meeting agenda - granicus

P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423 775-782-9821 FAX: 775-782-6255
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us
Meeting Agenda
Nancy McDermid, Chair, District 4 Greg Lynn, Vice Chair, District 1
David J. Brady, District 2 Doug N. Johnson, District 3
Michael Olson, District 5 T ael Brown, Co
. Mich unty Manager Ted Thran, Clerk-Treasurer
Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:30pm Tahoe Transportation Center 169 Highway 50, Stateline, Nevada
MISSION STATEMENT
Working together with integrity and accountability, Douglas County provides efficient and effective government services to provide a safe, healthy, scenic, and vibrant community in which people prosper and enjoy an exceptional
standard of living.
NOTE: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION BEGINNING AT 12:30 P.M. TO MEET WITH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH DCEA AND DCSPA. Copies of the finalized agenda are posted at the following locations prior to meeting day: Minden Inn, Administration Building (Historic Courthouse), Judicial and Law Enforcement Center, Gardnerville Post Office, Minden Post Office, Minden Library, Douglas County Administration Building and the Tahoe Transportation Center at Stateline, NV. Questions concerning the agenda should be referred to the County Manager’s Office at 775-782-9821. The Board of County Commissioners sit as the following Boards: Liquor Board, License Board, Tahoe- Douglas Transportation District Board, Water District Board, East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts Board, Regional Transportation Commission and Redevelopment Agency. It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to protect the dignity of citizens who wish to comment before the Board. It is also the County Commissioner’s wish to provide the citizens of Douglas County with an environment that upholds the highest professional standards. Citizens should have the ability to freely comment on items and/or projects that are brought before the Board for action without interference. In order to ensure that every citizen desiring to speak before the Board has the opportunity to express his/her opinion, it is requested that the audience refrain from making comments, hand clapping or making any remarks or gestures that may interrupt, interfere or prevent the speaker from commenting on any present or future project. Persons desiring an opportunity to address the Board of County Commissioners and are not able to attend the meeting are requested to complete and submit a “Comment Card” to the Chairman at the main podium prior to the convening of the Commission meeting. Cards are located at the main entrance to the meeting room. Notice to Persons with Disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and require special assistance or accommodations at the meeting are requested to notify the Clerk’s Office in writing at Post Office Box 218, Minden, Nevada 89423 or by calling 782-9020 at least 20 hours in advance. Following is the proposed agenda, which is also posted on the County’s website at: http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us. All items shall include discussion and possible action to approve, modify, deny, or continue.
JANUARY 15, 2009
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION BEGINNING AT 12:30 P.M. TO MEET WITH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH DCEA AND DCSPA. 12:30 PM CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS & EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS 1. CLOSED SESSION for the Board of County Commissioners to meet with its management representatives to discuss labor negotiations with DCEA and DCSPA. This session is closed pursuant to NRS 288.220. (approx. 1 hr.) RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION 2. Discussion and possible action on closed session regarding labor negotiations with DCEA and DCSPA. (approx. 10 min) ADJOURN AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS & EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS CONVENE AS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – T. Michael Brown APPROVAL OF AGENDA The County Commissioners reserve the right to take items in a different order to accomplish business in the most efficient manner. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES:
• December 18, 2008 • January 5, 2009
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS (No Action) This portion of the meeting is open to the public to speak on any topic not on today’s agenda and must be limited to 3 minutes.
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us
For any item on the agenda, public comment is discretionary except where a public hearing is legally required. For members of the public not able to be present when an agendized item is heard, Comment Cards are available at the entrance to the meeting room. These cards should be completed and given to the Clerk. NOTE: THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM TAKING IMMEDIATE ACTION ON OR DISCUSSING ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are items that can be adopted with one motion and without public comment unless pulled by a Board member. Any member of the public wishing to address any consent item may ask for it to be pulled off the Consent Calendar so it may be heard and receive public comment during the Administrative Agenda. ALL AGENDA ITEMS ARE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items shall include discussion and possible action. Consent items may be pulled at the request of Board Members wishing to have an item or items further discussed. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the beginning of the Administrative Agenda. Motion to approve consent calendar. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/COMPTROLLER 3. Review status of treasury funds through January 15, 2009 per NRS 251.030. 4. Approve Budget Transfers. SOCIAL SERVICES 5. Discussion and possible action to authorize the submittal of a grant application not to exceed $30,000 to the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Housing Division for an Emergency Shelter grant.
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us January 15, 2009
2
RECESS AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE AS EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS 6. Discussion and possible action to approve the East Fork Fire and Paramedic District’s monthly report for November 2008 and authorize accounts receivable write-offs for November 2008. ADJOURN AS EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS RECONVENE AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY MANAGER 7. Discussion and possible action to approve a request for Douglas County to pursue, and if successful to accept, FEMA grant funding in the amount of $970,905 for the purpose of hazard mitigation in the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District (TDFPD) area. Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District will be the sub-grantee.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA The following item(s) are scheduled for a public hearing. The Chairman will read the Agenda listing into the public record. Staff will present a summary of the staff report and recommendations, including any updated information that was received after the date when staff reports were distributed. The commission will follow with question of staff. At that time, the Chairman will open the hearing to public testimony. Normally, the applicant and/or their representative are permitted to speak first, followed by Commission questions. The Chairman requesting comments from the public at large will follow this. If you wish to speak on a particular item, please limit your comments to three minutes and be as brief and concise as possible so that all who wish to speak may do so. Do not repeat the position of others who express the same views as yourself. The Chairman has the right to establish time limits for comments and to allow for rebuttal. ITEMS PULLED OFF CONSENT CALENDAR: COUNTY MANAGER 8. Discussion and possible action on a presentation from Genny Wilson, District Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Carson Ranger District, regarding USFS activities, projects and programs. (approx. 20 min)
3
9. Discussion and possible action on a presentation from Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority and the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce regarding an update on activities, projects and programs. (approx. 15 min) CLERK-TREASURER 10. Discussion and possible action on canvass of the January 13, 2009 Round Hill General Improvement District new election in compliance with NRS 293.387. (approx. 5 min) 11. Discussion and possible action on appointment of a chairman for the 2009 Douglas County Board of Equalization hearings per NRS 361.340 (4). (approx. 5 min) DISTRICT ATTORNEY 12. Discussion and possible action to approve a settlement agreement for Rancho Pacific v. Douglas County that approves the Planned Development (PD) Application 08-001 with up to an additional 12 units and a 20-foot wide secondary access along Old Kingsbury Road. The project is located at the northeast corner of Jack Circle and Tramway Drive the Sierra Planning Area, APNs 1319-19-802-001 and 1319-19-802-002. (approx. 15 min) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/COMPTROLLER 13. Discussion and possible action on the second quarter update on the status of the County’s FY 08-09 operating revenues and expenditures and approval of staff recommendations for budget adjustments. (approx. 20 min) RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES: 14. Discussion and possible action to adopt Resolution 2009R-008 establishing rates and charges for the use of the Airport facility and for activities at the Minden-Tahoe Airport. (approx. 10 min) 15. Discussion and possible action to adopt Resolution 2009R-012 establishing compensation for on-call duty for non-represented Douglas County District Attorney’s Special Investigators. (approx. 5 min) 16. Discussion and possible action to adopt Resolution 2009R-013 augmenting the budget for Douglas County. (approx. 10 min)
4
17. Discussion and possible action to introduce and adopt Ordinance 2009- 1276 authorizing the issuance by Douglas County, Nevada of its General Obligation (Limited Tax) Water Bond (additionally secured by pledged revenues) Series 2009 in the maximum principal amount of $3,500,000 for the purpose
5
of financing water projects for the Lake Water systems; providing the form, terms and conditions thereof and covenants relating to the payment of said bond; and providing for its adoption as if an emergency exists; and providing for other properly related matters. (approx. 10 min) RECESS AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE AS EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS 18. Discussion and possible action to introduce Ordinance 2009-1277 amending Chapter 5.06 of the Douglas County Code to allow East Fork Fire District to assess fees for responding to false alarms and other properly related matters. (1st reading) (approx. 5 min) ADJOURN AS EAST FORK FIRE AND PARAMEDIC DISTRICTS RECONVENE AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 19. Discussion of the proposal for the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, receive public comment, and provide direction on the proposal to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Nevada Housing Division. (approx. 10 min) COUNTY MANAGER 20. Discussion and possible action on one appointment to the Genoa Town Advisory Board to fill a four year term of office effective January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012. (approx. 5 min) 21. Discussion and possible action on the appointment of a Douglas County representative to serve on the newly established Economic Development Advisory Council to the Northern Nevada Development Authority. (approx. 10 min) THE TIMING FOR AGENDA ITEMS IS APPROXIMATE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AS A TIME SPECIFIC ITEM. ITEMS MAY BE CONSIDERED AHEAD OF OR BEHIND THE TIMING INDICATED BY THIS AGENDA.
