Douglas County
Nevada
Natural Hazard
Disaster Mitigation
Action Plan
February 2006
Revision
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
NOTE: THE HARD COPY OF THIS PLAN CONTAINS MAPS IN
APPENDIX B WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO READ DUE TO THEIR
SIZE. THE ELECTRONIC COPY INCLUDES APPENDIX B AS
SERPARATE JPEG AND PDF FILES FOR BETTER
READING/VIEWING.
Douglas County
1
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4
OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................. 4
SECTION 1:
1.1
1.2
SECTION 2:
2.1
2.2
SECTION 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
PLAN ADOPTION ........................................................................................................................ 5
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 ........................................................................................... 5
ADOPTION BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT.............................. 5
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................... 6
PLAN DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 7
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 9
HISTORY, LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 9
CITIES AND TOWNS: ................................................................................................................... 10
GOVERNMENT ............................................................................................................................ 11
DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................................................... 12
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .................................................................................... 12
SECTION 4:
PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................................................ 15
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
4.4
OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................ 15
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE ........................................................................... 16
Formation of the Planning Committee ................................................................................. 16
Planning Committee Meetings.............................................................................................. 17
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 18
INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION............................ 19
SECTION 5:
RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 20
5.1
OVERVIEW OF A RISK ASSESSMENT........................................................................................... 20
5.2
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING ................................................................................ 21
5.3
HAZARD PROFILE ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.3.1
AVALANCHE .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.1.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.1.2
History ............................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.1.3
Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events......................................................... 24
5.3.1.4
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 24
5.3.2
EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................................. 24
5.3.2.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 24
5.3.2.2
History, Location, Extent and Probability of Future Events............................................ 25
5.3.2.3
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.3.3
FLOOD ........................................................................................................................................ 28
5.3.3.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 28
5.3.3.2
History, Location, Extent and Probability of Future Events............................................ 29
5.3.3.3
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 34
5.3.4
LANDSLIDES ............................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.4.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 35
5.3.4.2
History, Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events........................................... 35
5.3.4.3
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.5
SEVERE WEATHER ..................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.5.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 35
5.3.5.2
History, Location, Extent and Probability of Events ....................................................... 37
5.3.5.4
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 40
Douglas County
2
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
5.3.6
WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................... 40
5.3.6.1
Nature .............................................................................................................................. 40
5.3.6.2 History .................................................................................................................................... 41
5.3.6.3
Location, Extent, Probability of Future Events................................................................ 43
5.3.6.4
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 44
5.4
ASSET INVENTORY ..................................................................................................................... 44
5.4.1
Population and Building Stock ............................................................................................. 44
5.4.2
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 45
5.5
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 46
