1.1 Fuel Hazards

This discussion of fuel hazards includes a description of historical changes in the fire regime, fuel hazards, and the current fuel hazards and estimated fire behavior in the California portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Historic Fire Regime and Fuel Hazards

Prior to European settlement, fires in the Basin were ignited by lightning or members of the Washoe tribe. Fire return intervals varied from 5-128 years throughout the Basin. However, at lower elevations where most of the Washoe camps and current communities occur, the fire return intervals were shortest. Fire return intervals averaged 5-18 years around the edge of the Lake and south to approximately Meyers. Immediately above this elevation, fire return intervals averaged 19-32 years (Figure 2). Based on fire return intervals, it is estimated 689-2,964 acres burned annually in the western portion of the Basin (Murphy and Knopp 2000).

Prior to European settlement, lower elevation montane forests were characterized by large, widely spaced trees with little understory. Because frequent fires reduced surface and ladder fuels, fire intensities were low and there was little mortality of mature trees. Fire return intervals in intermittent and ephemeral streams were probably similar to adjacent upland forest. Shrubs and small trees were widely scattered along these streams; however, dead and dying shrubs and mature lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) were probably rare. Fire return intervals were longer along larger perennial streams. Fires that did occur along these streams resulted in a mosaic of age classes of riparian shrubs and trees. Mature lodgepole pines were rare or widely scattered along perennial streams. Frequent fires periodically destroyed shrubs and most lodgepole pines seedlings that regenerated in meadows. Shrubs and widely scattered mature lodgepole

pines occurred in drier areas of meadows; however, the meadows were dominated by herbaceous vegetation.

As Europeans settled in the Basin the fire regime and fuel hazards changed. The frequent fires set by the Washoe were eliminated as the Native Americans were pushed out of the Basin. Between 1875 and 1895, large-scale timber harvesting clear-cut most of the old growth forests on the west shore. Large-scale harvesting continued after this; however, it was more localized. Large numbers of livestock removed herbaceous vegetation and fires set at the end of the summer grazing season probably killed tree seedlings that were regenerating in some of the clear-cuts. By 1900 the forests in the Basin were now comprised of individual stands of seedlings, saplings (1-6 inches dbh), poles (6-12 inches dbh), small trees (12-24 inches dbh) and old growth forests. The smaller size classes of these trees would have supported more intensive fires than the old growth stands. These high fuel hazards resulted in the largest fire recorded in the Basin in 1918 (1,013 acres) and the largest number of acres burned in the Basin during the decade between 1916 and 1925 (2,593 acres) (Table 2)(Murphy and Knopp 2000).

Livestock grazing was reduced significantly by 1930, allowing vegetation to regenerate. The drought from 1929-1934 probably limited some regeneration, increased tree mortality in some stands, and increased fuel hazards in the Basin. Fewer acres burned however, because the federal government had adopted a fire exclusion policy in 1924 and few people visited the Basin during the Great Depression and World War II. Although the number of visitors to the Basin increased after World War II, the number of acres burned by wildfires remained low. Federal and local fire agencies were able to effectively suppress fire; wetter than normal year’s maintained higher moisture in small fuels during dry periods; and trees in forest stands were becoming larger and less likely to be ignited (Murphy and Knopp 2000).

Current Fire Regime and Fuel Hazards

Several factors have combined to significantly change the fire regime and fuel hazards in the Basin. Since 1970s, public sentiment and management strategies increasingly emphasized the protection and preservation of natural resources. Without sources of disturbance such as fire or harvesting, forest vegetation continued to grow. As a result, there were a large number of all size classes of trees in forest stands that create a ladder of flammable vegetation from the ground to the overstory canopy. Conifer trees invaded meadows and other openings, increasing fuel loadings. Since 1975, three periods of drought increased mortality in forest and riparian vegetation. The limbs from dying trees and dead trees fell to the ground and increased surface fuels. Small trees of shade-tolerant species, such as white fir created ladder fuels in forest stands. As a result, fuel hazards may be the highest they have been in over 100 years. This is supported by the increasing number of acre burned each decade by wildfires since 1966-1975 (Table 2).

These photos from George Gruell’s book “Fire in Sierra Nevada Forests: A Photographic Interpretation of Change Since 1849” (2001) illustrate this change in fuel loadings.

Note in this photo pair the change in tree density and

understory fuels. Trees were so dense that the original photo location could not be recreated. The

photographer had to stand in an alternate location to capture Mt. Tallac in the This set of photos

illustrates the change

in fuel bed continuity

and loadings around

Fallen Leaf Lake. In

the photo from the

1800’s, fuel loadings

are much lower

(notice the rock in the

foreground) and tree

density is sparse

enough o preclude a

crown fire. In the

1990’s, only the tip of

the rock is visible

through the brush,

with a continuous bed

of fuels from the

ground to the tops of the trees. The canopy is completely closed, allowing a fire to easily spread from the crown of one tree to another. In the older photo, a fire would leave the forest in much the same condition before and after the fire. In the newer photo, the forest would be

completely destroyed, with no vegetation to hold the soil in place.

While it is certain that fuel loadings have increased in the last 100 years, determining the exact condition of the Basin 200 or 500 years ago is difficult. The Watershed Assessment provides the best explanation based on available tree core and historic stump records. In general, fuel loadings were much lower and crown spacing much greater. Natural variability in forest structure may have included clumps of trees, which could have produced small crown fires.

Lake Tahoe Basin, California Portion

The description of the historic fire regime is intended to describe how the forest reacted to fire in the recent past, and why the management objectives described later in this document attempt to achieve fire behavior similar to that of the historic fire regime. This text should not be viewed as a comprehensive scientific assessment of fire regime in the Tahoe Basin. As a public document, it is intended to illustrate that the current forest stand conditions in the Tahoe differ from historic conditions.

This understanding is necessary for the public to play an active role in defining the future conditions of the public lands in the Tahoe Basin. Recommended prescriptions seek to attain forest stand conditions found previous the European man’s entry into the ecosystem. The land management prescriptions contained in this document should not be viewed as the only land management solution. Any land management scheme which results in the desired fire behavior is appropriate. This may include forest stand structures that were not previously in the basin.

1.2 Estimated Fire Behavior

An initial estimate of fire behavior in montane forests for the community wildfire protection plans was developed using standard National Forest Fire Laboratory fuel models, weather data from the Meyers station, and BEHAVE (Table 3). Estimates of fire behavior are for high fire weather conditions. Photographs from Lake Tahoe describing fuel models are provided in Section Two.

Table 3: Estimated fire behavior in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Currently, most of the project area is best categorized using fuel models 9, 10, and 12. Given the estimated flame lengths (especially in models 10 and 12) and the presence of mid-story fuel ladders, most forest stands are highly susceptible to crown fires. Projected rates of spread in models 10 and 12 are also considered high. Fire behavior estimated at 39 photo points in the planning area indicated 80% would result in a crown fire with extensive mortality.

The results of wildfires in montane forests under very high fire weather conditions were also simulated in selected watersheds (Table 4). The simulations were done with FARSITE using mapped fuel hazards and assumed the fires burned for two days without effective fire suppression (Jones & Stokes et al. 1999, Murphy and Knopp 2000). The simulated fires showed 2,243-3,653 acres were burned and the percent crown fire ranged from 13-24 percent. This represented the MINIMUM mortality that would occur. Substantially more mortality would actually occur because intensive surface fires would kill larger number of trees. This simulated fire behavior was observed recently in the Gondola Fire (673 acres) and Showers Fire (294 acres) under weather conditions well below high fire weather conditions.

Table 4: Results of simulated fire behavior in selected watersheds in the Lake
Tahoe Basin.

Fire behavior was also estimated in a stream environment zone just north of D. L. Bliss State Park. Data were obtained during field surveys for this plan and simulations were conducted with FUELS MANAGEMENT ANALYST. The fuel hazards would result in a passive crown fire and excessive mortality.

This type of fire behavior was observed in the November 2002 Pioneer Fire. A power line initiated a surface fire, which burned in a previously treated area. Driven by strong winds, the fire reached a stream environment zone where it quickly became a crown fire when it moved up through mature lodgepole pines growing in the riparian habitat.

Differences in fire behavior modeling results between analysis conducted for this assessment and previous analysis can be attributed to two major distinctions. First, fuel modeling information was collected differently. In the FARSITE analysis, the fuel modeling layer was generalized across the watershed and used standard forest stand parameters. This fuel model data was less specific within the communities. The fuel modeling developed for this document was site specific, with detailed forest sample plot measurements to adjust fuel model parameters. These plots were located within the high hazards areas in and adjacent to communities. Second, the information reported from each analysis is different (minimum flame lengths are reported from FARSITE, average flame lengths are reported from Fuels Management Analyst.).

The current fire regime in the Basin is now characterized by high intensity fires rather than the majority of low intensity fires that previously occurred there. This change in fire behavior is supported by the increase in number of acres burned annually by wildfires, despite highly effective suppression capabilities. Additionally, simulated fire behavior in montane forests and stream environment zones is supported by observed behavior of recent fires in the Basin. High intensity fires will result in high mortality in forest stands and dependent on the size of the fire, could result in extensive property loss and large amounts of erosion and sedimentation adversely affecting water quality.

1.3 Ignition Risk

The Lake Tahoe Basin has one of the highest fire ignition rates in the Sierra Nevada. Data from the LTBMU from 1973-1996 were used to describe ignition risks. In the planning area, the highest occurrence of ignitions (number of ignitions per 1,000 acres, Figure 3) occurs at Brockway, from Kings Beach to Tahoe Vista, Dollar Point, Camp Richardson, and around the City of South Lake Tahoe. The lowest occurrence of ignitions occurred at Homewood, Meeks Bay, and D. L. Bliss State Park. Humans caused all but one fire during this period (Murphy and Knopp 2000).

1.4 Values at Risk

Given the diversity of people and resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin, there is a large number of real and perceived values at risk. Three values at risk are considered in this evaluation: communities, lake clarity, and old growth forests (Murphy and Knopp 2000). The economic value of individual communities varies around the lake; however, the personal value of every community is equally very important to each member of those communities. Therefore, community values were calculated as the percentage of each watershed covered by structures or developments. Soil erosion hazards in watersheds were used to characterize threats to water quality and lake clarity. Intense fires on highly erodible soils would have a greater impact on water quality and lake clarity than intense fires on less erodible soils. The percentage of old growth forests in each watershed were used as an umbrella indicator of upland biological resources.