Douglas County Board of Commissioners
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Closed session for the Board of County Commissi()ners to meet with its management representatives to discuss labor negotiations with DCEA and DCSPA. This session is closed pursuant to NRS 288.220.
2. Recommended Motion: Move the Board to go into closed session.
3. Funds Available: N/A Amount: N/A
Fund Name: N/A
Account Number: N/A
5. Meeting Date: January 15, 2009 Time Required: 1 Hour
6. Agenda: Administrative Public Hearing Required: No
7. Background Information: NRS 288.220 permits the Board ofCounty Commissioners to conduct a closed meeting with management representatives and contracted labor negotiator to discuss labor negotiations.
8. Committee/Other Agency Review: N/A
9.
10.
Commission Action: __ Approved
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Discussion and possible action on closed session regarding labor negotiations with DCEA and DCSPA.
2. Recommended Motion: Move to give direction on labor negotiations to management representatives.
3. Funds Available: N/A Amount: N/A
Fund Name: N/A
Account Number: N/A
5. Meeting Date: January 15, 2009 Time Required: 1 Hour
6. Agenda: Administrative Public Hearing Required: No
7. Background Information: The management representatives and contracted labor negotiator request direction on labor negotiations with DCEA and DCSPA.
8. Committee/Other Agency Review: N/A
9.
Other--
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Report of status ofTreasury Funds
2. Recommended Motion: None- Report only Review status ofTreasury Funds through January 15,2009 NRS 251.303
3. Funds Available: N/A
5.
6.
Agenda: Consent
Other
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Budget Transfers
2. Recommended Motion: No action required-please be advised that per NRS 354.598005 (5b), the attached budget appropriations were transferred within each fund and the Clerk is requested to record the action in the official minutes of this meeting.
3. Funds Available: Yes
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Discussion and possible action to authorize the submittal of a grant application not to exceed $30,000 to the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Housing Division for an Emergency Shelter Grant.
2. Recommended Motion: Authorize the submittal of a grant application not to exceed $30,000 to the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Housing Division for the Emergency Shelter Grant.
3. Funds Available: We have met the required matched cash dollars as well as secured community leveraging for this grant. Account Name/#:
4. Prepared by: Karen Goode, Douglas County Social Services Manager; Mary Jane Ostrander, Acting Supervisor
5.
6.
Agenda: Consent
Time Required: 5 minutes
Public Hearing Required: N/A
7. Background Information: Since 2005 Douglas County Social Services has applied for and received a total of $88,942.50 from State of NevadalDepartment of Business and Industry Emergency Shelter Grant program. This funding is earmarked for Douglas County residents who become homeless and includes homeless prevention, housing assistance and case management.
8. Committee/Other Agency Review:
P.O Box218 Minden, NV 89423
1133 Spruce Street, Gardnerville, NV 89410 (775) 782-9825 * Fax (775) 782-9874
December 31 , 2008
T. Michael Brown Douglas County Manager Post Office Box 218 Minden, NV 89423
Dear Mr. Brown,
Douglas County Social Services has the opportunity to again apply for the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) through Nevada Business and Industry Housing Division. These funds provide thirty days of housing and extensive case management to homeless Douglas County residents.
We are requesting authorization from the Board of Commissioner to apply for $30,000 again this year. We have met the required matched cash dollars as well as secured community leveraging for this grant.
This program operates exclusively through the Social Services Department with financial audit oversight by the County Comptroller's Office. The program carefully screens each applicant for eligibility to include meeting HUD's definition of homelessness, willingness to receive and engage in case management oversight and adherence to an individual goal plan. All participants are pre-screened for substance abuse and cannot be under the supervision of the legal system.
We expect to serve fifty-seven people, including twelve families, twenty children, and twenty-four individuals with this grant. It serves as part of Social Services' Transitional Housing program that also utilizes HUD Continuum of Care funds, Emergency Food and Shelter Grant from the United Way and Western Nevada HOME Consortium funds.
We have enjoyed the support of the County Commissioners for this grant opportunity before and hope we can continue to provide this vital service to the members of our community.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Douglas County Board of Commissioners
Sitting as Board of Fire Commissioners
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Discussion and possible action to approve the East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts' Monthly Report for November 2008 and to authorize accounts receivable write offs for November 2008.
2. Recommended Motion: Approve the East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts' Monthly Report for November 2008 and to authorize accounts receivable write-offs for November 2008.
3. Funds Available: Yes Amount: NA
Fund Name: NA
5. Meeting Date: 01115/09
6. Agenda: IConsen~ or Administrative Public Hearing Required: No
A. East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts' statistics for FY 08-09
B. Accounts Receivable Write-offs:
Amount $870.73
AMBULANCE BILLINGS, FY 2008-2009
JUL - SEPT 2008 OCTOBER 2008 NOVEMBER 2008 DOLLARS PERCENT DOLLARS PERCENT DOLLARS PERCENT
TOTAL BILLED $752,430 100% $255,600 100% $227,140 100%
LESS MANDATED WRITE OFFS $239,151 32% $84,039 33% $56,226 25%
NET BILLINGS FOR COLLECTION $513,279 68% $171,561 67% $170,914 75%
NET BILLINGS FOR COLLECTION $513,279 100% $171,561 100% $170,914 100%
ACTUAL AMOUNT COLLECTED $339,748 66% $99,275 58% $46,159 27%
BAD DEBT WRITE OFFS $52,914 10% $6,820 4% $0 0%
MEMBERSHIP WRITE OFFS $595 0% $871 1% $1,838 1%
DISCOUNTS $768 0% $146 0% $115 0%
OUTSTANDING BILLINGS $119,254 23% $64,449 38% $122,803 72%
12/19/2008,2:55 PM
12/19/2008,2:56 PM
Credit Summary Summary By Credit Code - Code Description
Write-off's - Monthly Summary
Page: 1 of 1
Total Amount with Purged:
AGENDA ACTION SHEET
1. Title: Discussion and possible action to approve a request for Douglas County to pursue, and if successful to accept, FEMA grant funding in the amount of $970,905 for the purpose of hazard mitigation in the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District (TDFPD) area. Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District will be the sub-grantee.
2. Recommended Motion: To approve the request for Douglas County to pursue, and if successful to accept, FEMA grant funding in the amount of $970,905 for the purpose of hazard mitigation in the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District area. Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District will be the sub-grantee.
3. Funds Available: Yes
5. Meeting Date: 01/15/09
7. Background Information:
This is a FEMA grant request that will allow the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District to begin two hazard mitigation projects in areas identified and ranked by the Nevada Hazard Mitigation Committee (NHMC) as high hazard areas. Mitigation efforts will include acreage thinning, slash disposal, chipping, project layout, permit fees, etc. The TDFPD has been working closely with the community to implement fuel breaks and defensible space. In November 2008, the voters approved a tax override specifically for the purpose of funding a long-term fuels reduction program.
The first project area targeted was ranked #1 by the NHMC and will treat 170 acres in the Kingsbury area. The total cost will be $651,100 with the grant paying $488,325 of this amount. The remaining match of$162,775 will be funded by the TDFPD.
The second project area targeted was ranked # 3 by the NHMC and will treat 168 acres in the Glenbrook area. The total cost will be $643,440, with the grant paying $482,580 of this amount. The remaining match in the amount of$160,860 will be funded by TDFPD.
Douglas County will be acting as the "pass-through" agency for the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District in order to comply with the federal requirements of this grant.
/1
8.
9.
10.