5.5.1
Overview of a Vulnerability Assessment............................................................................... 46
5.5.2
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 47
5.5.3
Data Limitations ................................................................................................................... 48
5.5.4
Exposure Analysis................................................................................................................. 49
5.5.5
Asset Inventory ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.5.6
Future Development ............................................................................................................. 52
SECTION 6:
6.1
6.2
6.3
SECTION 7:
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 53
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES ................................................................................... 53
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES ..................................................................... 53
FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES........................................................................................................... 54
MITIGATION STRATEGY ........................................................................................................... 55
7.1
MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 55
7.2
POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS ............................................................................................. 55
7.3
OVERVIEW OF THE MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POTENTIAL ACTIONS ..................... 56
ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 59
SECTION 8:
8.1
8.2
8.3
SECTION 9:
PLAN MAINTENANCE................................................................................................................ 66
MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE HMP ............................................................ 66
IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS .............................................. 67
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Douglas County
Adoption Resolution
Maps and Charts
3
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
Executive Summary
Overview
Douglas County is a small but growing rural county located in the northwest region of the
State of Nevada. The development of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a much larger
endeavor for a county of this size than it would be for a larger county or city with a more
significant infrastructure. The Emergency Services agencies have traditionally
participated in the development disaster planning since they are tasked with the
implementation aspects of these plans. Generating interest in the planning process was
very challenging because of the culture that has existed in the county for some time.
The mitigation planning team is excited about the mitigation planning process in the
hopes that other community businesses and citizens will see the value and increase their
participation. Some of the significant challenges for the county as a whole include
increased funding sources, more diversified participants, better record keeping, and
continued education in risk analysis and mitigation strategies.
This process of Hazard Mitigation is a new development within the county and many of
the action items require a significant follow-up process to determine the effectiveness of
the actions. The participants view this plan as the first stage of a living document that
will continue to improve over time. In the next phases of this planning effort Douglas
County will test the mitigation strategies and determine the applicability and enforcement
of these strategies.
Douglas County
4
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION ONE
ADOPTION
This section provides an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000;
Public Law 106-390), the adoption of the Douglas County, Nevada, Hazard Mitigation
Plan (HMP) by the local governing body, and supporting documentation for the adoption.
Section 1:
1.1
Plan Adoption
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The DMA 2000 was passed by Congress to emphasize the need for mitigation planning to
reduce vulnerability to natural and human-caused hazards. The DMA 2000 amended the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; 42
United States Code [USC] 5121 et seq.) by repealing the act’s previous Mitigation
Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322).
To implement the DMA 2000 planning requirements, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on
February 26, 2002 (FEMA 2002a). This rule (44 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part
201) established the mitigation planning requirements for states, tribes, and local
communities. The planning requirements are described in detail in Section 2 and
identified in their appropriate sections throughout the Plan. In addition, a crosswalk
documenting compliance with 44 CFR is included as Appendix E.
1.2
Adoption by the Local Governing Body and Supporting Document
The requirements for the adoption of an HMP by the local governing body, as stipulated
in the DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 REQUIREMENTS: PREREQUISITES
Adoption by the Local Governing Body
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan
has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g.,
City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
Element
 Has the local governing body adopted the plan?
 Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The Douglas County HMP meets the requirements of Section 409 of the Stafford Act and
Section 322 of the DMA 2000. This includes meeting the requirement that the HMP be