Prioritizing Values at Risks

Values at risk were prioritized by integrating the community, lake clarity, and old growth forest indices with fire susceptibility and then ranking individual watersheds (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Wildland fire susceptibility includes simulated flame lengths, representing fire hazards, and ignition risks. Therefore, the prioritization process accounts for economic and natural resource values at risk and the susceptibility of that watershed to a fire. The communities in each fire district and the prioritization of values at risk are shown in Figure 4.

Based on this assessment of values at risk, the highest ranked communities are Brockway and portions of Kings Beach; Dollar Point, Cedar Flat, and the Highlands; portions of Tahoe City, the Truckee River corridor, and Talmont; portions of Gold Coast; and North Upper Truckee, Meyers, and Christmas Valley. This analysis is very similar to the communities at risk identified in the Federal Register.

2. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The community wildfire protection plan is intended to assess wildfire hazards around communities and develop mitigation projects to address those hazards. Most mitigation projects involve some level of vegetation management, since wildland fuels are the common hazard around communities. This plan develops projects that address the wildfire hazard and, if possible, achieve land management goals and objectives.

This section describes the management goal and objectives for this set of community wildfire protection plans. Management goals are broad statements providing programmatic direction. Management objectives include numeric thresholds or desired conditions for specific components of the program.

Development of the management goal and objectives for these plans considered wildfire hazard reduction, the current characteristics of the Basin’s ecosystem and direction in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) to maintain water quality.

Many forest stands in the Tahoe Basin have high fuel loadings and are in poor health. The Basin’s upland forests are characterized by high mortality, riparian areas have excessive mature, dead, or dying vegetation, and most meadows support encroaching lodgepole pines with varying levels of mortality. The forests are significantly different than they appeared prior to the Comstock era logging (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Prior to Comstock logging, forest stands were much less dense with larger trees and open understories. The current forest stand characteristics have also created excessive fuel hazards capable of supporting stand-destroying fires that threaten communities and ecosystem health.

The purpose of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is to:

• Reduce wildfire risk to communities;

• Enhance efforts to protect watersheds and forest health; and

• Protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components (H.R. 1904, section 2).

The goal of the community wildfire protection plans is to protect values at risk and restore ecosystem health by reducing fuel hazards using cost effective treatments.

Objectives are described by vegetation types in the planning area. Vegetation types were selected because they are easily identified; historic fire regimes and vegetation composition and structure differ among vegetation types; several vegetation types may be in a project area; and regulatory constraints differ among vegetation types.

Historic fire regimes refer to the frequent, low intensity fires that characterized the pre-Comstock era in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Restoring this fire regime is desired because it provides disturbance that creates mosaics of vegetation structure without completely destroying the forest stand. Vegetation descriptions were based on information in Murphy and Knopp (2000) and our own interpretation of the response of vegetation to disturbance.

Stream environment zones (SEZ) are one of the most protected and regulated resources in the Tahoe Basin. SEZs include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, beach soils areas, and meadows. They provide important functions for water quality, helping filter out impurities before they reach the Lake. SEZ’s are also commonly associated with important wildlife habitat. The Basin Plan allows for the removal or disturbance of vegetation in SEZs to maintain the health and diversity of the vegetation or to maintain the character of the SEZ (section 5.13-3).

Healthy SEZ’s are typically resistant to high intensity fire. Lush riparian vegetation with small groups of pine trees and less dead material limits the wildland fuels. Many SEZ’s currently contain a significant amount of dead vegetation with lodgepole pines encroaching on the riparian vegetation. The result is the increased likelihood of a high intensity wildfire, which not only threatens neighboring communities but significantly impairs the SEZ.

2.1 Mitigation Project Objectives

The objectives for 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.

• Where 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.

• Where 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 within SEZ’s.

• Reduce the density, and subsequent encroachment, of lodgepole pines in meadows.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section describes the roles and responsibilities of agencies and organizations in the Lake Tahoe Basin to plan and implement proposed projects. The level of involvement of each agency or organization will vary by project; however, the success of implementing a project will be the shared responsibility of all agencies and organizations.

3.1 Residents and Landowners

According to the Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin publication, defensible space and use of the appropriate building materials are the most important defenses against loss of structures during a wildfire event. As such, private homeowners and landowners constitute the most important group for limiting losses from a wildfire. Each homeowner has a responsibility, re-enforced by state and local codes, to create and maintain defensible space and use non-flammable building construction around their homes.

Public education and voluntary compliance with defensible space measures have been the preferred alternative to addressing the responsibilities of residents and landowners. However, California Public Resources Code mandates landowners and residents to mitigate wildfire hazards around homes with specific vegetation management recommendations. Though these codes have not typically been enforced, local and state agencies have the authority to cite and fine residents and land owners for non compliance with defensible space measures.

The relatively small parcel size of most private lands adds another level of complexity to creating defensible space. Should a homeowner create appropriate defensible space on the property they own, but adjacent property within 100 feet of the home do not have appropriate vegetation management, the adjacent landowner could be criminally liable. This is particularly true in jurisdictions outside the Tahoe Basin that have passed ordinances to address exactly this issue. Beyond the legal requirements, civil liabilities may also be an issue. If an action, or lack of action, by a landowner results in fire spreading from their land to a structure, the offending landowner may be civilly liable for damages. This is particularly true if the fire originated on the offending landowners land and there is legal precedent for this case.

The insurance industry is also addressing the exposure and risk of their insured properties to wildfire hazards. Already in the Tahoe Basin, some homeowners are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain homeowners insurance without proper building materials and defensible space. Even in cases where building materials and defensible space is appropriate, some insurance carriers are denying coverage, opting instead to simply stop insuring structures in the wildland environment.

All of these issues underscore the important role residents and landowners play in mitigating wildfire hazards.

There are agencies available to assist the private landowner with wildfire hazard mitigation. The Tahoe Basin Fire Safe Council and the fire districts can provide technical support for identifying and address hazards. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has a long standing mission to assist private landowners with natural resource issues. In other areas of the state, the NRCS is actively engaged in hazardous fuels reduction projects. Though funding is limited, programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program might offer some cost sharing benefits where landowners can mesh wildlife habitat improvement and fuels reduction goals.

In addition to their own backyard, homeowners should actively support fuels reduction projects in their neighborhoods. Fire protection districts, LTBMU, CTC, California State Parks, and other local agencies are implementing fuels reduction projects on public lands surrounding private ownership. Public projects with active support of local residents will likely be funded sooner and implemented more successfully. These agencies will need to conduct public project review and scoping, gathering input from the public on implementation concerns and specific hazards within the communities. Residents should be informed on the projects so that they may help refine project implementation to tie in with other fuels reduction efforts on private land.

3.2 Tahoe Basin Fire Safe Council

The Tahoe Basin Fire Safe Council (Council) is responsible for providing technical and tactical support to the fire districts, coordinating with land management and regulatory agencies, coordinating activities between homeowner groups, and developing education materials and reaching out to the public to assist with implementation of the community wildfire protection plans.

3.3 Fire Districts

The Fire Districts serve as the lead agencies for planning and implementation of the individual projects and serve as the decision-making body for approval of those projects. They will also be responsible for identifying project priorities, obtaining funding, and facilitating policy changes required to implement the proposed projects.

3.4 Land Management Agencies and Organizations

The role of the LTBMU, California State Parks, California Tahoe Conservancy, local agencies and special districts, and some homeowner associations is to manage the natural resources on lands they administer. These agencies and organizations are responsible for planning and implementing projects on their respective lands that restore ecosystem health by reducing fuel hazards. These groups are also responsible for ensuring their plans are consistent with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies.

3.5 Regulatory Agencies

The regulatory agencies: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan), and TRPA enforce regulations and policies designed to protect the environment. CDF enforces the Forest Practice Rules that regulate forest management on private land and some state lands. Removal of trees that are sold as a commercial product generally requires a timber harvest plan. Some activities are exempt from filing a timber harvest plan; these include projects that:

• remove trees within 150 feet of a residence or

• remove dead or dying trees from parcels smaller than 20 acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Additionally, an emergency notice to remove trees (14 CCR 1052) may be filed to remove dead and dying trees or where high, very high, or extreme fuel conditions pose a significant threat on private timberlands.

CDF also enforces Public Resources Code 4291 which requires homeowners create and maintain defensible space around their homes. This code was recently amended to increase the defensible space zone from 30 feet to 100 feet.

Lahontan regulates water quality through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan), specifically Chapter 5.13, which regulates timber harvest activities. Lahontan also issues waivers for waste discharge requirements for timber harvest activities. All individuals that cut and remove trees must apply for a waiver.

TRPA regulates timber harvest activities through its Code Ordinances, primarily Chapter 71 (Tree Removal) and Chapter 72 (Prescribed Burning). TRPA must approve the removal of all live trees greater than six inches dbh. Additionally, all forest management activities must be consistent with TRPA’s Code of Ordinances.

4. PRESCRIPTIONS FOR MITIGATION PROJECT AREAS

Mitigation project prescriptions describe what the mitigation project area will look like when the mitigation project is completed. Prescriptions attempt to define the visual components of the mitigation project area as well as the desired fire behavior and forest health conditions. Four general prescriptions are described in this section. The prescriptions will be accomplished with one or more treatments based on stand structure, topography, and land use.

Vegetation management prescriptions require specifics for vegetation spacing and densities for practical implementation. Trying to apply the variability in nature to vegetation management activities is as much art as science. The prescriptions below are not intended to create a uniform landscape of evenly aged and evenly spaced trees, rather they are guidelines for modifying vegetation to achieve the fire behavior objectives. Groups of trees, with touching crowns, may be kept in a treatment area if the distance between the group of trees and other trees or structures is significant enough to limit the spread of fire should that group of trees “torch”, or burn into the crowns. In this scenario, the spacing around the group of trees should be greater than the individual tree spacing recommended below.