Other
Agenda Item # _
1. £1.1. 1.~L. .LJ~U \J.Lr"1..u 1.' 1.1.'\...L. r 1.'\...~ 1. L.v 1. 1.~ 1 ~ .lJhJ 1. 1.'\...1.v .l
re Chief Guy LeFever, Fire Chief ick Nicholson, Fire Marshal an Ogami, Assistant Chief
~ovember6, 2008
Bob Cook, Chairman Steve Seibel, Vice Chairman Roy Clason, Trustee Frank Forvilly, Trustee Patrick Athenon, Trustee
Elizabeth Ashby Nevada Division ofEmergency Management 2478 Fairview Dr. Carson City, NV 89701
This letter is to inform you that the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District has committed cash in the amount of$ 160,860 as non-federal match for the Douglas County Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction Project Glenbrook Region. These funds are available as of the date of this letter, and will be used for the matching share of eligible cost of this project. We will document our contribution to the project. As the Fire Chief, I have authority to commit funds for this project.
.If ad1itional federal funds are requested, an ....~d!tional·local match fund commitment letter IS required to be submitted. ,.-
P.O. Box 919 193 Elks Point Road Zephyr Cove, Nevada 89448
Phone (775) 588-3591 ext. 8 Fax (775) 588-3536
Ta,ho~ I:)ouglas Fire Protection pistric:t FEMA Pre-Disaster MitigatipnBudget2008 Kingsbury Region
Acres to be treated
Thinning cost per acre Slash Disposal, chipping, pile burning, mastication per acre Project layout, flagging, tree marking, field design per acre Permitting per acre Project supervision per acre Public Outreach
Total cost per acre
Tahoe Douglas FPD
Application Title: Douglas County Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction Project KingsbUry Region
Subgrant Applicant: Douglas County Emergency Management
Application Number: PDMC-PJ-09-NV-2009-004
Application Year: 2009
Address: p.o. Box 218. Minden, NV 89423-0218
No. Program has not been selected by state for re\~ew
88-0162034
137397337
Yes
No
Local Govemment
The Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District is a Fire Protection District organized under NV NRS 318. As such, the Distri ct is a political subdivision of the state of Nevada. The District was founded in 1946 and has a long track record of providing fiscally responsible service to the community. The District works closely with County Emergency Manag~r
In issues-relating to emergency management and fJicnlling. The Cistrict provides all-risk emergency servi(;es, incluc;ing both wildland and structural fire suppression, emergency medical services, fire prevention, technical rescue, emergency ordinance disposal and hazardous forest fuels management. The district operates out offive fixed facilities (four fire stations and one fuels reduction work center). The District adopted its Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, in August 2004 (http://www.rci-nv.com/reportsltahoedouglasl. Since that time the District has been working with the community to implement defensible space and fuel break projects. The District has a full-time Defensible Space Inspector as well as a full-time Fuels Management Battalion Chief. The district has operated a community curbside chipping program for the last three years. The district also has a seasonal fuels reduction crew that is tasked with implementing fuel-break projects. The District has a track record of implementing fuels reduction projects on time and within bUdget. The District also has an unparalleled record of organizing the community to address the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Within the District there are thirteen Fire Safe Chapters of the Nevada Fire Safe Council. These chapters develop community awareness and buy-in at the neighborhood level. These chapters help disseminate educational information and playa key role in obtaining voluntary compliance with defensible space standards. The voters of the District approved a tax override in November of 2008. specifically for the purpose of funding a long-term fuels reduction program.
88-0162034
88-0162034
State Tax Number:
Federal Tax Number:
Other type name:
Federal Employer Identification Number(EIN). If Indian Tribe, this is Tribal Identification Number.
What is your DUNS Number?
Are 'j'ou}he application preparer?
Is the application preparer the Point of Contact?
Is application subject to review by Executive Order 12372 Process?
Name of Applicant
Explanation: No
Mr.
Mark
Novak
P.O. Box 919
Community Information
Please provide the name of each community that will benetit from this mitigation activity.
State
NV
Enter Community Protile information below. ~
The Tahoe Township is the area of Douglas County located along the East shore of Lake Tahoe. The Kingsbury, area is made up of several large hotel/resort casinos, residences, condominiums, apartments, time-share units and a wide variety of businesses. The Tahoe Township has a year-round population of 7500, which swells to near 100,000 during peak tourism periods. (Nevada CommunityVVildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment- Tahoe Douglas Fire District, p. 11, http://www.rci-nv.comireports/tahoedouglasl). The majority of the neighborhoods in this area, have limited ingress and egress capacity. This creates a serious evacuation challenge when there are wildland tires and could lead to loss of life during a fast moving wildland fire. The project area is characterized by steep mountainous topography with a combination of pine forests, mixed conifer forests and brushtields. Due to its location on the east shore of Lake Tahoe, the project area receives much less precipitation than other areas of Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Nevada. The location on the east shore of Lake Tahoe, coupled with prevailing wind patterns, steep canyons, increase the susceptibility of the project area to catastrophic wildtire due to the resultant wind-slope alignment. The current forest structure has been shaped by several factors. During the Comstock mining period in the 1860-1870's much of the Tahoe Basin was clear cut to supply lumber and fuel-wood to the mines. The regeneration that followed this event was overly dense and the stand structure was altered, with more shade tolerant and fire-prone species such as white tir outcompeting many of the more tire-resistive species such as Jeffrey Pine and Sugar Pine. This coupled with a policy of aggressive tire suppression has left the Basin with an overstocked forest which is ripe for catastrophic Wildfire. This potential became reality in the Angora and Washoe Fires of 2007. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, there are many areas with potentially threatening conditions in the forest. Tree density has increased consistently to the point where a wildtire occurring under a worst case scenario would potentially clear the watershed of trees and othervegetative cover. Such an event would likely render the wat~r~heQ_susceptibletQsevere flooding events and ,soil erosion of enOirnous rnagnitude(Nevada 6omml;lflitY', .•.• -. ", Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment - Tahoe Douglas Fire District, p.t5, http:lANww.rci-nv.com/reports/tahoedougl::\& ) Toe Lake. Tahol') . Basin includes some very high pi Operty\J:J.JLie homes and businesses where assessed real estate values average $625,000 per acre. The greatest concern with large tires in the Basin is the high property and natural resource values that they threaten (including lake clarity and limited old-growth forests). Even a small wildfire in the Basin is potentially significant because of the juxtaposition of high ignition potential, high density and value of human developments, and high fuel hazard (Watershed Assessment, p. 15). High-intensity wildtires could result in extensive property damage or loss (p. 28, Final_Draft_LTB-Fuels-10_Year_Plan. pdf) Such a loss would be devastating to the tax base which local government relies upon for operational revenue. This was seen after the Angora fire in neighboring EI Dorado County. Not only was there a significant decrease inproperty tax revenue, the structure of the community was altered as many residents chose not to rebuild in the burned area. The Lake Tahoe Basin is called by many the Jewel of the Sierra. Over the past century there have been numerous calls to protect this magnificent natural resource. While much has been done to protect water quality, the effort to protect the area from catastrophic wildfire has just begun. For many who live, work, or Visit Lake Tahoe, catastrophic Wildfire is seen as the number one threat to this national treasure.
Comments
The attached spreadsheet provides the owners name, address, acreage, logitude and latitude of the properties selected for mitigation
Attachments
State
https:/lpOlial.fema. 2:0v/FEMAi\fitiQation/Print no?;:mnli'-~:1tionTn= 1SHnn.Rr " ......1; ".,t; ,,0> 1I.T.H~ 1,., 11 ol,.,f\f\o
03-24-2008
Local Multihazard Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan Information
Is the entity that will benefit from the proposed activity covered by a current FEMA-approved multi-hazard mitigation plan in compliance with 44 CFR Part 201?
If Yes, please answer the following:
What is the name of the plan?
What is the type of plan?
When was the current multihazard mitigation plan approved by FEMA?
Yes
Describe how the proposed activity relates to or is consistent with the FEMA-approved mitigation plan.
The proposed project is consistent with and supports the goals of the Douglas County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. This project will support Objective 3.F Protect existing assets, as well as new development, from wildland fires. All activities proposed are focused on protecting assets and any new development from wildland fires by SUbstantially modifying fire behavior, reducing the intensity of fires as they approach the community, reducing the impact of embers and thus the probability of ignition in the built environment, and prOViding firefighters a safe zone from which to defend the assets within the. community. Despite aggressive fire prevention efforts, the number of ignitions within the region remains constant, while the acres burned continues to increase. This trend will be exacerbated as climate change lengthens the fire season and increases periods of drought.
If No or Not Known, please answer the following:
Does the entity have any other mitigation plans adopted?