adopted by County of Douglas (the County). Various departments within the County
participated as representatives of the unincorporated communities of the County.
Douglas County does not have incorporated jurisdictions within the County.
This HMP has been prepared by the County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee (DCNHMPC) and adopted by the Douglas County Board of Commissioner’s
via resolutions, which are presented in Appendix A.
Douglas County
5
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION TWO
PURPOSE & AUTHORITY
This section provides an overview of the County’s HMP. This includes a review of the
purpose and authority of the HMP and a description of the document.
Section 2:
2.1
Background
Purpose and Authority
The DMA 2000, also referred to as the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, was approved by
Congress on October 10, 2000. On October 30, 2000, the President signed the bill into
law, creating Public Law 106-390. The purposes of the DMA 2000 are to amend the
Stafford Act, establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation, and streamline
administration of disaster relief.
The Douglas County HMP meets the requirements of the DMA 2000, which calls for all
communities to prepare hazard mitigation plans. By preparing this HMP, the County is
eligible to receive Federal mitigation funding after disasters and to apply for mitigation
grants before disasters strike. This HMP starts an ongoing process to evaluate the risks
different types of hazards pose to the County, and to engage the County and the
community in dialogue to identify the steps that are most important in reducing these
risks. This constant focus on planning for disasters will make the County, including its
residents, property, infrastructure, and the environment, much safer.
The local hazard mitigation planning requirements encourage agencies at all levels, local
residents, businesses, and the non-profit sector to participate in the mitigation planning
and implementation process. This broad public participation enables the development of
mitigation actions that are supported by these various stakeholders and reflect the needs
of the entire community.
States are required to coordinate with local governments in the formation of hazard
mitigation strategies, and the local strategies combined with initiatives at the state level
form the basis for the State Mitigation Plan. The information contained in HMPs helps
states to identify technical assistance needs and prioritize project funding. Furthermore,
as communities prepare their plans, states can continually improve the level of detail and
comprehensiveness of statewide risk assessments.
For FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP), a local jurisdiction must have an approved HMP to be eligible for
PDM and HMGP funding for Presidential declared disasters after November 1, 2004.
Plans approved at any time after November 1, 2004, will allow communities to be
eligible to receive PDM and HMGP project grants.
Adoption by the local governing body demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to
fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the HMP. Adoption legitimizes
the HMP and authorizes responsible agencies to execute their responsibilities. Following
adoption by the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, the plan was reviewed by the
Nevada Division of Emergency Management (NDEM) and approved by FEMA. The
resolution adopting this HMP is included in Appendix A.
Douglas County
6
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION TWO
2.2
PURPOSE & AUTHORITY
Plan Description
The plan is organized in the following sections.
Community Description
Section Three proved a general history and background of the County and historical
trends for population, demographic and economic conditions that have shaped the area.
Trends in land use and development are also discussed.
Planning Process
Section Four describes the planning process, identifies Planning Task Force members,
URS Corporation (URS) consultants, and the key stakeholders within the community and
surrounding region. In addition, this section documents public outreach activities and the
review and incorporation of relevant plans, reports, and other appropriate information.
Risk Assessment
Section 5 describes the process through which the Planning Task Force identified and
compiled relevant data on all potential natural hazards that threaten the County and the
immediately surrounding area. Information collected includes historical data on natural
hazard events that have occurred in and around the County and how these events
impacted residents and their property.
The descriptions of natural hazards that could affect the County are based on historical
occurrences and best available data from agencies such as FEMA, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and the National Weather Service (NWS). Detailed hazard profiles
include information on the frequency, magnitude, location, and impact of each hazard as
well as probabilities for future hazard events.
In addition, Section 5 identifies potentially vulnerable assets such as people, housing
units, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, hazardous materials facilities, and
commercial facilities. These data were compiled by assessing the potential impacts from
each hazard using GIS and FEMA’s natural hazards loss estimation model, HAZUS-MH.
The resulting information identifies the full range of hazards that the County could face
and potential social impacts, damages, and economic losses.
Capability Assessment
Although not required by the DMA 2000, Section 6 provides an overview of the
County’s resources in the following areas for addressing hazard mitigation activities:

Legal and regulatory: Existing ordinances, plans and codes that affect the physical or
built environment in a community

Administrative and technical: The staff, personnel, and department resources
available to expedite the actions identified in the mitigation strategy
Douglas County
7
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION TWO

PURPOSE & AUTHORITY
Fiscal: The financial resources to implement the mitigation strategy
Mitigation Strategy
As Section 7 describes, the Planning Task Force developed a list of mitigation goals,
objectives, and actions based upon the findings of the risk assessment and the capability
assessment. Based upon these goals and objectives, the Planning Task Force, supported
by URS, reviewed and prioritized a comprehensive range of appropriate mitigation
actions to address the risks facing the community. Such measures include preventive
actions, property protection techniques, natural resource protection strategies, structural
projects, emergency services, and public information and awareness activities.
Plan Maintenance Process
Section 8 describes the Planning Task Force’s formal plan maintenance process to ensure
that the HMP remains an active and applicable document. The process includes
monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP; implementation through existing
planning mechanisms; and continued public involvement.
References
Section 9 lists the reference materials used to prepare this HMP.
Appendices
The appendices include the Adoption Resolution, maps and figures, Planning Task Force
meetings and minutes, public involvement process, and a completed crosswalk that
shows compliance with the DMA 2000.
Douglas County
8
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
This section describes the history, location, and geography of the County as well as its
government, demographic information, and current land use and development trends.
Section 3
3.1
Community Description
History, Location and Geography
Trading posts were established in the area starting in the 1850s. Named for Stephen A.
Douglas, famous for his 1860 Presidential campaign debates with Abraham Lincoln,
Douglas County was one of the first nine counties formed in 1861 by the Nevada
territorial legislature.
The county covers an approximate area of 751 square miles, and is located in the western
portion of the State. Douglas County borders the State of California to the west, Lyon
County to the east, and the state capital of Carson City to the north. Included within the
County's boundaries are portions of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, Lake Tahoe,
Topaz Lake, and the Carson and Walker Rivers. Since statehood, the boundaries of
Douglas County have only been realigned two times: between Douglas County and
Ormsby County (now Carson City) in 1965, and between Douglas County and Lyon
County in 1967.
Elevations within the County vary from a low of 4,625 feet on the valley floor to a high
of 9,500 feet at East Peak. The proximity of the Carson Valley to the Sierra Nevada
Mountains creates one of the most comfortable daily temperature ranges in the
continental United States. Generally, the climate is arid, with warm summers, moderate
winters, and cool evening temperatures year around. Because of the elevation, the cold
air is dry; likewise, summer heat is also very dry. Annual rainfall averages 9.4 inches
and snowfall averages 19.4 inches. The heaviest precipitation occurs during the months
of December, January and March. Afternoon thunderstorms in July and August bring
warm summer rains.
Douglas County
9
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
3.2
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Cities and Towns:
Gardnerville, Gardnerville Ranchos, Indian Hills, Johnson Lane, Kingsbury, Minden,
Stateline, Zephyr Cove-Round Hill Village. Below is a map with the location of the
above towns and cities within the County.
Douglas County
10
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Douglas County, while exhibiting a predominately rural flavor, is a rapidly growing area.
It ranks as the fourth largest County in the state. There are two principle geographic and
political areas, the East Fork Township and the Tahoe Township. Douglas County, to
date, has no incorporated areas.
East Fork Township:
The East Fork Township is the larger of the two areas. The majority of the
population resides in the Carson Valley. The township includes; Minden (County
seat), Genoa and neighboring Gardnerville and Ranchos. The main geographic
features include the Carson Valley, the East and West Forks of the Carson River,
the east slope of the Carson Range (Sierra Nevada Mountains), the Pinenut
Mountains, and Topaz Lake. There are numerous environmentally sensitive areas
(e.g... wetlands, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, agricultural lands, etc.) located in this
township. Land uses include undeveloped forest and rangelands, agricultural
fields and pasture, and urban development of housing and commercial/industrial
uses. The major transportation routes for this area are US Highway 395 and US
Highway 88.
Tahoe Township:
The Tahoe Township is the smaller of the two townships. The Tahoe Township is
that area of Douglas County located within the Tahoe Basin and includes Stateline
and the smaller communities along Highway 50 from the California border to the
Douglas/Carson County Line. The Stateline area is made up of several large
Hotel Resort Casinos, residences, condominiums, apartments and a wide variety
of businesses. The tourist population in the area could increase the size of the
population base by as many as 100,000 people during peak seasonal and holiday
periods. The geography is dominated by Lake Tahoe and the surrounding slopes
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Basin is heavy forest area with a very
sensitive environmental system. The major transportation routes for this area are
US Highway 50 and State Route 207, Kingsbury Grade.
3.3
Government
County residents elect officials to provide community leadership and administration.
Currently, the county operates under a commission-manager form of government.
Douglas County government includes elected officials, departments, boards,
commissions, and committees.
The Board of Commissioners is the governing, legislative body for Douglas County. The
five members of the Board are elected at large, by district. Commissioners serve fouryear, overlapping terms, and receive limited compensation for their service to the
community. Each year, the Board selects one of its members to serve as Chairman and
preside over public meetings
Douglas County
11
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
The various departments, boards, commissions, and committees within Douglas County