A mosaic pattern of forest stands across the landscape could achieve both fire behavior objectives and ecosystem health objectives desired by land management agencies. Accurately describing this mosaic pattern with a silvicultural prescription is difficult. Currently, no projects using such a prescription have been implemented in the Tahoe Basin. Likely, the use of group selection cuts (removing all of the trees in a small area) will be necessary to create this variability. Land management and regulatory agencies in the Tahoe basin must agree on a prescription for this variability such that contractors can implement such a prescription.

Clearly, additional and more detailed prescriptions will be necessary as projects are implemented and monitored. Agencies should assess completed fuels reduction projects for effectiveness in meeting fuel hazard reduction, ecosystem health, and aesthetic objectives. Lessons learned from complete projects should be used to adjust prescriptions for future projects to better meet the management objectives and, ultimately, the desired future condition of the Tahoe Basin.

4.1 Defense Zones

Defense zones generally surround communities; however, they may also be large blocks of open space within communities. These treatments are used to significantly alter fire behavior and restrict fire from entering (or leaving) a community. The overall objective is to reduce flame length to less than two feet. Flame lengths may vary slightly by vegetation type. When these treatments are around communities, they are 250-1,325 feet wide. Defense zones should meet wildfire hazard reduction, improved forest health and SEZ objectives.

Forest Stands

Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. On steep slopes within the defensible space zone for structures, tree spacing may be increased. The Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin guidelines should be used in creating effective defensible space (Smith 2004). This tree spacing will make crown fires in the overstory unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sites, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species. Should clumps of trees be retained, spacing between clumps should be greater than spacing between individual trees.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90 to 150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by retaining 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Fields

Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zone

Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where feasible, mechanical methods should be used because they can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives in the most cost effective manner.

4.2 Meadow Restoration

Meadow restoration involves removing encroaching lodgepole pines. In many areas (Washoe Meadows State Park, Pope Beach, Baldwin Beach), high mortality of mature lodgepole pines has increased fuel hazards and impacted the meadow system. The purpose of this treatment would be restoring the historic fire intensity, where flame lengths are less than two feet and create a landscape-level area where fire behavior is significantly modified. Few if any mature lodgepole pines would exist in the meadows.

4.3 Roadside Protection

Roadside protection would occur within a corridor that extends up to 100 feet out from either side of the road. This treatment is designed to protect evacuation routes for community residents and provide safety for firefighters entering a community to provide protection in the event of a wildfire. Any road could be a candidate for a roadside protection project, but private roads and county roads providing access into neighborhoods are the most common locations for roadside protections projects. These roads are typically narrower and sometimes provide the only means of escape from a neighborhood.

Brush and shrubs would have a spacing of 3 times the height of the residual plants and be removed immediately adjacent to the road to keep flames from directly impinging the roadway. Spacing between trees would be at least 20 feet between crowns of residual trees, with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. Trees immediately adjacent to the road would be few. Flame lengths would be less than 2 feet, with enough clearance to keep flames from traveling directly across the roadway.

Vegetation removal techniques may be accomplished by a combination of mechanical thinning, hand thinning, piling and burning, chipping, prescribed burn, and/or mastication. Mastication is the preferred method since it leaves the treated fuel material on-site. Leaving the treated material is particularly desirable on road shoulders to cover bare soil for erosion control.

4.4 Urban Lots

Fuels treatment on urban lots are generally conducted by hand thinning and designed to remove excessive fuels, thereby altering fire behavior and reducing the ability of a wildfire to move to neighboring lots. Trees spacing and ladder fuels will be the same as in the defense zone. On steep slopes within the defensible space zone for structures, tree spacing may be increased. The Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin guidelines should be used in creating effective defensible space (Smith 2004). Urban lots will have about 40% canopy cover and will be between 100 and 150 sq ft basal area.

Urban lot prescriptions are accomplished through a specific combination of thinning with either pile burning or chipping as the disposal method. Implementation of the prescriptions is unique given the proximity to structures and the relatively easy access to the forest stand. Though hand thinning has been the favored treatment technique, mechanical thinning and mastication with small machines should be evaluated as an alternative cost-effective method of treating urban fuels.

Reduce the potential for crown fires by increasing the crown base height to at least 20 feet. Starting with the smallest diameter class and remove suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the prescribed crown base height. Remove ground fuels greater than three inches diameter and treat shrub densities to achieve flame lengths of no more than two feet. Where possible, retain 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long).

5. TREATMENTS

5.1 Thinning

Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the desired crown base height and tree spacing. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or chipping and scattering. If it can be transported in whole or as chips, slash can also be disposed of through biomass utilization in cogeneration and wood composite products.

Thinning can be accomplished through either mechanical or hand techniques as described below.

Mechanical Thinning

Mechanical thinning utilizes heavy equipment with large hydraulically-driven saws to cut and remove trees (generally under 24 inches in diameter). The two major harvesting methods include “whole tree removal (WTR)” and “cut-to-length (CTL)”. CTL machines use a “stroke delimber” to remove branches before automatically cutting a log to predetermined lengths (see photo). While whole tree removal is preferable from a fuels-reduction standpoint, CTL machines create a mat of slash on which they can operate, reducing impacts to the soil. The slash vs. soil disturbance tradeoff must be considered on a site-specific basis. It is possible to use an in-woods chipper to reduce surface fuels in concert with CTL. Mechanical thinning equipment is generally confined to slopes less than 30% and outside of SEZs except under certain conditions (over snow, or demonstrated non-soil disturbing equipment/conditions). WTR projects require large landings than can accommodate a skidder operation, a large chipper, and semi-trucks. CTL operations require fewer and smaller landings.

Disposal of material treated by mechanical thinning is typically part of the mechanical process. Trees, either whole or cut to length, are removed from the forest by the machine as part of the mechanical thinning process. Slash can be left behind and will need to be

Lake Tahoe Basin, California Portion

treated. Mechanical thinning is typically a process that includes every element of the vegetation management process, from felling of the trees, to removal of biomass.

Mechanical thinning has the ability to create a more precisely targeted stand structure than prescribed fire (van Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996, Stephens 1998, Agee et. al. 2000, Miller and Urban 2000). The net effect of removing ladder fuels is that surface fires burning through treated stands are less likely to ignite the overstory canopy fuels. By itself, mechanical thinning with machinery does little to beneficially affect surface fuel loading. The only exception is that some level of surface fuel compaction, crushing, or mastication may occur during the thinning process. Depending on how it is accomplished, mechanical thinning may add to surface fuel loadings, thereby increasing surface fire intensity. It may be necessary to remove or treat fine fuels that result from thinning the stand (Alexander and Yancik 1977 Graham, 2004).

Mechanical thinning techniques use equipment that has the potential to impact soil and sensitive resources. Proper planning and conscientious operation can reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures may also be necessary to limit these impacts. Mitigation measures will be considered at a more detailed level of project planning.

Hand Thinning

Hand thinning is conducted with crews of approximately 10 individuals who cut trees with chainsaws. Hand thinning is generally used to cut smaller trees (less than 14 inches dbh), on steep slopes where machines cannot operate, or in environmentally sensitive areas where machines would have a significant environmental impact. Removal of smaller trees is generally limited to younger stands where the trees are smaller. Because hand thinning can only effectively remove smaller material, silvicultural and fuel management objectives may not be fully achieved compared to mechanical thinning. Additionally, hand thinning may require more frequent treatments to maintain acceptable fuel loads than mechanical thinning and hand thinning may not be cost effective in forest stands with excessive ground fuel loading where mechanical thinning would remove or compact those fuels.

Unlike mechanical thinning, hand thinning simply addresses how the vegetation will be cut, without addressing how the material is disposed. This is due to the varied uses for hand thinning (for example on steep slopes where equipment cannot operate, on environmental sensitive areas where equipment cannot operate, or on small lots where the use of equipment is not feasible). Depending upon the situation, hand thinning may be the most appropriate method for vegetation cutting, but some other mechanical means may be employed for removal of the cut material from the site. One or more of the following disposal treatments must be applied in concert with thinning to remove the fuels from the forest.

• Hand Piling and Burning- All cut material and dead and down material greater than 3 inches in diameter and up to 14 inches diameter shall be piled for burning. Piles shall be constructed compactly beginning with a core of fine fuels and

• minimizing air spaces to facilitate complete combustion. Piles will be constructed at least 1.5 times the diameter of the pile from residual trees and no taller than five feet to prevent damage when burning. If the area will not be broadcast burned, then each pile will be lined with a wet or hand fire line. At least one half of each pile will be covered with water resistant burnable paper to cover the fine material in the center of the piles. The LTBMU is pursuing research on the impact of pile burning in different SEZ types and conditions, however this practice is not authorized within SEZs at this time.
• Chipping- Chipping may be used as an alternative to burning. It redistributes forest vegetation that is cut by mechanical thinning or hand thinning. The chips may be removed from the site and converted to energy for other products, or they can be scattered throughout the project area. Chips scattered throughout the project area will not exceed four inches in depth.

• Forwarding- Forwarding is essentially the portion of mechanical thinning involving removal of material from the forest. A large machine with a stake side bed and grapple moves through the forest and picks up the material, logs, slash, or both and loads it onto the bed for transport back to a central landing area. All the same issues regarding soil disturbance, landing requirements, and slope limitation apply to forwarding as mechanical thinning.

• Yarding- Where steep slopes limit mechanical thinning and forwarding, removal of material is costly. An alternative method for tree and biomass removal is cable yarding. Cable yarding is accomplished through a system cable and pulleys laid out through the forest. Using towers and trees, the cable is suspended or partially suspended above the forest floor, allowing trees to be transported out of the forest without soil disturbance (yarding systems that completely suspend material would be given preference). Similar to helicopter logging (but less costly) cable yarding lifts the trees completely off the ground while moving them up or down to the landing.

Yarding has not yet been used in the Tahoe Basin for fuels treatment and provides a unique solution to operational constraint issues for fuels mitigation projects. The systems take time to setup . Initial project costs with yarding systems may be higher than traditional methods, but as crews become more experienced, costs will decrease.

Thinning and Fire Behavior

Surface and canopy fuel treatments have variable effects on the factors affecting torching and crowning (Table 1). A thinning designed to reduce crown fire hazard will usually raise the effective crown base height (CBH). .Fuel reduction projects should concentrate on the removal of mainly smaller trees to increase CHB and other size classes to achieve forest health objectives. Similarly, while a broadcast burn will usually increase CBH by scorching lower branches, a broadcast burn under moderate burning conditions may be patchy and of insufficient intensity to raise effective CBH for the whole stand. (Ibid.)

