ............................................................................ 8 Aerial contributions of groundwater recharge ............................................................... 8 Ground water recharge centers ................................................................................... 9 Defining groundwater recharge centers in the Sierra Valley watershed .................... 10 3. Aquifer delineation ................................................................................................. 13 Background ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Swiss Settlement of Plumas County 1860-1920
    :«<: Italian Swiss Settlement Of Plumas County S^PX^^-.\A/ ^ 1860-1920 2£*£fe«*- ITALIAN-SWISS SETTLEMENT IN PLUMAS COUNTY 1860 to 1920 by Jacqueline and JoEllen Hall Winning Essay in the First Annual A.N.C.R.R.-Fabrics West Contest in Local History, 1973 With an Introduction by W. H. Hutchinson Association for Northern California Records and Research Chico, California Research Paper No. 1 Copyright 1973 by Jacqueline and JoEllen Hall Published 1973 by the Association for Northern California Records and Research; Printed by California State University, Chico, and Brock's Printers, Chico, California 95926 Second Printing, May, 1975 ANCRR Publications are available from: Association for Northern California Records and Research P. 0. Box 3074 Chico, California 95926 CONTENTS Introduction v I. Scope and Location of Italian-Swiss Immigration to California 1 II. Description of Typical Immigrant and Influences on Immigration 2 III. History of Swiss Immigration Stressing Economic Reasons For Immigration 6 IV. Italian-Swiss Immigration to Plumas County Focusing on the Dual Attractions of Gold and Land 13 V. Italian-Swiss Settlement in Plumas County 20 VI. Pattern of Land Acquisition and Land Occupancy 26 VII. Development of a Sense of Community Through Group Migration, Partnerships and Marriage Within the National Group ..... 32 VIII. Significance ot the Italian-Swiss Immigrant in Plumas County as Revealed by the Dottas, the Ramellis and the Guidicis ... 38 IX. Contributing Factors to Successful Settlement 46 Appendix A Italian-Swiss Family Names
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Calving Areas for Rocky Mountain Elk on the Plumas National Forest
    Investigating Calving Areas for Rocky Mountain Elk on the Plumas National Forest: Implications for Land Management By Abigail Marshall A case study submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Natural Resources Presented: March 27, 2020 Commencement: June 13, 2020 Marshall Case Study Abstract Sustainable elk (Cervus canadensis) habitat management on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands involves a complex relationship between management practices and ecological processes. A relatively novel Rocky Mountain elk population (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) on the Plumas National Forest (PNF) in northeastern California became established in the early 2000s, but there is little information on the current number of individuals or the extent of land used by elk on the PNF. Elk populations are highly influenced by cow and calf survival and disturbances during the calving period are associated with reduced calf:cow ratios. Taking advantage of the fact that cows and calves have limited mobility during the first few weeks after birth, I developed a survey method that can be utilized by the PNF to identify and conserve key areas where calving activity occurs. Vegetative conditions and management histories will be documented for positively identified calving areas on two scales to begin gathering data related to site selection. The monitoring program will enhance the USFS’s ability to manage elk habitat, as well as food resources for the threatened gray wolf (Canis lupus), and domestic grazing on
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep Ritual in Northeast California
    BIGHORN SHEEP RITUAL IN NORTHEAST CALIFORNIA: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LOYALTON ROCKSHELTER CACHES ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology ____________ by © Christine C. O'Neill 2015 Fall 2015 BIGHORN SHEEP RITUAL IN NORTHEAST CALIFORNIA: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LOYALTON ROCKSHELTER CACHES A Thesis by Christine C. O'Neill Fall 2015 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharon Barrios, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Frank Bayham, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D. PUBLICATION RIGHTS No portion of this thesis may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner unacceptable to the usual copyright restrictions without the written permission of the author. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my professors and mentors, Dr. Frank Bayham and Dr. Antoinette Martinez. You both have challenged me to become a better and more thoughtful anthropologist. Dr. Bayham, thank you for providing me with this research opportunity. You handed me the Loyalton Rockshelter faunal assemblage on a silver platter my first year, and I have been obsessed with fetal bighorn sheep ever since. You have certainly added to my weirdness. Dr. Martinez, you have been provided an incredible amount of support and kindness through this process. I would also like to thank Kevin Dalton for all the time that he took answering all my crazy, ridiculous questions. Thank you to the students and professors assisting in faunal identifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Valley Ranch
    Sierra Valley Ranch Producer Stories 2009 Calpine, California From Upper Feather River Watershed Farmers and Ranchers Sierra Valley Ranch is situated in Sierra and Plumas Counties at 5,000 ft elevation. This mountain valley receives snowmelt and runoff on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. Several major streams and tributaries run through the ranch including the Middle Fork Feather River, Craycroft Creek, Cold Stream, and the Westside Canal. The ranch is a seasonal summer grazing operation for 2,000 commercial cow‐calf pairs. The water flowing through the property is one of the most valuable assets of this largest ranch in Sierra Valley. However, years of seasonal flood damage and mismanagement had left the irrigation system non‐functional. Marsh grasses had taken over much of the low‐lying areas while the elevated areas of the meadows had lost production of higher quality grasses. The Eric Roen family purchased the ranch in 1995 with a clear vision of the tremendous potential of this historic ranch with its vast native meadows and rangelands and the idle water rights. Ranch manager Paul Roen knew that the repair and improvement of the irrigation structures would be a Management Highlights big job. But, the potential to improve the productivity and economic viability ♦ Repair 15 major irrigation of the ranch by re‐establishing water control was obvious. Three truckloads structures damaged by seasonal of culverts, a D6 Cat and 320 Excavator were used to repair and upgrade 15 floods and negligence major irrigation system structures. Recycled 25,000 lb. gondola cars obtained from a railroad salvage contractor were installed as main channel weirs and ♦ Improve water distribution from have proven to better withstand the winter floods than wooden structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final
    Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final December, 2014 1 Sierra County CWPP Final Table of Contents Sierra County Update Community Wildfire Protection Plan Mutual Agreement Page ................................ 6 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 8 CWPP Objective ................................................................................................................................... 8 Sierra County Communities at Risk ...................................................................................................... 8 I. Requirements of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) ..................................................... 11 Federal .................................................................................................................................................... 11 State of California ................................................................................................................................... 13 Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and Local Jurisdiction ............................................... 14 II. Planning Process ................................................................................................................................. 17 Collaboration........................................................................................................................................... 17 Primary Collaborators
    [Show full text]