government provide a full range of services to residents. Services provided by the County
include: Airport; Animal control; Building safety; Fire protection and paramedic services;
General administrative services; Law enforcement; Parks and recreation; Street
construction and maintenance, including traffic signalization; Water and sewer services,
and Welfare and social services.
3.4
Demographics
According to the 2000 census there are there are 41,259 people in the county and 16,401
households with a population density of 58 per square mile. There are 19,006 housing
units at an average density of 27 per square mile. In the county the population is spread
out with 24.00% under the age of 18, 5.50% from 18 to 24, 26.40% from 25 to 44,
28.90% from 45 to 64, and 15.20% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is
42 years. The U.S. Census Bureau’s projects the population in Douglas County for 2004
is expected to grow to 45,394, a 9 percent increase.
Douglas County’s economic base primarily consists of agriculture, service, government
and tourism. Unemployment rate is 4.9%). The 2000 per capita income was $ 27,288 and
the median family income was $57,092.
3.5
Land Use and Development Trends
Douglas County is lead in the preservation of open space areas. Table A in the next page
is taken from the Douglas County Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation
Implementation Plan. The Table depicts the land ownership in the County. The Douglas
County adopted its Master Plan in 1996. In the Carson Valley, the County focused on
development over the past several years, with pressures growing in the Antelope Valley
area. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) limits development in the Tahoe
Basin.
In addition to specific conservation easements there is a substantial amount of land
managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washoe Tribe, State of Nevada and other units of local
government. The majority of the land managed by governmental agencies is currently
vacant with limited development options. The vast majority of land managed by the
USFS, BLM and the State of Nevada is held as open space with little or no development
potential.
The amount and location of existing public lands (primarily USFS and BLM) provide
substantial protection for land within the Sierra Nevada and the Pine Nut mountain
ranges. The USFS also owns land along much of the upper part of the East Fork of the
Carson River and manages a large number of acres within the Tahoe Basin. The USFS
manages land adjacent to Topaz Lake and at the southern tip of the County south of
Topaz Lake.
Douglas County
12
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
While public ownership of land provides Douglas County with surrounding mountains
and open range lands, the center of the Carson Valley is held in private ownership and
defined by agricultural uses and core development areas. A similar pattern is emerging in
the Antelope Valley area.
In the last ten years, the County has seen a steady decline in larger ranch operations with
more and more agricultural land being converted to housing and commercial
developments. Today there is the potential for18 working ranches of 1,000 or more acres
with only another 8 ranches with more than 500 acres, without consolidation of
properties. There are an estimated 38,551 acres of zoned agricultural (A-19) land and
124,766 acres of forest and range zoned lands (includes BIA and Washoe Tribal lands). A
total of 104,231 acres within these zoning districts are in other private ownership.
As one would expect, the majority of the agricultural development has occurred along the
rivers, sloughs and developed irrigation systems, all providing the water resources needed
for flourishing agri-business. In fact, a large portion of the County’s agricultural land
(approximately 20,300 acres) lies within the primary floodplain. The floodplain
encompasses approximately 24,800 acres along the Carson River and approximately
3,900 acres along the Walker River.
Douglas County
13
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION THREE
Douglas County
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
14
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FOUR
PLANNING PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the planning process; identifies Douglas County
Natural Hazard Planning Committee (DCNHMPC) members, and key stakeholders;
documents public outreach efforts; and summarizes the review and incorporation of
existing plans, studies, and reports used in the development of this HMP. Additional
information regarding the DCNHMPC and public outreach efforts is provided in
Appendices C and D.
Section 4:
Planning Process
The requirements for the planning process, as stipulated in the DMA 2000 and its
implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Planning Process
Planning Process
§201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
Documentation of the Planning Process
Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of
natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
 An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan
approval;
 An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia
and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
 Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan,
including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
Element
 Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan?
 Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process? (For example, who led the
development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who
participated on the plan Task Force, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?)
 Does the plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to
comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?)
 Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and
other interested parties to be involved in the planning process?
 Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans,
studies, reports, and technical information?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
4.1
Overview of Planning Process
The County hired Emergency and Environmental Response Solutions, as a consultant to
assist with the development of this HMP. The first step in the planning process was to
establish a Natural Hazard Planning Committee composed of existing County agencies.
Harry Raub, Emergency Operations Technician, with the County’s Emergency Services,
served as the primary Point of Contact (POC) for the County and the public.
Once the Planning Committee was formed, the following five-step planning process took
place from December 2002 to September 2003, and intensified again in August of 2005.
Douglas County
15
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FOUR
PLANNING PROCESS