If Yes, please provide the following information.
Yes
Nevada Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan
Standard State MUlti-hazard Mitigation Plan
Does the StatelTribe in which the entity is located have a current FEMA-approved mitigation plan in compliance with 44 CFR Part 201?
If Yes, please answer the follOWing:
What is the name of the plan?
What is the type of plan?
When was the current multihazard mitigation plan approved by FEMA?
Yes
Describe how the proposed activity relates to or is consistent with the StatelTribe's FEMA-approved mitigation plan.
The Douglas County Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction Project is consistent With the Nevada Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan in a number of ways. This project directly supports several objectives and achieves a number of goals for a significant portion of the Tahoe Township. The State SHMP goals and objectives that this project supports are as follows: Goal 7. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to wildfire. Lead Division of Forestry Goal 7. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to wildfire. Lead Division of Forestry Goal 7. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to wildfire. Lead Division of Forestry Objective 7.A Protecting existing assets, as well as future development, from the effects of wildfire Objective 7. D Reduce hazardous fuels by decreasing the fire potential in Nevada's communities. Action 7.D.1 Focus fuels projects in communities with extreme or high ratings in Community VVildfire Protections Plan (CWPP) assessments. Objective 7.H Reduce the hazard rating of at-risk communities as identified in a CWPP or eqUivalent plan. Action 7.H.4 Encourage community involvement in project completion, participation, and maintenance. The entire project area lies within areas that have been given either a high or extreme rating in the Nevada Community VVildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project (CWPP) ( http://www.rci nV.com/reportsltahoedouglasi )The project is also consistent with action 7.H.4. All activities proposed are focused on protecting assets and any new development from wildland fires by SUbstantially modifying fire behavior, reducing the intensity of fires as they approach the community, reducing the impact of embers and thus the probability of ignition in the built enVironment, and proViding firefighters a safe zone from which to defend the assets within the community. Despite aggressive fire prevention efforts, the number of ignitions within the region remains constant, while the acres burned continues to
1·'11 {\1,f\f\O
increase. This trend will be exacerbated as climate change lengthens the fire season and increases periods of drought.
If you would like to make any comments, please entetthem below.
The Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessement Project - Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District is too large to upload. It may be found by following this link, http://www.rci-nv.com/reportsltahoedouglasl
To attach documents, click the Attachments button below.
Douglas County MHMP Less Maps.pdf
Mitigation Activity Information
100.1 - Public Awareness and Education (Brochures, Workshops, Videos, etc.) 300.2 - Vegetation Management - Wildfire
If you selected Other or Miscellaneous, above, please specify:
Titl e of your proposed activity:
Douglas County Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction Project Kingsbury Region
Are you doing construction in this project?
No
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below.
Attachments:
39.025
-119.955
Problem Description
Please describe the problem to be mitigated. Include the geographic area in your description.
The Tahoe Basin and the project area proposed in this application are succeptible to the effects of catastrophic wildfire. The fuels reduction project described herein will significantly modify fire behavior. This modification of fire behavior will allow firefighters to successfully control wildfires before they enter the community and will provide a defense zone in Which firefighters can safely operate. The modification of fire behavior will also significantly reduce ember showers within the developed community which will dramatically reduce the probability of structural ignition.
Enter the Latitude and Longitude coordinates for the project area.
Latitude:
Longitude:
Attachments:
Hazard Information
If other hazards, please specify
If you would like t9 make any comments, piease enter them below.
Projects has se'v'",rallocations, one FIRMETTE does not cover entire project area, multiple FIRMETTEs attached.
Attachments:
Yes
32005C00205F
FIRM Information
NoIs the project located within a hazard area:
If other identified high hazard area, please specify:
Is there a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) available for your project area?
Enter FIRM Panel Number.
Select Flood Zone Designation
Scope of Work
\l\lhat are the goals and objectives of this activity?
Reducing fuels on forested lands within and adjacent to communities in the Tahoe Basin will serve two primary purposes. The reduced fuel zones will prOVide firefighters safe areas to work when urban fires threaten wildlands such as during the Washoe Fire. Secondly, the reduced fuel zones will provide firefighters with safe zones to protect communities from approaching wildland fires such as during the Angora Fire and Gondola Fire. These reduced fuel zones protected hundreds of homes during the summer of 2007 and saved the public millions of dollars in replacement costs for the homes that were protected and millions of dollars in environmental restoration costs. Implementing the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy (see attachment FinaLDraft_LTB-FUELS-10_YEAR_PLAN)will protect lives, property and the fragile environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Additionally, implementing the Plan will minimize the costs associated with urban fire disasters. The objectives for fuels treatments in forests surrounding communities are: • Reduce the threat of wildfire destroying a community by restoring historic fire intensities by managing ground and mid-story fuels so fires burn as low intensity surface fires (flame lengths less than 2 feet).• Restore the historic forest structure of widely spaced tree crowns to reduce the threat of a crown fire threatening a community. Restore the historic forest structure, with more and larger openings Within the forest. • \l\lhere possible, improve forest health by removing sufficient trees to achieve a basal area of apprOXimately 90 to 150 ft2/acre (With appropriate tree or clump spacing) to reduce tree mortality associated with insects and diseases.• \l\lhere appropriate, maintain sufficient snags and downed logs to provide habitat components for dependent wildlife. The objectives for brush fields surrounding communities are: • Reduce the threat of wildfire to a community by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of shrub forms classes that support a low intensity surface fire (flame lengths less than 3 feet). The objectives for steam environment zones are: • Achieve vegetation structure and species composition consistent with the historic, low intensity, fire regime.• Reduce the amount of dead and down material that can carry wildfire.• Reduce the density, and SUbsequent encroachment, of lodgepole pines in meadows. \l\lhenver possible, this project will divert woody biomass to a cogeneration plant in at the Northem Nevada Prison in Carson City. This will be facilitated by the use of roll off bins that the Nevada Division of Forestry recently purchased through a biomass grant. This partnership also pays for the transportation costs associated with utilization of biomass from these projects.
Briefly describe the need for this actiVity.
The forests Qf the Tahoe Basi.n are currerltly grossly overstocked and tile forest structure supportt=: cat,,!strophic wildfire that defies fire suppression guringej(tremefireweather. On July 3, 2002 a careless smoker threw a ci garette'butt fr0m~the Heavenly/Ski Resort
"',,'gon~ola. Thecigarstte sparked the Gondola Fire, a blaze that bumed 670 acres of Nalion"arFomstlahds and was rapidly heading' towards the Upper KingsbUry community. On july 5, 2002 the 20-30 MPH winds that had stoked the fire calmed and firefighters were able to suppress the fire before any homes were destroyed. On June 24, 2007 a careless camper left a campfire unattended. The campfire sparked the Angora Fire that destroyed 254 homes in a matter of hours and went on to burn nearly 3,200 acres of private, county, state and federal lands near South Lake Tahoe. The 30-40 MPH winds that stoked the Angora Fire calmed on June 26 and firefighters were able to suppress the fire. On August 18, 2007 a homeowner left a gas grill unattended on their back deck. The grill ignited the deck, burned the home and then that home ignited a neighbor's home. The two burning homes then ignited the Washoe Fire that quickly burned through an untreated urban forest stand and ignited three additional homes. The Washoe Fire then burned into a treated forest and was easily suppressed before the weather conditions had materially changed. The Washoe Fire was rapidly moving towards a large development with over 250 homes and only a single road for emergency ingress and egress. The common denominator in all of the above fires was that the fires started in or near an untreated forest With a dense understory of suppressed shade tolerant trees in or near an urban area and all of the fires occurred during extreme fire weather. Reducing the Iiklihood of home ignition during wildland fire events is relatively simple. First the vertical and horizontal continuity of the forest fuels must be interupted. This will cause fire to move on the ground rather than as a crown fire. Then the community must implement defensible space so that the ground fire does not directly impinge on the structure. In combination these practices are highly successful in reducing the liklihood of home ignitions.
Describe the problems this activity will address.