When evaluating the effect of fuel treatments on potential crown fire behavior, it is important to consider the effects of understory thinning on midflame windspeed and fuel moisture. Thinning opens the canopy and increases midflame and surface windspeeds. Increased surface windspeeds - coupled with increased sunlight on the forest floor - create drier fuel conditions in treated stands during summer. These two factors tend to increase surface fire behavior.

In many wildfire scenarios, heavy spotting into fuelbreaks has rendered them ineffective for fire suppression. Thinning stands increases the likelihood that firebrands from torching trees adjacent to the thinning will hit the ground - landing in a receptive, dry fuelbed instead of extinguishing in the overstory canopy.

For these reasons, it is useful to visualize Defense Zones as “anchors” in a landscape-scale strategy that treats large areas of forest adjacent to communities. Defense Zone thinning projects undertaken near communities provide a window of opportunity to implement larger-scale area treatment projects that utilize prescribed fire to treat large areas beyond the wildland urban interface.

Properly executed forest thinning treatments reduce the crown fire potential - improving the defensibility of communities. However, these projects often represent a tradeoff— the decrease in crown fire potential comes at the expense of increased surface fire spread rate, fire intensity, and spotting hazard. While a reduction in crown fire potential and decreased tree mortality following wildfire makes this tradeoff reasonable, proper maintenance of thinning projects is essential if these benefits are to last.

Table 5: Immediate-term effects of fuel treatments on factors that affect the
Torching and Crowning Indices(from Scott 1998).

• A blank cell in the table indicates no effect. I = increase, D = decrease, NE = no effect.

Fuel Treatment	Surface Fuels Load	Dead Fuels Moisture	Canopy Base Height	Wind Reduction factor	Canopy Bulk Density
Overstory Thinning	I	D	I to NE	D	D
Understory Removal	I		I		D or NE
Pruning	I		I
Pile burning	D
Whole Tree Yarding	D
Broadcast Burning	D		I or NE

The most effective and appropriate sequence of fuel treatments depends on the amount of surface fuel present; the density of understory and mid-canopy trees; long-term potential effects of fuel treatments on vegetation, soils, and wildlife; and short-term potential effects on smoke production (Huff et. al. 1995). In forests that have not experienced fire for many decades, multiple fuel treatments are often required to achieve the desired fuel conditions. Thinning followed by prescribed burning reduces canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, thereby providing maximum protection from severe fires in the future (Peterson et. al. 2003). Potential fire intensity and/or severity in thinned stands are significantly reduced only if thinning is accompanied by reducing the surface fuels (woody fuel stratum) created from the thinning operations (Alexander and Yancik 1977, Hirsch and Pengelly 1999, Graham et. al. 1999).

5.2 Mastication

Mastication requires machines to grind, rearrange, compact, or otherwise change fire hazard without reducing fuel loads. It provides a quick and cost effective method to modify the fuel bed structure to reduce flame length and therefore fire intensity. Mastication is a useful tool in plantations and brush fields, and has applications in thinning small trees for fuel break and roadside maintenance. Mastication is significantly more cost effective than hand crew brush treatments. Cutting and disposal of material occurs in a single action. Chips are left on the ground, providing soil erosion protection and a mat of material for the machine to travel across.

Like other mechanical methods, rocky sites, sites with heavy down logs, and sites dominated by large trees are difficult places in which to operate mastication equipment. Additionally, sparks from mastication heads have the potential to start fires and, when working on public land, these machines are subject to the same activity-level restrictions that apply to most other logging equipment (see photo).

Where mastication is recommended for projects proposed in this report, use rubber tired or low impact tracked vehicles to cut, chip, and scatter all shrubs and small trees up to 10” dbh on site. Brush cover should be reduced by creating a mosaic of treated and untreated shrubs. Brush that is treated should be cut to the maximum of six inches

in height. No individual pieces of cut material shall be greater than 4 feet long. All masticated stumps shall be cut to within six inches of the ground. No debris shall average more than two inches over the entire project area. All cut vegetation will be kept within the unit boundaries.

Thin layers of wood chips spread on the forest floor tend to dry and rewet readily. Deep layers of both chips and chip piles may have insufficient air circulation, making poor conditions for decomposition. Moreover, when layers of small woody material are spread on the forest floor and decomposition does occur, the decomposing organisms utilize large amounts of nitrogen reducing its availability to plants. Therefore, the impact of any crushing, chipping, or mulching treatment on decomposition processes and their potential contribution to smoldering fires needs to be considered (Graham, 2004).

Mastication equipment has the potential to impact soil and sensitive resources. Proper planning and conscientious operation can reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures may also be necessary to limit these impacts. Mitigation measures will be considered at a more detailed level of project planning.

5.3 Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning reduces the loading of fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material, shrubs, and other live surface fuels. These changes, together with increased fuel compactness and reduced fuel continuity change the fuel energy stored on the site, reducing potential fire spread rate and intensity (see photo). Burning reduces horizontal fuel continuity (shrub, low vegetation, woody fuel strata), which disrupts growth of surface fires, limits buildup of intensity, and reduces spot fire ignition probability (Graham, 2004).

Given current accumulations of fuels in some stands, multiple prescribed fires—as the sole treatment or in combination with thinning—may be needed initially, followed by long-term maintenance burning or other fuel reduction (for example, mowing), to reduce crown fire hazard and the likelihood of severe ecosystem impacts from high severity fires.

Opportunities to use prescribed fire are limited because of smoke management concerns. Some studies indicate short-term effects of prescribed burning may affect water quality in the Basin. A prescribed burn in Pope Marsh (1995) increased nitrogen concentrations in water samples the first and second year after the burn. In another area, phosphorus concentration in runoff was the same in unburned and burned forest plots (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Neither study followed nutrient levels 3-6 years post-fire after vegetation became reestablished and that vegetation is characterized by high nutrient uptake to meet increased growth rates. Additionally, smoke particulates may also be associated with algal blooms (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Therefore, long-term effects of prescribed burning on Lake Tahoe may not be well understood.

Use of prescribed burning occurs in two different mitigation project settings:

Prescribed Burning in Forests.

Low intensity broadcast burning should be used to reduce all fuels < 3 inches diameter by 60-80%, the brush component by 50%, and 75% of trees less than three inches dbh. Use fire to prune ladder fuels by scorching the lower 1/3 of branches on 100% of trees less than eight inches dbh. Retain large down logs (14 inches in diameter or greater) to a maximum density of five per acre. Maintain 60 to 70% of ground cover on slopes 35% or less. Additionally, acceptable standards for prescribed fires should include:

ƒ

six foot maximum scorch height; and,

ƒ

less than 10% mortality in conifers > 12 inches dbh.

Do not ignite fires in stream environment zones (SEZs). However, allow backing fires to enter SEZs affecting a maximum of 45% of the area in a mosaic pattern. No more than 50% of the fuels <1 inch diameter should be consumed in SEZs.

Prescribed Burning in Meadows.

Broadcast burning will occur after all grasses have cured and soils are dried. The burns will be hand ignited and sufficiently hot enough to kill 90% of all standing lodgepole pine. It may be necessary to conduct additional burns in the future to remove unconsumed lodgepole pines and those that have regenerated. In some cases, mechanical or hand thinning may be necessary to remove trees from the edge of the meadow to create a control line for the prescribed burn.

5.4 Review of Cost Factors

Estimated treatment costs were based on those published by TRPA (2004) and by conferring with representatives from LTBMU, California Tahoe Conservancy, and North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District. Cost factors vary widely because of fuel loadings, operational constraints, and crew capabilities. The costs are limited to the direct cost of project implementation. They do not include off-setting revenue that may be generated by providing commercial products or costs associated with project planning, preparation of environmental compliance reports and administrative overhead during implementation.

Table 6: Treatment specific cost estimates.

Examination of cost factors illustrates conflicting data. Based on the information provided, it appears that hand treatment is less expensive than mechanical treatment. This is not the case. Commercial forestry operations use mechanical methods whenever possible due to it cost effectiveness.

Cost data for completed projects in the Tahoe Basin cannot be compared across treatments. The treatments are not the same for mechanical thinning as they are for hand thinning. Though the prescription objectives might be the same, the projects where mechanical treatments have been employed have treated a significantly higher volume of material than the hand thinning treatments. Mitigation measures associated with environmental compliance for mechanical operation in the Tahoe Basin also adds significantly to the cost of mechanical treatments. Protection of sensitive resources is important, however a review of current regulatory constraints is recommended later in this document to clarify the environmental mitigation process for mechanical operations.

Further complicating existing cost data is the lack of variability of previous mitigation projects. The most common mitigation technique at this time in the Tahoe Basin is hand thinning and pile burning outside sensitive areas. Since pile burning and mechanical operations are not permitted within SEZs and many of the proposed projects are in sensitive areas, it is difficult to assign costs based on empirical data. Mechanical thinning costs are currently based on a cut-to-length harvest system, which is more expensive than other mechanical systems. Combinations of mechanical and hand treatment, such as hand falling and mechanical forwarding or in-woods chipping may prove most cost effective.

Cost estimates for the projects proposed in this document were based on a combination of costs for projects within the Tahoe Basin and a review of costs for projects outside the Tahoe Basin. Professional judgment was used to develop a cost matrix for proposed projects by prescription. The most appropriate treatment was selected to implement the prescription. Using the selected combination of techniques and the existing vegetation conditions in the projects areas as guides, the following cost estimates were used to developed costs estimates for projects.

Table 7: Summary of project cost estimates:

Cost effectiveness is not the sole consideration in selecting a treatment method. Mechanized equipment’s impact on the environment is also considered. The decision to use mechanical or hand techniques was made based on existing vegetation conditions, cost effectiveness, and existing transportation infrastructure.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

Environmental regulations may protect the environment (e.g. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act) or reduce impacts on the environment and allow the public to participate in agency decision-making processes that may affect the environment (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act). The extent of environmental compliance is determined by the land ownership where the project is occurring, the funding agency, the complexity of the project, and the number of regulations that govern a project.