Organize resources: The Planning Committee identified resources, including County
staff, agencies, and local community members, which could provide technical
expertise and historical information needed in the development of the HMP.

Assess risks: The Planning Committee identified the hazards specific to the County,
and, with assistance from the Consultant, developed the risk assessment for the six
identified hazards. The Planning Committee reviewed the risk assessment, including
the vulnerability analysis, prior to and during the development of the mitigation
strategy.

Develop a mitigation strategy: After reviewing the risks posed by each hazard, the
Planning Committee worked with the Consultant to develop a comprehensive range
of potential mitigation goals, objectives, and actions. Subsequently, the Planning
Committee Force identified and prioritized the actions to be implemented.
Monitor progress: The Planning Committee developed an implementation process to
ensure the success of an ongoing program to minimize hazard impacts to the County.
4.2
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
4.2.1
Formation of the Planning Committee
The planning process has been a continuous effort since December 2002 but intensified
in August of 2005. The County points of contact formed the advisory body, known as the
Planning Committee, utilizing staff from relevant City and County agencies.
The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from:
 Douglas County Emergency Management, Director and Planner (Committee
Leader)
 Douglas County Local Emergency Planning Committee: Chair, Fire
Representative, Emergency Mgmt. Technician, County Sheriff
 Douglas County Fire Districts: Deputy Fire Chief
 Douglas County Building Services: Community Development Director
 Douglas County Sheriffs Office: County Sheriff
 Douglas County GIS: County Coordinator
 Douglas County Planning Department: Community Development Director
 Douglas County Project Impact Officer: Coordinator
 Douglas County School District: Superintendent
 Nevada Division of Emergency Management – Mitigation Officer
 Carson Valley Medical Group – Private Health Service – Emergency Coord.
Douglas County
16
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FOUR
4.2.2
PLANNING PROCESS
Planning Committee Meetings
A list of meeting dates and a actions resulting from these meetings is depicted in the
Table 4-1 below.
TABLE 4-1 Meetings
Date
Group
12/10/2002 DC Emergency
Management – Open
Meeting to Public
Purpose
First Workshop - Project
Introduction and Strategy
Meeting
02/19/2003 DC LEPC – Public
Meeting
Second Workshop to begin
Risk Assessment
Project Committee –
Public Meeting
Third Workshop to begin
mitigation strategies
04/30/2003 Project
Representatives
05/07/2003 Nevada DEM
3-day FEMA Workshop in
Oakland, CA.
Meeting with State Hazard
Mitigation Officer to
discuss plan format
05/16/2003 DC Emergency
Management
Distributed Questionnaire
to county agencies, public
participants, and private
Douglas County
17
Result
Review of DMA 2000, the
hazard mitigation planning
process, the public outreach
process and the steps involved
in developing the hazard
mitigation planning process
and achieving the County’s
goals. The need to network
with other agencies and
professionals with knowledge
of hazards affecting the
County. Selection of team
members.
The six high priority risks were
identified, earthquake, flood,
wildfire, avalanche, severe
storms, landslides/subsidence.
Members agreed on
development of strategies
through questionnaire. See
Appendix C for copy of
questionnaire.
Contractor and State officer
agreed over details of the plan
format sections. Continuation
of data gathering to include
copies of the Land Use Plan
and Open Space and
Agricultural Lands
Preservation Plan.
Responses due 4 weeks from
date sent.
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FOUR
Date
Group
06/19/2003 DC LEPC – Public
Meeting
PLANNING PROCESS
Purpose
industry to solicit ideas for
action items
Workshop to evaluate
results of Questionnaire
and develop Action Items
08/11/2003 All
Begin distribution of draft
plan for review
09/04/2003 All – Public Meeting
Open discussion – review
of project
4.3
Result
There were 2 responses to the
questionnaire which were
added to the overall plan
strategy developed by Douglas
County Emergency
Management. The Planning
Committee and consultant
discussed mitigation strategies,
draft mitigation goals and
objectives as well as action
items, selected and prioritized
recommended actions.
Drafts were sent to the
Douglas County Community
Development Dept, the 2 fire
districts, the Sheriff’s Office,
and County Managers Office
for review.
Meeting was posted in
accordance with Nevada open
meeting law. No public
participation.
Public Involvement
The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee intended to have public participation play a
key role in development of goals and action items. Three public workshops were held to
include Douglas County residents in plan development. These workshops were posted
following the Nevada Open Meeting Law, with at minimum three days prior to the
meeting at the Post Office, Sheriff’s Office, Public Library, and the Douglas County
Administration building. The three invitations were also extended through the public
television access channel 26, as well as via electronic mail to business entities in the
current Local Emergency Planning Committee list.
Despite the efforts of the Committee, Public participation was limited to representatives
from casinos and local medical advisor in the first meeting and non-existent in the
following two programs. The participating public agencies assisted in research of data
relevant to each of their fields and providing this data to the contractor and the lead
agency for compilation into this plan.
Douglas County
18
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FOUR
PLANNING PROCESS
Douglas County’s hazard mitigation steering committee did not have participation from
neighboring communities in their plan development process. Douglas County
Community Development Director, the two fire district chiefs, the sheriff, and county
manager received copies of plan drafts for their review and comments.
The State Hazard Mitigation Officer assisted in the facilitation of the Douglas County
Multi Hazard Mitigation plan process through meeting attendance and regular electronic
correspondence
4.4
Incorporation of Existing Plans and Other Relevant Information
During the planning process, the Planning Committee reviewed and incorporated
information from existing plans, studies, reports, and technical reports into the HMP. A
synopsis of the sources used follows.