The urban areas of the Tahoe Basin are all located within two different forest types: the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest type and the lodgepole pine forest, also known as the fire type forest. These forests were heaVily logged during the Comstock mining era from approximately 1860 through 1900. By the end of the Comstock era nearly 90 percent of the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests had been clear-cut. The forest naturally regenerated and today there is a nearly even-aged forest throughout the lowest elevations of the Tahoe Basin. These forests are characterized by an over-story of Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, sugar pine and white fir. The understory is very dense white fir, which is a shade tolerant species. The lodgepole pine forests developed in or near Stream Environment Zones or riparian areas in the bottom lands adjacent to the upland Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Fire suppression began in the Tahoe Basin during the early part of the 1900's and became effective after World War II. Fire suppression prevented fires that would have ordinarily thinned developing Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests and limited the growth of lodgepole pine in favor of riparian hardwoods. This combination of even-aged regeneration and total fire suppression has allowed the forests adjacent to the urban environments to develop into dense stands where fire suppression is now impossible during extreme fire weather. Reducing the risk of home ignition during wildland fire events is relatively simple. The forests adjacent to the urban areas must be thinned, the vegetation surrounding the home must not rapidly transmit fire to the structure and the home must be ignition resistant. If any of these conditions are not met then the home is at increased risk for ignition. In the Tahoe Basin a large percentage of the homes have at least some ignition resistant qualities. Many of the wood shake roofs in the Tahoe Basin have been replaced through attrition and only about 15 percent of the remaining homes still need roof replacement. The wealthier communities of the Tahoe Basin have rapidly changed roofs particularly after the Angora Fire. The regulations concerning defensibl e space have been clarified and now there is a dear message to homeowners and flammable ground covers are no longer reqUired within 30 feet of a structure. \l\lhile replacing roofs and creating defensible space is economically feasible for the typical homeowner in the Tahoe Basin, creating shaded fuel breaks in the forested areas adjacent to communities is very complex and very expensive.
Describe the methodology for implementing this activity.
There is an established process for evaluating. planning and implementing fuels reduction projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The
--d\~
1 l" J 1 {\ 11""'tl'\"°
process has been developed by the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team and is currently in use throughout the Tahoe Basin. The fuels reduction process is as follows: 1) The Division Leader for the Fire District I Department visits the site, photographs the existing condition, notes the existing fuel type and determines the most likely fuels reduction method, 2) The Geographic Infbhrlati6nSysfern (GIS) files with the project boundaries are transferred along With the likely fuels reduction prescription to an archaeological contractor who then conducts a database query and field survey if necessary, many areas of the Tahoe Basin have had recent archaeological surveys for other restoration activities, 3) The Wildlife GIS layer is consulted to determine if there are Limited Operating Periods in place for the project area. The TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) wildlife manager.is contacted and provided GIS layers of project areas for concurring opinion on Wildlife, 4) The Division Leader then writes up a vegetation management plan. The vegetation management plan includes all information about archaeology, soils, wildlife, fuel loading, fuel type, forest type, special circumstances such as rock outcroppings or access issues and a detailed fuels reduction prescription, 5) The fuels reduction prescription, archaeological survey, soils maps and wildlife survey are then used to schedule treatments. In the Tahoe Basin, the scarcity of fuels reduction contractors is considered and each unit within a project area is scheduled for fuels reduction work, relative to the contractors available. 6) Forestry technicians or Qualified Foresters then layout the fuels reduction project. Layout includes placing colored flagging around the project area, placing flagging along any stream environment zones that may be present and which influence operations, placing exclusion flagging around any archaeological sites, and finally the trees that will be removed are painted with a horizontal stripe and a dot at the base. 7) After layout is complete, the Division Leader then takes any additional information that was gained during layout and modifies the vegetation management plan for the area. The vegetation management plan, including all applicable permits are prOVided to TRPA and a field visit is scheduled. B) The TRPA and the division leader then meet on site to determine if the proposed project meets with environmental standards set in the TRPA Code of Ordinances and the Tahoe Basin Plan for Water Quality. If the proposed action is in compliance then a tree removal permit is issued, 9) The DiVision Leader then formally requests bids from qualified contractors. 10) The lowest qualified bidder is issued the contract and the project is scheduled, 11) The project begins on or near the scheduled start date, at that time the TRPA and Division Leader meet on site to discuss the project and any mitigations or special situations that may be present. The terms of the TRPA tree removal permit are provided to the contractor, 12) The contractor completes the work under the supervision of the Division Leader, 13) At the end of the project the TRPA, Division Leader and contractor review the final project and certify that the project goals are satisfied and that the project met the terms of the TRPA tree removal permit. 14) The contractor is paid for services, 15) The project area is recorded into GIS as having been treated and an anticipated maintenance date is recorded.
Tl1e pfQiects, areas described herein are- adjacent to projects completed by the Unit~dSt!'lte$E.9restService during the last several "YEl~r~:fijesl;i:P!:Qjects, the..Kingsbyry-Project and the Round HilLProject, Were limitedtoUS·Forest·Bystemlands. The projectunits, :* ·.-repre$~t hole:, In these fuelbrcaks that would allow a wildfire to enter Llle communltyilTan cj~ohtruljed manber. Completing these
projects in a timely manner will allow the maintenance component of these projects to be aligned with the maintenance on the Forest Service projects. This will allow these areas to become essentially one treatment unit in the future which will greatly streamline permitting and planning and also allow for cost savings due to economies of scale. The ZIP folder titled TDFPD_PDM_Kingsbury_Shapefile_200B.zip contains the shapefile for the proposed project areas.
Attachments:
TDFPD PDM Kingsbury Shapefile 200B.zip Final Draft LTB-FUELS-10 YEAR PLAN.pdf
Enter Work Schedule
Description Of Task
Public meetings and education
Contractor selection and bidding
Starting Unit Of TimePoint
Duration Unit Of Time Work Complete By
60 DAYS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
24 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
30 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, Tahoe Fire & Fuels Team
26 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
30 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 29 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 30 MONTHS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
30 MONTHS
City
state
ZIP
Does this property have other co-owners or holders of recorded interest?
Property Information:
SHPO Review
Policy Number
Damage Category
Legal Description
Base Flood Elevation feet
First Floor Elevation feet
Number of feet the lowest floor elevation of the structure is being raised above Base Flood Elevation (only applicable when feet Properly Action Is Elevation)
Flood Source
Property located within
Is there a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) available for your project area?
Is the property site marked on the map?
• Flood Zone Designation
1,.., 11 Cl/,..,f\f\O
Decision Making Process
Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem.
During the summer of 2004 the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District worked with the Nevada Fire Safe Council and local community Fire Safe Chapters to create a Community Wildfire Protection Plan for the portion of Douglas County within the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Nevada Fire Safe Council is a grass-roots organization, which along with local fire districts, organizes communities into Fire Safe Chapters. Each Chapter has homeowner leaders who live and work within the community. These Chapters and their leaders then educate their community on the risk of wildfire, develop plans to reduce that risk and implement projects based upon these plans. That plan was then incorporated into the Community Wildfire Protection Plans for the Lake Tahoe Basin and then further incorporated into the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy known as the i0-Year Plan. The i0-Year Plan is currently being used by the U.S. Forest Service, state, local and private landowners as the gUiding document for fuels reduction in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The projects that were selected for this application represent the culmination of four years of planning that induded fire modeling, ground truthing and pUblic comment. The projects will benefit the areas that pose the greatest threat to life and property within the Douglas County portion of the Tahoe basin. The projects also protect critical infrastructure such as water, electricity, communications and transportation. As explained below, thinning forests in the Lake Tahoe basin not only protects lives and property but is also environmental restoration. Over the past 100 years the forests of the Lake Tahoe basin have grown grossly overstocked. The proposed projects actually reverse decades of mismanagement and reverse the effects of fire suppression. While forest fuels reduction projects have environmental benefits, the projects must be completed in a manner that is consistent with the fragile ecosystem of the Lake Tahoe basin. The Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District will be working with partners at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nevada Division of Forestry and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office to protect natural, cultural and historic resources. The Tahoe Basin has the advantage of having the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state federal regulatory agency, that is charged with regulating all aspects of the Lake Tahoe environment. This agency works closely with project proponents to ensure that forest fuels reduction projects are completed in a manner that is consistent with Lake Tahoe's fragile environment.
Explain why this project is the best alternative.
