Douglas County Board of Commissioners 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.
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)
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us January 15, 2009
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)
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us January 15, 2009
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
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us January 15, 2009
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.
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them
below.
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
90 DAYS Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
540 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?
If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the
following:
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.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate
below any other information you are prOViding:
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. ",
.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate
below any other information you are prOViding:
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.
Attached materials or additional comments.
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
If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the
following:
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:
Attached materials or additional comments.
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.
Attached materials or additional comments.
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?
If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the
following:
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.
To help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project, please indicate
below any other information you are prOViding:
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.
Attached materials or additional comments.
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.
Attached materials or additional comments.
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?
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are
providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the 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?
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are
providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the project:
Comments and any relevant documentation.
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
If Yes, please indicate below any other information you are
providing to help FEMA evaluate the impact of the 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:
* 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 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:
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
If Yes, you must confirm that you have provided the
following:
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.
Attached materials or additional comments.
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
If you would like to make any comments, please enter them
below.
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