All individual projects designed to reduce fuel hazards that are proposed by public agencies, funded by public agencies, or that require federal, state, local, or local discretionary approval will be subject to federal, state, or regional environmental regulations. This plan is advisory and will not result in changes in the human environment without appropriate environmental planning, therefore is not subject to NEPA or CEQA.

6.1 National Environmental Policy Act

All fuel reduction projects funded by the federal government, that occur on federal land

(e.g. LTBMU), or require a federal agency to issue a permit must comply with NEPA. Agencies comply with NEPA by preparing environmental impact statements or environmental assessments that evaluate impacts of the proposed project, propose mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, and consider alternative actions that may change impacts on the environment. Environmental assessments are simpler versions of environmental impact statements and they must conclude that the project will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act only requires agencies to simplify the process by only evaluating two alternative projects in a NEPA document. In some cases, federal agencies have determined that some projects are categorically exempt from NEPA. The Forest Service has recently determined that several types of fuel reduction projects are categorically exempt (Federal Register 68:33814 and 68:44598). Projects that meet these requirements only need to demonstrate that there are no extraordinary circumstances affected by the project, these include threatened or endangered species, cultural resources, wetlands, wilderness, or roadless areas. Most of the projects in the Basin that require NEPA compliance will need an environmental assessment of categorical exclusion. Some projects may require more extensive environmental documentation.

6.2 California Environmental Quality Act

Fuel reduction projects on private lands and some state lands that require approval by a local or state agency must comply with CEQA or a functionally equivalent program (e.g. the California Forest Practice Rules). The documentary requirements for CEQA are very similar to those for NEPA. Most projects in the Basin will require an initial study/negative declaration to comply with CEQA. Some projects may require more extensive environmental documentation. If a timber harvest plan is prepared in lieu of a CEQA document, it must be signed by a California Register Professional Forester. Some small projects, such as defense zone clearing are generally exempt from CEQA or a functionally equivalent program.

6.3 TRPA

Tree removal on all lands must comply with the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 71 (2004). Removal of all live trees over six inches dbh requires approval by TRPA. A tree removal plan must be prepared for all projects involving substantial tree removal. Substantial tree removal projects are defined as cutting more than 100 trees over 10” dbh in an area greater than 20 acres or cutting more than 100 trees over 10” dbh on land capability classes 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 or 3. Tree removal plans will also be consistent with all other TRPA Code of Ordinances.

1.1 Demographics, location, topography, and climatic data

The Fallen Leaf Fire Department (FLFD) is located in the southwestern portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin (figure 5). The district serves the communities located adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake on the east and west sides, and the homes located in the Glen Alpine Canyon; an area of approximately 6 square miles. The Department’s immediate response area is six square miles with mutual aid responsibilities of about 85 square miles. A summary of land management in the Department’s service area is provided in Table 8.

Table 8: Land management acreage within the Fallen Leaf Fire Department.

Source: TRPA GIS Databases (2004)

The area has a permanent year-round population of approximately 50 residents; however the population increases to over 2,000 during peak summer recreational periods. The economy in the area is based primarily on tourism, recreation and vacation home ownership. Daily car visitors, business meetings, seminars, organized summer camp activities, camping, hiking, mountain biking, fishing and summer water sports, bring thousands of tourists from all over the world to the area each year.

Elevations within the FLFD range from 6,377 feet above mean sea level at Fallen Leaf Lake to 7,377 feet at the Desolation Wilderness boundary below Cathedral Lake on the west side of the district. The majority of the district is contained inside the bowl created by the medial, lateral and terminal moraines of Angora Ridge, Cathedral Ridge and Taylor Creek meadows. A portion of the district and a community of approximately 70 summer homes continues up the Glen Alpine Creek drainage on the south end of Fallen Leaf Lake to Lily Lake and further southwest to the Desolation Wilderness Boundary. The southwest to northeast orientation of this drainage, glacially created bowl and of the lake itself has a dominant effect on the wind patterns in the district causing them to blow mostly from a southwest or from a northeast direction depending on the passage of low pressure systems.

1.2 Fire District Overview

Wildfire Protection Resources

Wildland firefighting suppression resources rapidly available to the Fallen Leaf Fire Department include the following agencies:

• US Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU)

• Lake Valley Fire Protection District

• South Lake Tahoe City Fire Department

• Meeks Bay Fire Protection District

• North Tahoe Fire Protection District

• Tahoe-Douglas Fire District Fire Department

• North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District

• Other local fire departments participating in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association Mutual Aid Agreement

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)

The Fallen Leaf Fire Department has two modes of operation: summer (May 15 at 0800 to October 15 at 0800), and winter (October 15, 0800 to May 15, 0800). During summer operation, minimum staffing consists of one volunteer firefighter with BLS skills able to respond within four minutes on the nearest fire department apparatus, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. During winter operation, there is no minimum staffing. Volunteers make every effort to respond given road conditions and availability of personnel.

The Fallen Leaf Fire Department is a combination paid/volunteer fire department. FLFD employs one full time paid fire chief, one part time paid fire chief relief, and 27 volunteer firefighters. The FLFD is a department of the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District, which is a special district of El Dorado County covering six square miles formed in 1983 specifically to provide fire protection services. A publicly elected five-member board of directors governs the community services district. The Board of Directors generally meets six times a year, three times in the summer months and at various scheduled times in the fall, winter and spring.

Wildfire resources at any given time are supplied from one of two locations in the district. During the fire season, one fire engine is staged on the west side of fallen leaf lake and two engines are generally available from the department’s station located at 241 Fallen Leaf Road on the east side of the lake. FLFD apparatus are:

• 1 type 1 engine

• 1 type 2 engine

• 1 type 3 engine

• 1 type 4 engine

• 1 type 2 fireboat capable of 500 gpm

Source: Personal Communication with Fire Chief Chris Sauer,
Fallen Leaf FD September 2004.

Water Sources and Infrastructure in the District

There are several water supply systems located in the FLFD. These systems are broken down into four main categories:

• storage tanks of from 5,000 to 12,000 gallons that must be drafted from are identified in the district by “ST” signs;

• fire pump locations which draw water from surface sources such as the lake itself or Glen Alpine Creek are identified with “FP” signs;

• standpipes that run from Fallen Leaf Lake or from other static supplies up to strategic areas around the lake are marked with “SP” signs; and,

• constantly charged fire hydrants which flow more than 250 gallons per minute are signed “FH”.

Portions of the FLFD within 1000 feet of the lake edge can be served by utilizing the standpipe system, or through hose lays serviced with 500 gallons per minute of water via the FLFD fireboat. There are numerous other low volume sources of water throughout the district in the form of 1 ½” hydrant risers, but these are of limited use in a fire situation.

The ISO rating for the communities within the FLFD service area have a split classification of 4/9.

Fire Protection Personnel Qualifications

All of the FLFD firefighters are encouraged to complete the NWCG S-190 basic wildland firefighters course, which is offered in the spring of each year. During six months of the year, volunteers train in the district once a week.

FLFD Detection and Communication

Fires are reported in the FLFD directly to Station 9 and through 911 calls that are answered in the El Dorado County Dispatch Center in Placerville, and then transferred to the South Lake Tahoe Police and Fire Dispatch center. Fires are communicated to fire response personnel and volunteers through the use of radios and pagers. The radio system is compatible with neighboring agencies and wildland fire coordination usually occurs on the USFS LTBMU main frequency, with tactical operations occurring on White Fire 2. Due to the bowl shape of the district it is sometimes necessary to utilize frequencies other than the main South Lake Tahoe fire dispatch frequency to ensure clear communication, but this frequency change usually occurs without confusion and provides clear communication. On “Red Flag” days, occasional fire patrols will be implemented on a random basis in the district, and it is possible to get over flights of aircraft for smoke checks.

Work Load

In 2003, FLFD responded to 50 calls, of which 11 were wildland or illegal campfires. Response times are 4 to 14 minutes depending on location, with an average response time of 8 minutes. An average of 5 to 10 fire personnel respond to each call.

1.3 Community Preparedness

The FLFD has an emergency wildfire evacuation plan which is updated and distributed to residents annually.

In 1993, the BOD passed a resolution requiring all residents to comply with California Public Resources Code 4291, which, at the time, required flammable vegetation be removed within 30 feet of all structures. The law has recently been updated to 100 feet of clearance. The BOD resolution increased this distance to 50 feet. There is currently an inspection program to determine compliance with this resolution designed to educated and motivate homeowners, but no enforcement actions have been taken, to date, for residents who do not comply.

El Dorado County has adopted building ordinances requiring non-flammable roofing materials be used on new construction. Wood shake roofs, even treated with retardant are not allowed.

1.4 Hazard Assessments

The Fallen Leaf Fire Department is divided into three communities to assess the structural ignitibility and hazards within the district. The communities are:

• East Side Private

• West Side Forest Service Tracts

• Sanford/Glen Alpine Forest Service Tracts

Structural Ignitibility

FLFD fire protection district personnel conducted an assessment of building materials and defensible space within the communities. Using sampling sheets provided by the consulting team, fire personnel reviewed (from the street) all of the lots in the FLFD communities, noting flammability of siding, roofing, and unenclosed features. They also assessed the effectiveness of defensible space around the homes. The results of this survey are provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Structural ignitability factors for the Communities served by the FLFD.

The results indicate that many structures have appropriate roofing materials, but a significant number of structures lack non-flammable siding materials. Decks and overhanging unenclosed structures, where embers could be trapped and ignite a home, are also prevalent. Any of these building materials and construction issues could result in the loss of a home during a fire event. For a structure defense to be effective, all building materials must be non-flammable and openings that trap embers must be closed.

Defensible space is generally inadequate around structures with 71% of the structures lacking defensible space.

Fire Behavior Analysis

Five forest sampling plots were recorded in the Fallen Leaf communities to use in fire behavior modeling. These plots provided information for creating fire behavior assessment for each community.

Table 10: Fire Behavior Analysis

Photographic examples of the different fuel models found in the Fallen Leaf area are shown below.

All but one of the plots have fuel loadings, forest stand structure, and fire behavior characteristics that exceed the objectives established earlier in this document. The plot that meets those objectives, FL2, is in an area previously treated by the LTBMU. The plot demonstrates the fire behavior and forest health conditions when mitigation objectives are met.