Douglas County Master Plan: This plan provides goals, objectives and policies to
guide land use planning.

Douglas County Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation
Implementation Plan: This plan guides the creation of Open Space through the
use of public land and public resources within the County boundaries.

Douglas County Code Title 20 Zoning Ordinance of Douglas County: This land
use zoning ordinance encourages, guides, and provides orderly planned use of
land and water resources and future growth and development.

FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Douglas County, Nevada (FEMA 1999, 2000
and 2005): This study outlined the principal flood problems and floodplains
within the County.

State of Nevada Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: This plan, prepared by NDEM,
was used to ensure that the County’s HMP was consistent with the State’s Plan.
The following FEMA guides were also consulted for general information on the HMP
process:

How-To Guide #1: Getting Started: Building Support For Mitigation Planning
(FEMA 2002c)

How-To Guide #2: Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and
Estimating Loss Potential (FEMA 2001)

How-To Guide #3: Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation
Actions and Implementing Strategies (FEMA 2003a)

How-To Guide #4: Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard
Mitigation Plan (FEMA 2003b)
A complete list of the sources consulted is provided in Section 9.
Douglas County
19
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
This section identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect the entire planning area,
assesses the risk of such hazards, describes the County’s vulnerability, and estimates
potential losses from the hazards. Each of these tasks is described in detail below.
Section 5:
Risk Assessment
In compliance with the DMA 2000, the requirements for the risk assessment are
described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment – Overall
Risk Assessment
§201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide
sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to
reduce losses from identified hazards.
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
5.1
Overview of a Risk Assessment
A risk assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard-related data to enable
local communities to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will
reduce losses from potential hazards. There are five risk assessment steps in the hazard
mitigation planning process, as outlined below and described in detail throughout the
remainder of Section 5.

Step 1: Identify and Screen Hazards
Hazard identification is the process of recognizing natural and human-caused events that
threaten an area. Natural hazards result from unexpected or uncontrollable natural events
of sufficient magnitude to cause damage. Human-caused hazards result from human
activity and include technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards are
generally accidental or result from events with unintended consequences (for example, an
accidental hazardous materials release). Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of
violence (or threat of violence) to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological
in nature. Even though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in the
study area, all hazards that may potentially affect the study area are considered; hazards
that are unlikely to occur, or for which the risk of damage is accepted as very low, are
then eliminated from consideration.

Step 2: Profile Hazards
Hazard profiling is accomplished by describing hazards in terms of their history,
magnitude, duration, frequency, location, and probability. Hazards are identified through
collection of historical and anecdotal information, review of existing plans and studies,
and preparation of hazard maps of the study area. Hazard maps are used to determine the
geographic extent of the hazards and define the approximate boundaries of areas at risk.
Douglas County
20
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE

RISK ASSESSMENT
Step 3: Identify Assets
Assets are defined as the population, buildings, and critical facilities and infrastructure
that may be affected by hazard events. Asset information may be obtained from
participating communities, the U.S. Census Bureau, and FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software.
Asset information is organized and categorized for analysis using GIS.

Step 4: Assess Vulnerabilities
A vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of exposure that may result from a hazard
event of a given intensity in a given area. The assessment provides quantitative data that
may be used to identify and prioritize potential mitigation measures by allowing
communities to focus attention on areas with the greatest risk of damage.

