will ensure that fire management activities, including vegetation management and fuel load reduction required for compliance with any laws or guidelines are allowed to continue. . There is currently no managed grazing within the planning unit. Identify and manage cultural resources in to ensure their protection. The conservation easement will protect historic and cultural resources (as defined in Title XIV of the California Code of Regulations) on the Property consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Recommendation for Conservation Easement and Fee Simple Retention The Settlement and Stipulation require that the Watershed Lands: (1) be subject to permanent conservation easements and restricting the development of the Watershed Lands so as to protect and preserve the BPVs and/or (2) be donated in fee simple to one or more public entities or qualified nonprofit conservation organizations, whose ownership will ensure the protection of these BPVs. Accordingly, immediately following PG&E’s conveyance of the lands to be donated to Placer County in the Lower Drum planning unit, the County will convey the conservation easement to Placer Land Trust (PLT). Finding of Donee Funding and Other Capacity to Maintain Lands to Preserve and/or Enhance the BPVs The Stewardship Council invited organizations to join its registry and submit a statement of qualifications (SOQs). The Stewardship Council then reviewed the SOQs, and organizations that appeared capable were invited to submit additional information describing their qualifications. Organizations demonstrating sufficient experience holding and enforcing CEs, sufficient financial and organizational capacity, and which the Stewardship Council has determined to be best-suited to receive a donation of CEs within particular Watershed Lands are recommended to PG&E to receive CEs.
to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for The Centennial Reservoir and Power Supply Project and payment of just compensation by NID, in accordance with law. PG&E Response to the Protest of Nevada Irrigation District On December 17, 2015 PG&E responded to the NID protest. PG&E argues that NID’s request should be rejected because: 1) it is on conclusions about a water storage project that is only in preliminary stages of development; 2) it is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the property; and, 3) the proposed CE provides the necessary mechanisms to address changes in ownership and/or use of the property. PG&E points out that NID acknowledges that the project has not been approved and the plan is tentative. Because there is no final project defined, it is not possible to evaluate whether and what impacts might be caused to the Property or proposed CE by such development. PG&E believes it is premature for NID to conclude that the proposed water storage project will be approved or that the proposed transfer of land and CE contemplated in AL 4728-E are inconsistent with its plans. NID’s request that the transfer of fee title and the CE be subject to termination upon determination by NID that the land will be necessary for it water storage project is both impractical and inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment, which is to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. NID’s request to nullify the fee transfer of the Property to Placer County is effectively a request for the CPUC to require Placer County to transfer the Property to NID when NID determines it needs the Property for its water storage project development. PG&E states that incorporating a termination provision in the CE as suggested by NID is inconsistent with the intent of the Land Conservation Commitment to permanently protect the BPVs on the Property. Moreover, incorporation of such a provision in the proposed CE is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 815, et seq., of the California Civil Code, which defines a conservation easement