The fire behavior demonstrates the different challenges the Fallen Leaf communities face with current fuel conditions. Note the fire behavior in sample sites with fuel model 10. Given that flame lengths of 3 feet are difficult to control under the best of circumstances, fire behavior in most of these areas will be uncontrollable by direct attack with the immediate suppression resources available within the district. Not only do these conditions threaten the homes in the area, but given the single lane road for

access into and out of the community, entrapment during a fire event is a very real possibility. The fire behavior will make the road impassable.

FL5 demonstrates a different challenge. Fuel model 5 is a brush fuel model, so flame lengths area smaller than those in timber fuel types. But the rate of spread is significantly higher, too fast for initial attack resources to contain, leaving residents little warning or time to evacuate from the fires path.

In addition to the elements addressed in the structural ignitibility section, fire district personnel evaluated the Fallen Leaf communities on a number of other criteria including slope, aspect, community design, and fire suppression infrastructure. Combined with the results of the structural assessment, each community was given a community rating.

Table 11: Assessment Measures

Community	Structural Assessment	Fire Behavior Rating	Community Assessment
Eastside	Extreme	Extreme	Extreme
Westside	High	Extreme	Extreme
Stanford/Glen Alpine	Extreme	Extreme	Extreme

1.5 Mitigation Measures

Residents and Landowners

Residents and private landowners are the most effective group in mitigating wildfire hazards. Defensible space, building materials, and home construction guidelines are designed to reduce the risk of structure loss during a wildfire to less than 1%, according to Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin publication (Smith 2004). If completed implemented, almost all structures within a community will survive a wildfire even if no community mitigation projects have been implemented. Landowners must take an active role in addressing these hazards on their property.

The results of the structural assessment conclude that most homes need to improve some component of defensible space, building materials, or home construction. California Public Resources Code 4291 (PRC 4291) requires homeowners to address wildland fire hazards through creation of defensible space and other building construction mitigation measures. Specifically, the code requires homeowners to:

• Maintain adequate defensible space 30 feet around structures (this will increase to 100 feet January 1, 2005)

• Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe.

• Maintain any tree adjacent to or overhanging any building free of dead or dying wood.

• Maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead vegetative growth.

• Provide and maintain at all times a screen over the outlet of every chimney or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplace, stove, or other device that burns any solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of nonflammable material with openings of not more than one-half inch in size.

Use of appropriate building materials is another important mitigation measure homeowners can address. Homeowners are required, through El Dorado County Building Code, to install non-flammable roofs when constructing their homes. Wood shake shingles, even treated, are not allowed. While this code does not apply to existing homes, the fire safe message is clear; use nonflammable building materials. Even is not required by law, homeowners should use non-flammable materials on the outside of their homes. Homeowners with wood shake roofs should have their roofs replaced with nonflammable material. Insurance companies are increasing premiums or in some cases refusing to renew policies for homes with flammable roofing material.

To address these issues, residents must educate themselves on the Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin guidelines and review their property for needed improvements (Smith 2004). If residents have questions regarding the information, they should contact their local fire district to review their property and provide guidance.

The Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin guidelines provide significant detail regarding the spacing and removal of trees and shrubs from around the homes (Smith 2004). Recommended spacing is commonly a minimum, residents may wish to remove more vegetation where regulations allow. On vacant lots and in the defense zone on their properties residents and landowners should provide at least 10 feet of spacing between trees, greater distances on slopes over 20%. When choosing which trees and shrubs to remove on their property, preference should be given to those individuals that are smaller and suppressed. Removal of this vegetation is less likely to require permits than lager trees and leaves the more desirable trees.

Maintaining defensible space is a continuous process. Each year residents and landowners should re-evaluate their property to ensure proper defensible space criteria are met.

Community Defensible Space Program

To assist local landowners with disposal of the biomass material generated by creating defensible space, the FLFD and Tahoe Basin Fire Safe Council must continue the community defensible space program. Demand for the program is positive and most programs rely on grant funding to operate. Additional grant funding should be secured to continue this program.

Assuming a 100% participation rate of properties under 2 acres, the cost estimate for the community chipper program in FLFD is $206,000

Fuels Reduction Projects

To address the community hazards a number of mitigation projects were developed. Fuels reduction projects are designed to address the fuel hazards within and around the communities. Where possible, projects address not only the fuel hazard objectives, but forest and stream environment zone health objectives. The projects are described in detail in the following section.

Developing project priorities is a critical element of the community wildfire protection plan. Priorities were developed using a combination of the available datasets as criteria, including the urban values at risk (Murphy and Knopp 2000), community hazard ratings, fire behavior ratings, project type, and completed treatments in the area. The consultant team rated each of the projects according to the above elements. The fire chief made final adjustments to the ratings based on district specific knowledge.

Prioritizing the top projects in a district fairly clear. Fire professionals across all agencies typically agree on the areas in most dire need of treatment in each district. Prioritizing the projects in the middle can be difficult. A variety of factors can be considered in the prioritization, many canceling the effects of others. Using the five criteria outlined above provided a sound method for project prioritization.

In addition to the projects outlined in this plan, the project work proposed by the LTBMU is also identified. LTBMU staff provided GIS datasets mapping the areas they expect to treat within the next 10 years around communities. These project areas were not included in mitigation projects proposed in this plan and are instead called out separately. Specific prescriptions and treatments have not been identified for these areas, so a uniform cost factor of $2,500 per acre was used to calculate the total cost for LTBMU projects within the WUI.

Table 12: Summary of Projects, Fallen Leaf Fire District

Summary of all Project Costs $2,299,960

The allocation of proposed projects by community and major landowner is summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Allocation of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Projects across Ownership

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Eastside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 1 – FL1

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project is NFFL fuel model 9. A fire in the area would have a rate of spread of 250 to 400 Feet per hour with flame lengths from 1 to 3 feet. The fire would be of low to moderate intensity surface fire.

Tactical Decision for Project: The project will protect the single access in and out of the Fallen Leaf Lake area during a wildfire. Evacuation of the community is a critical concern during a fire event.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

Third

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL1 is located northeast of Fallen Leaf Lake.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Roadside protection

Roadside protection would occur within a corridor that extends up to 100 feet out from either side of the road. This treatment is designed to protect evacuation routes for community residents and provide safety for firefighters entering a community to provide protection in the event of a wildfire. Brush and shrubs would have a spacing of 3 times the height of the residual plants and be removed immediately adjacent to the road to keep flames from directly impinging the roadway. Spacing between trees would be at least 20 feet between crowns of residual trees, with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet Trees immediately adjacent to the road would be few. Flamelengths would be less than 2 feet, with enough clearance to keep flames from traveling directly across the roadway.

Vegetation removal techniques may be by a combination of mechanical thinning, hand thinning, piling and burning, chipping, prescribed burn, and/or mastication. Mastication is the preferred method since it leaves the treated fuel material on-site. Leaving the treated material is particularly desirable on road shoulders to cover bare soil for erosion control.

Prescribed Burning in Forests. Low intensity broadcast burning should be used to reduce all 100-hour fuels (< 3 inches diameter) by 60-80%, the brush component by 50%, and 75% of trees less than three inches dbh. Use fire to prune ladder fuels by scorching the lower 1/3 of branches on 100% of trees less than eight inches dbh. Retain large down logs (14 inches in diameter or greater) to a maximum density of five per acre. Maintain 60 to 70% of ground cover on slopes 35% or less. Additionally, acceptable standards for prescribed fires should include:

ƒ six foot maximum scorch height; and,

ƒ less than 10% mortality in conifers > 12 inches dbh. Do not ignite fires in stream environment zones (SEZs). However, allow backing fires to enter SEZs affecting a maximum of 45% of the area in a mosaic pattern. No more than 50% of the 10-hour fuels (<1 inch diameter) should be consumed in SEZs.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classifications 1A and 3. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

The mechanical treatments can be accomplished by avoiding the sensitive areas in the project.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Roadway Clearance $800 per acre $800 x92 acres = $73,600 Total = $73,600

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior. The shoulders of the road should be treated annually to provide enough vegetation clearance along the roadway.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Eastside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 2 – FL2

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project area is a NFFL fuel model 10. A fire in the area would have a rate of spread of 300 - 500 Feet per hour with flame lengths 3 to 6 feet. The type of fire would be high intensity surface fire due pockets of heavy fuel loading.

Tactical Decision for Project: The defense zone was selected to protect the community to the east of the project area and to provide safe ingress and egress. It also connects to the LTBMU projects adjoining the area.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

First

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL2 is located east of Fallen Leaf Lake and south of FL 1.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or

chipping and scattering.

Hand Piling and Burning. All cut material and dead and down material greater than 3 inches in diameter and up to 14 inches diameter shall be piled for burning. Piles shall be constructed compactly beginning with a core of fine fuels and minimizing air spaces to facilitate complete combustion. Piles will be constructed at least 1.5 times the diameter of the pile from residual trees and no taller than five feet to prevent damage when burning. If the area will not be broadcast burned, then each pile will be lined with a wet or hand fire line. At least one half of each pile will be covered with water resistant burnable paper to cover the fine material in the center of the piles.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical operations can avoid the SEZ during implementation.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $4,600 per acre $4,600 x87 acres = $400,200 Total = $400,200

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Eastside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 3 – FL3

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project fire behavior: The project is an NFFL fuel model 9. A fire in the area would have a rate of spread of 250 to 400 feet per hour with flame lengths of 1 to 3 feet. The fire type would be low to moderate intensity surface fire.

Tactical Decision for Project: The defense zone was selected to protect the community to the east of the project area and to provide safe ingress and egress. Evacuation of residents and ingress of firefighters is a critical concern during a fire event. The project would also protect the forest from a fire initiating above the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

Second

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL3 is located NE of the Eastside community.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Prescribed Burning in Forests. Low intensity broadcast burning should be used to reduce all 100-hour fuels (< 3 inches diameter) by 60-80%, the brush component by 50%, and 75% of trees less than three inches dbh. Use fire to prune ladder fuels by scorching the lower 1/3 of branches on 100% of trees less than eight inches dbh. Retain large down logs (14 inches in diameter or greater) to a maximum density of five per acre. Maintain 60 to 70% of ground cover on slopes 35% or less. Additionally, acceptable standards for prescribed fires should include:

ƒ six foot maximum scorch height; and,

ƒ less than 10% mortality in conifers > 12 inches dbh. Do not ignite fires in stream environment zones (SEZs). However, allow backing fires to enter SEZs affecting a maximum of 45% of the area in a mosaic pattern. No more than 50% of the 10-hour fuels (<1 inch diameter) should be consumed in SEZs.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classification 1A. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical operations are required for the cost effective completion of this project. Over the snow operations may be an option.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $4,600 per acre $4,600 x72 acres = $331,200 Total = $331,200

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Eastside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 4 – FL4

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project fire behavior: The project area is NFFL fuel model 10. A fire in the area would have a rate of spread of 600-1000 feet per hour with flame lengths of 6 to 10 feet. The type of fire would be a high intensity surface fire due to heavy fuel loading on the ground and dense ladder fuels.