During 2007 alone, there were two firtjls that resulted in home ignitions and high costs. The Angora Fire burned nearly 3200 acres and d~stroyed 254 homes and the Washo~ Fire Dumed 32 acres and five homes were destroyed. Other fuel types such as chaparral tend'
, .,.~:lo bqrn',yitn a reguianty that is somewhat predictable. The risk inti'le Basin is different,<T'heproblemin theBasiniS the result of iOO _,,- oHare'St misrrlanagement. The fire hazard has been incremental!y incre~sing untit today fires bur;', that defy suppression and
communities are at extreme risk. Forest fuels reduction projects in the Tahoe Basin can actually reverse this problem and in the process restore a more natural forest structure that improves the environment. Fuels reduction in the Basin is also environmental restoration. It should be made clear that 2007 was not an aberration; rather it was the culmination of 100 years of forest fuel bUildUp. It is clear that now these events will become common, the only question is whether wildland fire events will also become urban fire disasters. Two other alternatives were evaluated; the "do nothing altemative" and an alternative that inclUded the supplementation of the current fire fighting resources in the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District. The "do nothing" alternative was rejected because catastrophic wildfire poses an immenent threat to life and propety in the Tahoe Douglas FPD. The current fuel loading in the wildland urban interface supports catastrophic fire that defies fire suppression during extreme fire weather and many communities in the Lake Tahoe basin have only a single road for ingress and egress. Also, fuel hazards can be abated, this fuels condition does not have to exist whereas slope, weather and access are conditions that cannot be abated. The third alternative that was considered was the option to significantly increase firefighting resources in the Tahoe Dougals FPD. This altemative was rejected for two reasons. First the cost of increasing firefighting resources was magnitUdes greater than reducing fuels adjacent to communities. Building, staffing and purchasing the equipment for a single fire station runs in the tens of millions of dollars. Annual costs associated with increased fire protection also adds millions of dollars of expense to already strained bUdgets. Finally the addition of suppression resources was rejected because it does not address the source of the problem. The problem is the accumulation of forest fuels adjacent to communities, therefore the most effective strategy is to abate the fuels, not create infrastructure to respond to a condition that can be abated.
Comments:
Attachments:
Item Name
2,000.00 Each
Unit Cost ($)
Environmental permitting
Vegetation managment and thinning
Federal Share: $ 481,950.00
Subgrant Unit Unit of Unit Cost ($) Cost Budget Class Quantity Measure Estimate ($)
Personnel 170.00 Acre $ 120.00 $ 20,400.00
Contractual 170.00 Acre $ 150.00 $ 25,500.00
Personnel 170.00 Acre $ 60.00 $ 10,200.00
Contractual 170.00 Acre $ 500.00 $ 85,000.00
Contractual 170.00 Acre $ 2,950.00 $ 501,500.00
Total Cost $ 642,600.00
Activity Cost Estimate
Federal Share Percentage
Non-Federal Share Percentage
Proposed Federal Share
Proposed Non-Federal Share
Funding Type
Program Income
Grand Total
Amount ($) Action
$162,775.00
If you would like to make any com ments, please enter them below.
Attachments
Program Income
Cost Effectiveness Information
Attach the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA), if completed for this project
TDFPD FEMA Pacels Kingsbury.pdf TDFPD NDF DDT letter.pdf CWPP TahoeBasin.pdf Replacement Cost Swift Estimator.pdf Douglas County Master Plan. pdf Crew costs TDFD( 1).xls TDFPD DDT-Kingsbury Final.doc TDFPD BCA Kingsbury 2008.xls NV FEMA Treatment Durability Letter[1 J.doc
What is the source and type of the problem?
Between 1875 and 1895, large-scale timber harvesting removed most of the large, widely spaced trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Although the forest stands successfully regenerated, 55 years of effective fire suppression and a reduced emphasis in forest management on public lands have resulted in denser forest stands than occurred historically. Recent estimates indicate that in the Basin lower montane forests have four times the density of trees and upper montane forests have twice the density of trees when compared to forest conditions prior to 1870. Current forest stands exhibit a 70% higher disease incidence and a 5% greater mortality than remnant old growth stands in the Basin. Fuel hazards in the Basin have changed along with forest management practices. High rates of tree mortality, particularly white fir (Abies concolor), have increased the number of standing dead trees and downed logs. The lack of frequent low intensity fires has resulted in accumulations of dead fuels and increased understory shrubs. As a reSUlt, flame lengths and rates of fire spread lead to higher intensity fires. The mid-story trees in these stands create fuel ladders that allow fires to readily move into dense crowns that facilitate the movement of fire from one tree crown to another. This can result in a crown fire and a stand-destroying incident. Recent estimates indicate that if a fire escaped initial control, at least 50% of the burned area would protl~bly occur as a crown fire, with overstorytree mortality exce~ingf50%.Locations thC't exhibit pronounced levels of rlr0"ght-,
,ir)$Act-,and pathogen-related mortality would ihCrej:lseJire lin~ (;..0Dstruction times and reduce suppressibtfeffectiverress.Fewl(}rge "fii'\O;<, have been recorded in the Tahoe Basin over the plisf80 years~However, two recent fires - the Gondola and Showers fires were sizable and occurred under less than extreme fire weather conditions. As such, these fires provide evidence that fuel hazards are pronounced and have increased SUbstantially. Then on June 24,2007 the Angora Fire was ignited under extreme fire weather. The Angora Fire bumed nearly 3200 acres and destroyed 254 homes in less than two hours. Firefighters did not utilize direct attack tactics as the fire was exhibiting extreme and unpredictable fire behavior in untreated forests adjacent to the community. Firefighters were effective in saving homes where the forest had been thinned. The unique qualities of Lake Tahoe have been described in fictional, non-fiction, and scientific pUblications. The lake's clarity and size are world-renowned. The wide range of recreational opportunities support a $1 billion local economy and over 40,000 residences (many valued at over $1 million) provide homes to a year-around population of over 57,000 people and SUbstantially higher number of seasonal visitors. As a result, even a small wildland fire may have significant impacts on the Basin's assets.
How frequent is the event?
During the period between 2000 and 2007 there were nine catastrophic fires that bumed a total of 4,485 acres and destroyed 259 homes. See the spreadsheet titled Fire_Acres_Suppression_Costs.xls and the map titled Tahoe Fires 2000-2007.pdf. The fire hazard in Tahoe is a matter of probabilities with a relatively static number of fire starts yearly and then a variable number of days with extreme fire weather. On average there are over 100 fire starts in the Tahoe Basin yearly. On average there are apprOXimately 10 days per year with extreme fire weather. During the devastating 2007 fire season there were over 25 "Red Flag" days. During the 2008 fire season there were still roughly 100 fire starts, butfewer than 10 'Red Flag" days. When there is a fire start during a "Red Flag" day the fire quickly spreads, the local fire services have inadequate suppression capabilities to handle the rapid fire spread and the fire burns until the weather changes, typically two to three days. The fuel loading is determinative of how the fire will behave when severe fire weather coincides with a fire start. During the Angora Fire, a fire that destroyed over 250 homes, direct fire suppression tactics were possible in some areas and hundreds of homes were saved due to prior fuels reduction efforts. So while fire starts during extreme fire weather are inevitable, the damage from the fire can be moderated.
How severe is the damage?
The damage that results from catastrophic wildland fire in the Lake Tahoe basin is threefold. First, homes and communities have been destroyed and the effects on the area are long lasting. Even 18 months after the Angora Fire relief efforts are helping families relocate or get back into permanent homes. The economy of Lake Tahoe has also been negatively effected by fire. John Koster of Harrah's Resorts estimated that the Angora Fire reSUlted in over $10 million in lost business. Then the environment of Lake Tahoe is severely effected. Dr. Wallie Miller of the University of Nevada, Reno measured the effects of the Gondola Fire on sediment loading into Lake Tahoe. His stUdy showed that catastrophic wildfire contributes several decades of erosion and nutrients into Lake Tahoe during the first year after the fire. These nutrients fuel algae growth that decrease Lake Tahoe's famed clarity.
What kinds of property are at risk?
The communities of the Lake Tahoe basin are at risk for catastrophic wildfire. Homes, businesses, pUblic facilities and infrastructure are all at risk.
Are there better, alternative ways to solve the problem?