Tactical Decision for Project: The defense zone was selected to protect the homes above Fallen Leaf Rd from being destroyed by a fire starting on the road. Evacuation of residents and ingress of firefighters is a critical concern during a fire event. The project would also protect the community from a fire initiating above the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

First

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL4 is located southeast of Fallen Leaf Lake and in the northeastern portion of the Eastside community.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or

chipping and scattering.

Chipping. Chipping may be used as an alternative to burning. It redistributes forest vegetation that is cut by mechanical thinning or hand thinning. The chips may be removed from the site and converted to energy for other products, or they can be scattered throughout the project area. Chips scattered throughout the project area will not exceed four inches in depth.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a Bailey Land Classification 1A. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications. The Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical operations are required for the cost effective completion of this project. Over the snow operations may be an option.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $4,600 per acre $4,600 x75 acres = $345,000 Total = $345,000

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Eastside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 5 – FL5

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project is a NFFL fuel model 10. A fire would have a rate of spread of 300 feet per hour with flame lengths of 4 to 6 feet. The type of fire would be a high intensity surface fire due to heavy fuel loading on the surface and dense ladder fuels. There is the potential for crown fires

Tactical decision for Project: Defense Zone was selected to protect homes in the community from a wildfire initiating on LTBMU land and burning into the community. The predominant southwest wind in the Fallen Leaf Lake area would drive a wildfire from LTBMU recreational use land into the community. The Defense Zone would protect the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

First

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL5 is located south of Fallen Leaf Lake and is in the soutern most portion of the Eastside community.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 100 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or chipping and scattering.

Chipping. Chipping may be used as an alternative to burning. It redistributes forest vegetation that is cut by mechanical thinning or hand thinning. The chips may be removed from the site and converted to energy for other products, or they can be scattered throughout the project area. Chips scattered throughout the project area will not exceed four inches in depth.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classification 1A . The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical Operations are required for the cost effective completion of this project. Over the snow operations may be an option.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $4,600 per acre $4,600 x28 acres = $128,800 Total = $128,800

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Stanford/Glen Alpine Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 6 – FL6

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project is a NFFL fuel model 10. A fire in the project area would have a rate of spread of 300 feet per hour with flame lengths of 4 to 6 feet. The type of fire would be a high intensity surface fire due to heavy fuel loading on the surface and dense ladder fuels. There is the potential for a crown fire.

Tactical decision for Project: Defense Zone was selected to protect homes in the community from a wildfire initiating on LTBMU land and burning into the community. The predominant southwest wind in the Fallen Leaf Lake area would drive a wildfire from LTBMU recreational use land into the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

First

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL6 is located northeast of the Sanford/Glen Alpine community and is south of FL 7.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or chipping and scattering.

Chipping. Chipping may be used as an alternative to burning. It redistributes forest vegetation that is cut by mechanical thinning or hand thinning. The chips may be removed from the site and converted to energy for other products, or they can be scattered throughout the project area. Chips scattered throughout the project area will not exceed four inches in depth.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classification 1C. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical operations are required for the cost effective completion of this project. Over the snow operations may be an option.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $2,500 per acre $2,500 x6 acres = $15,000 Total = $15,000

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Sanford/Glen Alpine Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 7 – FL7

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project is a NFFL fuel model 10. A fire in the project area would have a rate of spread of 300 feet per hour with flame lengths of 4 to 6 feet. The type of fire would be a high intensity surface fire due to heavy fuel loading on the surface and dense ladder fuels. There is the potential for a crown fire.

Tactical decision for Project: Defense Zone was selected to protect homes in the community from a wildfire initiating on LTBMU land and burning into the community. The predominant southwest wind in the Fallen Leaf Lake area would drive a wildfire from LTBMU recreational use land into the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

First

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL 7 is located in the northwest of the Sanford/Glen Alpine community and is north of FL 6.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or

chipping and scattering.

Chipping. Chipping may be used as an alternative to burning. It redistributes forest vegetation that is cut by mechanical thinning or hand thinning. The chips may be removed from the site and converted to energy for other products, or they can be scattered throughout the project area. Chips scattered throughout the project area will not exceed four inches in depth.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classifications 1A and1C. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical Operations are required for the cost effective completion of this project. Over the snow operations may be an option.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $4,600 per acre

$4,600 x15 acres = $69,000 Total = $69,000

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Westside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 8 – FL8

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project area is NFFL fuel model 5. A fire in the area would have a rate of spread of 790-1500 feet per hour with flame lengths of 3 to 6 feet, on a southern exposure. The type of fire would be a high intensity surface brush fire.

Tactical Decision for Project: Roadside protection was selected to provide protection to the road and the structures along the road to protect the community from a fire initiating to the west or north and entering the community.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

Fourth

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL8 is located in the northern portion of the Westside community.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Roadside Protection

Roadside protection would occur within a corridor that extends up to 100 feet out from either side of the road. This treatment is designed to protect evacuation routes for community residents and provide safety for firefighters entering a community to provide protection in the event of a wildfire. Brush and shrubs would have a spacing of 3 times the height of the residual plants and be removed immediately adjacent to the road to keep flames from directly impinging the roadway. Spacing between trees would be at least 20 feet between crowns of residual trees, with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet Trees immediately adjacent to the road would be few. Flamelengths would be less than 2 feet, with enough clearance to keep flames from traveling directly across the roadway.

Vegetation removal techniques may be by a combination of mechanical thinning, hand thinning, piling and burning, chipping, prescribed burn, and/or mastication. Mastication is the preferred method since it leaves the treated fuel material on-site. Leaving the treated material is particularly desirable on road shoulders to cover bare soil for erosion control.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or chipping and scattering.

Hand Piling and Burning. All cut material and dead and down material greater than 3 inches in diameter and up to 14 inches diameter shall be piled for burning. Piles shall be constructed compactly beginning with a core of fine fuels and minimizing air spaces to facilitate complete combustion. Piles will be constructed at least 1.5 times the diameter of the pile from residual trees and no taller than five feet to prevent damage when burning. If the area will not be broadcast burned, then each pile will be lined with a wet or hand fire line. At least one half of each pile will be covered with water resistant burnable paper to cover the fine material in the center of the piles.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classifications 1A and 1C. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Roadway Clearance $800 per acre $800 x12 acres = $9,600 Total = $9,600

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Westside Date: November 2004 Project Title: Fallen Leaf 9 – FL9

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: The project area is an NFFL fuel model 9. A fire in this area would have a rate of spread 250 to 400 feet per hour and flame lengths of 1 to 3 feet on a southern exposure. The type of fire would be a moderate intensity surface fire with tree torching in areas of high surface and ladder fuels.

Tactical decision for Project: The defense zone was selected to protect the community to the west of the project area and to provide safe ingress and egress. Evacuation of residents and ingress of firefighters is a critical concern during a fire event.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

Third

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

FL9 is northwest of Fallen Leaf Lake.

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel, removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Forest Stand Prescription: Forest stands are dominated by larger fire tolerant trees and surface and ladder fuels are reduced so crown fire ignitions are unlikely. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the over story unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. On drier sights, white fir should have a higher priority of removal than other species.

Forest health would be improved by reducing tree stocking to approximately 90-150 feet² per acre. This will reduce competition among residual trees and mortality associated with insect and diseases. Maintain wildlife habitat components by maintaining be 0-3 snags per acre (minimum size is 15 inches dbh) and 0-3 large downed logs per acre (minimum size 14 inches dbh and 20 feet long), where possible.

Brush Prescription: Brush fields within defense zones will not carry surface fires with flames lengths longer than 3 feet. Spacing between shrubs should be at least twice the height of the shrubs, with residual shrubs creating a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open space across the defense zone.

Stream Environment Zones Prescription: Dead and dying material and mature lodgepole will be reduced in all SEZ’s. Riparian areas along perennial streams will be characterized by a mosaic of age classes and forms of deciduous vegetation. Mature lodgepole pines will widely scattered. Riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams at lower elevations will be characterized by scattered shrubs. At higher elevations where adjacent uplands burned every 19-32 years, shrubs and trees less than 6 inches dbh should be common in riparian areas.

Defense zones are generally constructed using a combination of the techniques and prescriptions. Where possible, mechanical thinning should be the preferred technique because it can achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Mastication, hand thinning, and prescribed burning will achieve fuel hazard objectives; however, these techniques may not achieve forest health objectives.

Thinning: Thin stands from below by removing small trees up to 30 inches dbh. Where possible avoid removal of trees greater than 20 in dbh (TRPA Resolution 2004-15). Starting with the smallest diameter class, remove sufficient suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the crown base height and tree spacing for a defense zone. Wherever possible, use mechanical thinning to achieve fuel hazard and forest health objectives. Hand thinning will be limited to removal of trees up to 14 inches dbh. Only use hand thinning where forest health is not an issue or regulatory constraints prohibit the use of mechanical equipment. Treat slash by whole tree yarding or disposing of slash in stands by hand piling and burning or chipping and scattering.

Hand Piling and Burning. All cut material and dead and down material greater than 3 inches in diameter and up to 14 inches diameter shall be piled for burning. Piles shall be constructed compactly beginning with a core of fine fuels and minimizing air spaces to facilitate complete combustion. Piles will be constructed at least 1.5 times the diameter of the pile from residual trees and no taller than five feet to prevent damage when burning. If the area will not be broadcast burned, then each pile will be lined with a wet or hand fire line. At least one half of each pile will be covered with water resistant burnable paper to cover the fine material in the center of the piles.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a SEZ and Bailey Land Classification 1A. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications and SEZ’s. The SEZ and Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area. During detailed project planning, the use of mechanical techniques can be allocated to appropriate locations is the project.

TRPA and Lahontan require buffers for forestry activities near SEZs. Tree removal may be allowed within stream corridors and other SEZs under certain conditions if it is demonstrated that removal of the vegetation will benefit the SEZ vegetative community. Lodgepole removal generally falls into this category. Contact these agencies to discuss treatment options within SEZs.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive, vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Defense Zone $2,500 per acre $2,500.00 x107 acres = $267,500 Total = $267,500

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated with prescribed fire every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Risk/Hazard Identification and Mitigation Project Worksheet

(Complete one worksheet for each mitigation project proposed)

Fire District: Fallen Leaf Name of Community: Fallen Leaf Date: November 2004 Project Title: Community Defensible Space Program

Description of Risk/Hazard: Describe in detail the risk or hazard that poses a threat to the community.

Pre-project Fire Behavior: Numerous private lots within the FLFD area contain hazardous wildland fuels. These fuels pose a hazard to structures located on the lots or adjacent lots. Significant structure loss will result from the proximity of wildland fuels during a wildfire event.

Tactical decision for Project: The FLFD would like to provide landowners assistance in establishing effective defensible space around structures.

Priority Ranking: What is the priority ranking of this risk/hazard in relation to all others identified?

Location: Describe or attach a map with sufficient detail to allow accurate ground location.

All private land lots less than 2 acres within the Fallen Leaf Fire Department service area

Recommended Mitigation Measures and Scope of Work: Present prescription and work specifications in sufficient detail to facilitate procurement of bids and quotes. For hazardous fuel removal projects include estimated volumes (tons/acre) of fuel removed and disposal plan.

Urban Lots

Fuels treatment on urban lots are generally conducted by hand thinning and designed to remove excessive fuels, thereby altering fire behavior and reducing the ability of a wildfire to move to neighboring lots. Ground fuels should be reduced such that ground fire flame heights would be less than 2 feet. There would be at least 10 feet between the crowns or 20 feet between boles of trees with an average crown base height (distance from the ground to the base of the leaf [needle] crown) of at least 20 feet. This tree spacing will make crown fires in the overstory unlikely and increasing the crown base height reduces ladder fuels. Urban lots will have about 40% canopy cover and will be approximately 110 to 150 sq ft basal area. On steep slopes, tree spacing may be increased. The Living with Fire in the Tahoe Basin guidelines should be used in creating effective defensible space.

Urban lot prescriptions are accomplished through a specific combination of thinning with either pile burning or chipping as the disposal method. Implementation of the prescriptions is unique given the proximity to structures and the relatively easy access to the forest stand. Though hand thinning has been the favored treatment technique, mechanical thinning and mastication with small machines should be evaluated as an alternative cost-effective method of treating urban fuels.

Urban Lot Prescription. Reduce the potential for crown fires by increasing the crown base height to at least 20 feet. Starting with the smallest diameter class and remove suppressed and intermediate trees to achieve the prescribed crown base height and tree spacing. Remove ground fuels greater than three inches diameter and treat shrub densities to achieve flame lengths of no more than two feet. Dispose of biomass material through chipping.

Identification of Protected Species or Other Critical Resources: Describe any measures that must be taken to protect critical wildlife habitat, historic or culturally sensitive sites, artifacts or other resources, and plant and animal species protected by statute.

The project contains sensitive areas, including a Bailey Land Classifications 1A. The current proposed prescription of mechanical treatment is in conflict with the operational constraints within Bailey Landuse Classifications. The Bailey Land Class should be ground verified to ensure they apply to the project area.

Mechanical equipment can be limited to the roadway, with hand crews pulling material to the edge of the road for disposal.

Other wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation, critical species, and cultural resources may be present in the project area and require mitigation measures. Current wildlife habitat noise abatement measures may limit operations to a small window in the late summer and early fall. Project planning should include implementation of surveys and mitigation measures as dictated by regulatory statutes.

With all environmentally sensitive areas, identification and mitigation of potentially negative impacts is required.

Estimated Cost: Present an estimate of the total cost of project completion and the basis for the estimate presented. If the project can be subdivided into phases or various components present an estimated cost for each.

Communtiy Defensible Space $2,500 per acre $2,500 x82 acres = $206,000 Total = $206,000

Project Maintenance Requirements:

Re-thin the forest stand at 15-20 year intervals to maintain the appropriate tree density. Tree spacing and desired residual basal area should dictate when the stand is re-thinned. Brush and understory fuels should be treated by hand or with mechanical means every 5 – 7 years to remove ladder fuels and keep surface fuels at appropriate densities for desired fire behavior.

Other Considerations: Describe any other consideration that must be taken into account to successfully complete this project such as permits, clearances, approvals, etc.

All proposed projects must comply with federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. Projects on federal land or on other lands with federal funding must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides for a focused analysis of environmental impacts. Projects on private land and most state lands must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or a functional equivalent (e.g. Forest Practice Act). All projects will require compliance with the TRPA’s requirements and a waste discharge waiver from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2.1 Demographics, location, topography, and climatic data

The Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LVFPD) is a special district that was formed in 1947 to provide fire protection along the south shore of Lake Tahoe, California. The District serves the community of Meyers, an area of approximately 83 square miles. Additionally, the District’s Mutual Aid responsibilities cover the City of South Lake Tahoe, and portions of Alpine and El Dorado counties (Figure 9). A summary of land management in the District’s service area is provided in Table 14.

Source: TRPA GIS Databases

LVFPD provides fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to a permanent population of approximately 12,500 people, with seasonal tourist fluctuations that swell the population to over 40,000. The economy in the area is based primarily on tourism. Skiing, snowboarding, camping, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, and summer water sports bring thousands of tourists from to the area from all over the world each year.

Elevations within the LVFPD range from 6,225 feet above mean sea level at Lake Tahoe to nearly 9,735 feet at Mt. Tallac, west of South Lake Tahoe. The area is cut by several steep drainages, with the Upper Truckee River being the largest. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe.

In over 50 years of recorded weather history in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 80 percent of the days have had sunshine (South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce 2004). Any given year will provide approximately 240 cloudless days and another 75 days when both sunshine and clouds are recorded. The remaining 50 days provide the Sierra’s famous snow pack and just a little bit of rain.

The Lake Tahoe Basin’s average daily high temperatures in December, January, and February are 40, 37, and 39 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. The summer season is as dry and sunny as anywhere in the arid desert southwest. Spring and fall temperatures are very similar, as are both seasons' rainfall figures. The March, April, and May period averages somewhat cooler temperatures and more precipitation than the fall. Rainfall is usually recorded 14 days out of spring's 90-day period and on 13 days in autumn. The average rainfall for the Lake Tahoe Basin is 31 inches (Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority 2004).

50

89

89

50

2.2 Fire District Overview

Wildfire Protection Resources

Wildland firefighting suppression resources in close proximity to Lake Valley Fire Protection District include the following agencies:

• Lake Valley Fire Protection District

• El Dorado County Fire Department

• South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLTFD)

• Fallen Leaf Fire Department (FLFD)

• Meeks Bay Fire Department

• Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District (TDFPD)

• Carson City Fire Department

• North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District

• North Tahoe Fire Protection District

• Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association Mutual Aid Agreement

• US Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU)

• Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF)

• East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts

The District is signatory to the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Mutual Aid Agreement, enabling the District to give and receive mutual aid from over thirty additional fire departments in the region. The LVFPD and the USFS are the primary agencies that respond to wildfires in the LVFPD.

LVPFD is a combination paid and volunteer District with 23 full-time and 20 volunteer personnel. LVFPD hires an additional three to five firefighters during the fire season. These seasonal firefighters are part of LVFPD’s fuels reduction program and are available to respond to wildland fires. A five-member board of directors meets once a month to govern the LVFPD.

Wildfire resources may be supplied from any one or more of the district’s three fire stations. A variety of equipment resources are available for fighting wildfires. They include:

• 4 Type 1 Engines

• 2 Type 3 Engines

• 1 Type 1 Tender

• 3 Chief Officers

Source: Fire Chief Brian Schafer, Lake Valley Fire Protection District 9-2004 and LTRFC Mobilization Guide

Water Sources and Infrastructure in the District

There are numerous water storage tanks throughout the district. Fire hydrants are spaced within 500 feet of structures. Water sources are either gravity fed or powered by electric pumps with emergency back-up generators. With few exceptions, the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District is the primary water purveyor within the Tahoe Basin portion of the District. Barring water system infrastructure failures, available hydrant flows within STPUD’s service area are more than adequate to provide required water for wildland fire suppression and structure protection. Additionally, the lake provides an ideal source for helicopter bucket dips.

Fire Protection Personnel Qualifications

All of the LVFPD firefighters have a minimum of California State Fire Marshal Firefighter I training, wildland firefighting training (S110, 130, 190), and ICS 300. Full-time staff have completed the following additional training (or equivalent): most company officers have completed SFM Company Officer, Strike Team Leader, Command 2E certifications. Chief officers are red carded to Division/Group supervisor level or higher.

LVFPD Detection and Communication

Fires are reported in the LVFPD to the dispatch facility in South Lake Tahoe primarily through the 911 telephone system. Fires are communicated to fire response personnel through the use of radios and pagers. The radio system is compatible with neighboring agencies and there are no known gaps in radio coverage. Because of the large population and high recreational use in non-populated areas, most fires are detected while they are small. There are no fire lookouts, patrols, or reconnaissance flights.

Work Load

In 2003, LVFPD responded to 1,400 calls, of which 114 were fires.

Financial Support

The LVFPD was established under California Health and Safety Code Section 13979. The District is funded primarily through a combination of property tax, development fees, and ambulance revenue.

2.3 Community Preparedness

The LVFPD has several pertinent plans that serve as a foundation for emergency operations. They include the following:

• Emergency Plan for hazardous materials;

• Pre-attack Plan for response to incidents with the district;

• Wildland Fire Standard Operating Procedures;

• Community Fire Plan (work in progress); and,

• Emergency Evacuation Plan (work in progress).

The District has adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and reviews development plans to ensure compliance it. The district is in the process of adopting the 2001 Uniform Fire Code. The District has a complaint-driven PRC 4291 inspection and enforcement program.