The proposed project is to thin the forest fuels such that a fire would burn within the range of historic variability even during extreme fire weather. The forests of the Lake Tahoe basin are both fire resilient and fire dependent. The forests of the Lake Tahoe basin were clear-cut and then fire suppression in combination with a lack of forest management allowed the forest to grow to an overstocked
'1l ;ro
condition that burns catastrophically even during moderate fire weather. The proposed action is to restore the forest structure to a biologically appropriate stocking level and retain the large fire resilient trees that historically ,dominated the forest. The proposed action will be conducted in conjunction with defensible space implementation work that is on.cgoinginthe area. The Nevada Fire'Safe' Council sponsors community Fire Safe Chapters in the at-risk communities in the Kingsbury area. Each of these Fire Safe Chapters is lead by a dedicated .team of local hom eowners who educate and motivate the rest of the community to implem ent defensible space practices and treatments. To date there are 1709 Fire Safe Council members in Douglas County and defensible space treatments have been completed on as many properties. The proposed action ties in the work that communities have undertaken to protect themselves from the threat of catastrophic wildfire. This proposed action has a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 49.208. The bum recurrence interval in the Benefit Cost Analysis was adjusted to account for the nature of catastrophic fire in the Tahoe Basin. Today the forests of the Tahoe Basin support fires that cannot be suppressed during extreme fire weather. Thus there are years where fire suppression is 100% effective and other years where a fire starts during extreme fire weather and the fire burns until the weather changes. Without adjusting to account for the intense fuel loading the BCR is 4.180. This project in combination with the defensible space treatments that Fire Safe Chapters are implementing is highly effective in protecting lives and property.
Are the mitigation project costs well documented and reasonable?
Yes
If you would like to make any com ments, please enter them below.
The impact of catastrophic wildfire is long lasting in communities that suffer multiple home ignitions. The Angora Fire destroyed 254 homes in EI Dorado County within the Tahoe Basin on June 24, 2007. The economic result has been that EI Dorado County has laid off 40 county employees within the Tahoe basin and closed a clinic that served low income residents of the Tahoe basin. The property values have dropped in the area because of the blackened and dead forests that now dominate the landscape. The local fire protection district has also had to deal with bUdget cuts and is currently trying to maintain its ability to respond should another fire start in the area. These impacts are difficult to quanitify and are not a part of the Benefit Cost Analysis because only fully supported numbers were used in the calculation of the Benefit Cost Ratio, but the impacts to the community have been profound.
Attachments:
_.Iahoe.fjres20QD-2007,pdf . ,....7.
Damage History
Date Event
06- Fire 2007
08- Fire 2007
Description of Damage
The Angora Fire burned 254 homes in approximately four hours. Fire suppression costs were approximately $12 million and the cost of the homes damaged was approximately $141 million. The latter figure also includes the cost of removing the debris from the burned houses.
The Washoe Fire burned five homes and approximately 20 acres of wildland. The homes replacement cost is estimated to be $3 million, suppression costs were approximately $250,000. While five homes were lost, the fire burned into an area that had been treated by the U.S. Forest Service and the fire was suppressed even before the fire weather had SUbstantially changed. But for the forest thinning project, another 250 homes were in jeopardy.
Amount of Damage
1'11101'1nnO
No
Yes
A. National Historic Pre~~rvatit;riAct - Historic Buildings and Structures
* 1. Does your project affect or is it in close proximity to any buildings or structures 50 years or more in age?
If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
The property address and original date of construction for each property affected (unless this information is already noted in the Properties section),
A minimum of two color photographs shOWing at least three sides of each structure (Please label the photos accordingly),
A diagram or USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map displaying the relationship of the property(s) to the project area.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are prOViding:
Information gathered about potential historic properties in the project area, including any evidence indicating the age of the building or structure and presence of buildings or structures that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or Within or near a National Register listed or eligible historic district. Sources for this information may include the State Historic Preservation Officer, and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), your local planning office, historic preservation organization, or historical society.
Consideration of how the project design will minimize adverse effects on known or potential historic buildings or structures, and any alternatives considered or implemented to avoid or minimize effects on historic bUildings or stwctures. Please address .Cin£lnote a~socLated.cost~ your PJoject blJdget.
For acquisition/demolition projects affecting'historic buildings or structures, any data regarding the consideration and feasibility of elevation, relocation, or flood proofing as alternatives to demolition.
Attached materials or additional comments.
Comments:
There are four properties located Within the boundaries of the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Bliss Boat House: 1951 Glenbrook Road, Glenbrook Lake Shore House: 1960 Glenbrook Road, Glenbrook Friday's Station: located between US Hwy 50 and SR 207. Lena N. Gale Cabin (Good Medicine Cabin): 726 Cedar Sf. Zephyr Cove None of these properties is within the project area. Source: Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project http://www.rci-nv.com/reportsltahoedouglas Through the permitting process associated with completion of projects by the Nevada Fire Safe Council Chapters, Nevada Division of Forestry, United States Forest Service and the Tahoe Douglas Fire District, numerous State Historic Preservation Office searches and clearances have been granted. If any potential structures of historic significance are identified, mitigation measures, inclUding avoiding areas of historic significance will be taken. All of the properties identified as being eligible for, or on the National Historic Register are adjacent or in the Wildland Urban Interface and constructed with combustible construction. As such, they are particularly vulnerable to loss from a wildfire and will be further protected by this project.
Attachments:
* 1. Does your project involve disturbance of ground?
A description of the ground disturbance by giving the dimensions (area, volume, depth, etc.) and location
The past use of the area to be disturbed, noting the extent of preViously disturbed ground.
A USGS 1:24,000 scale or other site map showing the location and extent of ground disturbance.
Any information about potential historic properties, including archeological sites, in the project area. Sources of this information may include SHPOfTHPO, and/or the Tribe's cultural resources contact if no THPO is designated. Include, if possible, a map showing the relation of any identified historic properties to the project area.
11'"\/1AII"'t.AAn
Comments:
In general there are two separate fuels treatment methods that will be utilized; hand thinning and cut-to-Iength mechanical thinning. Hand thinnfng involves the use of typical hand tools including chain saws and people to cut down trees and then drag the resulting slash to an existing paved road for chipping. Altematively a low impact tracked chipper could be utilized to chip the slash on site. Both activities are very low impact and compatible with work on very erosive or fragile soils. Cut-to-length mechanical thinning is very Tow impact mechanical thinning that is compatible with areas with a high site capacity. Cut-to-length thinning will be confined to areas with shallow slopes and areas with low erosion potential. Soils scientists with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will work with the planning team to identify areas where each method is most compatible. The past use of the areas includes Comstock mining era clear-cut logging and recreation. The treatment areas are within urban areas and are used as public parks. Thus the finished product must resemble a park with minimal ground disturbance. The Tahoe Douglas Fire District has a close working relationship with the Nevada SHPO. The District has obtained many cultural clearances from NVSHPO for past projects, many of which are in close proximity to the proposed project areas (see attachement TDFD SHP0022.pdf).
Attachments:
C. Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
* 1. Are Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat present in the area affected by the project?
If Yes, you must confirm that you have prOVided the following:
No
information you oDt?lnedioigentifyspeciesin or nea, the projed area. Provide the source and date of the information cited. ", .
Any request for information and associated response from the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (for affected ocean-going fish), or your State Wildlife Agency, regarding potential listed species present and potential of the project to impact those species.
Comments:
See attached TDFD T and E report regarding threatened and endangered species and letter form US Fish and Wildlife Service (appendix A). The Lake Tahoe Basin is one of the most heavily studied areas in the United States. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nevada Division of Wildlife and Tahoe Science Consortium have thoroughly documented the presence of threatened and endangered species. Currently the most complete database is being maintained at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
* 2. Does your project remove or affect vegetation? Yes
Description of the amount (area) and type of vegetation to be removed or affected.
A site map showing the project area and the extent of vegetation affected.
Photographs or digital images that show both the vegetation affected and the vegetation in context of its surroundings.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are proViding:
Comments:
See attached letter from Stewart McMorrow titled NVJEMA_Treatment_Durability_Lette~1].doc for a description of the basic vegetation types to be treated: In general the project is to remove the vertical and horizontal continuity of forest fuels. This treatment will remove the understory shade tolerant trees that would have been thinned by the frequent low intensity fires typical of the Tahoe basin prior to European settlement. Additionally, brush will bethinned such that it does not create a continuous surface fuel layer that
1,., /1 1\ /"""'1"\1\0
can support passive crown fire. The large fire resilient trees will remain on the site and clumps of trees will be retained to simulate natural variability of stocking. The trees to be removed will be marked with a single horizontal stripeat4,5feetand a single dol on the butt. The treestb beremovedwill then bereviewed by the Registered Professional Forester from theTahbeRe'gi6riaIPlanriin-g ., Agency who will issue a tree removal permit. In general the prescription will be to create a forest structure that is comparable to forest structure that would have been common pre-European settlement.
* 3. Is your project in, near (within 200 feet), or likely to affect any type of waterway or body of water? Yes
If Yes, and project is not within an existing building, you must confirm that you have provided the following:
A USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map showing the project activities in relation to all nearby water bodies (within 200 feet).
Any information about the type of water body nearby including: its dimensions, the proximity of the project activity to the water body, and the expected and possible changes to the water body, if any. Identify all water bodies regardless whether you think there may be an effect
A photograph or digital image of the site showing both the body of water and the project area.
To help FEMA evaiuate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing:
Evidence of any discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or your State Wildlife Agency concerning any potential impacts if there is the potential for the project to affect any water body.
Comments:
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agencyhas a staff of wildlife biologists who are available to assist with documenting threatened or .. end;,,:g6red species.habitat. Jh~TRF',t\rnaintgin~ §d~tabase oiaH.know T&E species that will be consulted . The bi01Qgists .will reviEii;II:
'the p~ojE)(;r3rea:;.oanci'jisit1he s:te 'll'io't to t!J€'-issuarce of a tree rem oval permit or dUring tlie i-JE:PA proces:>. Tile Lake TbhoerPGlerr is one of the moSt heavily studied areas in the world and data will be freely available for the NEPA process. Additionally, the U.S. Forest Service has jUst recently completed an EnVironmental Assessment for projects near the proposed projects. That data will also be made available. see also attachment Final_Kingsbury_DM .pdf for enVironmental planning completed in 2006 in close proximity to proposed project area.
Attachments:
pdm 010.jpg Final Kingsbury DM.pdf pdm 001.jpg TDFD T and E report.pdf pdm 008.jpg
D. Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)
* 1. Will the project involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, excavation, adding fill material or result in any modification to water bodies or wetlands designated as "waters of the U.S" as identified by the US Army No Corps of Engineers or on the National Wetland Inventory?
Documentation of the project location on a USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map or image and a copy of a National Wetlands Inventory map or other available wetlands mapping information.
Request for information and response letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or State resource agencies regarding the potential for wetlands. and applicability of permitting reqUirements.
Evidence of altematives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to wetlands.
Comments:
No wetlands or water bodies are within the project area.
No
Attachments:
E. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
* 1. Does a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM), hydrologic study, or some other source indicate that the project is located in or will affect a 100 year floodplain, a 500 year floodplain if No a critical facility, an identified regulatory floodway, or an area prone to flooding?
If Yes, please indicate in the text box below any documentation to identify the means or the alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to floodplains (See the 8 step process found in 44 CFR Part 9.6.) to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project:
* 2. Does the project alter a watercourse, water flow patterns, or a drainage way, regardless of its floodplain designation?
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project:
Hydrologiclhydraulic information from a qualified engineer to demonstrate how drainage and flood flow patterns will be changed and to identify down and upstream effects.
Evidence of any consultation with US Army Corps of Engineers (may be included under Part D of the Environmental Information).
Request for information and response letter from the State water resource agency, if applicable, with jurisdiction over modification of waterways.
Comments:
The project is not located Within and will not affect any floodplains or areas prone to flooding.
Attachments:
F. Coastal Zone Management Act
* 1. Is the project located in the State's designated coastal zone? No
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are prOViding to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project:
Information resulting from contact with the appropriate State agency that implements the coastal zone management program regarding the likelihood of the project's consistency with the State's coastal zone plan and any potenti al reqUirements affecting the cost or design of the proposed activity.
Comments:
Attachments:
G. Farmland Protection Policy Act
* 1. Will the project convert more than 5 acres of "prime or unique" farmland outside city limits to a non agricultural use?
Comments:
Attachments:
No
httns:l/notia1.fema. pov/FFTvf ATvfiti o!'ltinn/Print rt{)?nnnli ... ntic\1'\ rn= 1~Sn{U'T "nnl;.~.,t; ........I\.T.,..... 1"')!10 ; "')flflQ
No
No
H. RCRA and CERCLA (Hazardous and Toxic Materials)
* 1. Is there areason to suspect there are contaminants from a CUrrent or past use on the property'assoda'ted ,', with the proposed project?
Comments and any relevant documentation.
Results of any consultations with State or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation.
Attached materials or additional comments;
Comments:
* 2. Are there any studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the property associated with the proposed project?
Results of any consultations with S1ate or local agency to obtain permit with requirements for handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials related to project implementation.
"Ntachedmat€'rials orad~itional conliT;ents. -
Comments:
* 3. Does any project construction or operation activities involve the use of hazardous or toxic materials? No
Comments and any relevant documentation. .
Comments:
* 4. Do you know if any of the current or past land-uses of the property affected by the proposed proj ect or of the N adjacent properties are associated with hazardous or toxic materials? 0
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are proViding to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project:
Comments:
Attachments:
I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations
~'FArethere'lowincome or minority populations in the project'sarea of effect or adjacentl(Yth~'ptojectarea.?: No
Description of any disproportionate and adverse effects to these populations.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate below any other information you are providing:
Description of the population affected and the portion of the population that would be disproportionately and adversely affected. Please include specific efforts to address the adverse impacts in your proposal narrative and bUdget.
Comments:
Attachments:
J. Other Environmental/Historic Preservation Laws or Issues
~ 1. Are there other environmental/historic preservation requirements associatedwith this project that you are ?ware,0f?
i(Yes, please frldicei'e in the text box below a description of the requirements, issues or public involve-merfl'effori. .
~ 2. Are there controversial issues associated with this project? No
No
No
If Yes, please indicate in the text box below a description of the requirements, issues or public involvement effort.
~ 3. Have you conducted any public meeting or solicited public input or comments on your specific proposed mitigation project?
If Yes, please indicate in the text box below a description of the requirements, issues or public involvement effort.
Attachments:
K. Summary and Cost of Potential Impacts
• 1. Having answered the questions in parts A. through J., have you identified any aspects of your proposed project that have the potential to impact environmental resources or historic properties?
If Yes, you must confirm that you have:
Evaluated these potential effects and provided the materials required in Parts A through J that identify the nature and extent of potential impacts to environmental resources and/or historic properties.
Consulted with appropriate parties to identify any measures needed to avoid or minimize these impacts.
Considered alternatives that could minimize both the impacts and the cost of the project.
Made certain that the costs of any measures to treat adverse effects are realistically reflected in the project bUdget estimate.
Comments:
11"'1to /1 i"'\/!"'fIAAO
Maintenance Schedule andCdsts
The soils in the proposed project area are young soils of granitic origin that are excessively drained and have very low nutrient content. The summers in Tahoe are dry and the only effective moisture is from the snow pack that typically lasts through April. Thus vegetation growth is very slow and maintenance schedules will be relatively long. For project areas dominated by a closed canopy forest the maintenance cycle can be as long as 20 years. At that point a prescribed fire would be employed to restore the forest floor. Brush species tend to grow well even in the poor soils typical of the Tahoe basin and maintenance will be necessary approximately every 10 years. Again, prescribed fire will be employed to reduce the density of the brush. Prescribed fire will typically cost $500 per acre. The maintenance rotations will be tracked by the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District. Costs will be paid through the Fire District with matching contributions from the land owner. See the attached lettertitled NV]EMA_TreatmenCDurability_Letter[1].doc.
Identify entity that will perform any long-term maintenance
Attach letter from entity accepting performance responsibility
Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District in conjunction with property owner
The citizens of the Tahoe Douglas Fire District have shown their committment to preventing catastrophic wildfire. In November of 2008, the citizens voted for an additional property tax, specifically to fund a long term hazardous forest fuels management program. These funds which will be available for the next thirty years, will allow the Fire District to implement an agressive program to maintain fuelbreak projects such as this proposed project.
TDFD maintenance letter.pdf
1 ...... /1 {\/!"""AAO
Evaluation Information(ParH of 4)
Is the recipient participating in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes
If yes, what is their CRS rating? 6
Is the recipient a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP)? No
Is the recipient a Firewise Community? No
If yes, please provide their Firewise Community number.
Has the rec

meeting agenda - granicus

Documents