Step 5: Analyze Future Development Trends
The final stage of the risk assessment process provides a general overview of
development and population growth that is forecasted to occur within the study area. This
information provides the groundwork for decisions about mitigation strategies in
developing areas and locations in which these strategies should be applied.
The requirements for hazard identification, as stipulated in the DMA 2000 and its
implementing regulations, are described below.
5.2
Hazard Identification and Screening
DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment – Identifying Hazards
Identifying Hazards
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural
hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
Element
 Does the plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? If the
hazard identification omits (without explanation) any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the
jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a satisfactory score. Consult with the State Hazard
Mitigation Officer to identify applicable hazards that may occur in the planning area.
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The risk assessment process is the identification and screening of hazards, as shown in
Table 5-1. The Planning Committee identified 12 possible hazards that could affect
Douglas County. The Planning Committee evaluated and screened the comprehensive list
of potential hazards based on a range of factors, including prior knowledge or perception
of the relative risk presented by each hazard, the ability to mitigate the hazard, and the
known or expected availability of information on the hazard (see Table 5-1).
Douglas County
21
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 5-1
Identification and Screening of Hazards
Hazard Type
Should It Be
Profiled?
Avalanche
Yes
Dam Failure
No
The county has worked to reduce the risk of dam
failure in the exiting dams within the County. There
are no high-hazard dams within the County.
Drought
No
Currently, the Alpine Decree and Nevada Revised
Statute protect the valley’s aquifer making the effects
of drought very light in the County.
Earthquake
Yes
Several very active fault zones pass through the
County.
Flood
Yes
Flash floods and other flood events occur regularly
during rainstorms.
Hazardous Material Event
No
The Planning Committee wanted to address only
Natural hazards. Hazardous materials are transported
through the County and its communities on a daily
basis. This hazard may be considered in future
updates.
Landslide
Yes
USGS reports a possibility exists within the County
Land Subsidence
No
No records exist of this hazard in the County.
Severe Weather
Yes
Hailstorms, Windstorms, Winter Storms,
Thunderstorms, Lightning and Heavy Rain were
grouped into Severe Weather Hazard by the Planning
Committee. The terrain and location of the County
make it susceptible to these types of events.
Tornado
No
No significant historic events have occurred in the
County.
WMD / Terrorism
No
This hazard is being addressed by the Nevada
Homeland Security Commission.
Wildland Fire
Yes
Historical records exist for several large incidents.
Explanation
No record exists of avalanches in populated areas. The
Committee wanted to include this hazard for future
iterations as the County’s population encroaches into
the slopes of the Sierra.
The Planning Committee determined that six hazards pose the greatest threat to the entire
planning area: earthquakes, floods, wildland fires, avalanches, severe weather, and
landslides/subsidence. The remaining 6 hazards excluded through the screening process
were considered to pose a lower threat to life and property in the County due to the low
likelihood of occurrence or the low probability that life and property would be
significantly affected. Should the risk from these hazards increase in the future, the HMP
can be updated to incorporate vulnerability analyses for these hazards.
Douglas County
22
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
5.3
RISK ASSESSMENT
Hazard Profile
The requirements for hazard profile, as stipulated in the DMA 2000 and its implementing
regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment – Profiling Hazards
Profiling Hazards
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the location and extent of
all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous
occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
Element
 Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard
addressed in the plan?
 Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the
plan?
 Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?
 Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard
addressed in the plan?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The specific hazards selected by the Planning Committee for profiling have been
examined in a methodical manner based on the following factors:

Nature

History

Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events
The hazards profiled for Douglas County are presented in alphabetical order in this
Section. The order of presentation does not signify the level of importance or risk.
5.3.1
Avalanche
5.3.1.1 Nature
An avalanche occurs when a mass of snow falls down a mountainside. That is because
new snow (which is not wet) accumulates on a more heavy snow layer. Since the new
snow layer is not compact, it could slide down toward the base of the mountain.
5.3.1.2 History
Avalanche possibilities exist in the County. However, there are no written records of
avalanches occurring in a populated location within Douglas County.
Douglas County
23
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
5.3.1.3 Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events.
Transportation corridors have been constructed in anticipation of these events and are
well maintained by State and local resources in heavily used roads such as Kingsbury
Grade. The extent of damage is diminished with maintenance but should an event occur,
the roads will be closed causing a delay and long detour for motorists. The most
populated areas of the County are located at the top of the mountain range (Tahoe Basin)
or in the valley areas away from steep slopes. The hazard impact and damage to existing
structures is null. The hazard to future structures should be considered in the County
Master Plan as population increases within its jurisdiction.
5.3.1.4 Summary
Continuing to monitor avalanche events by the County is important to track where and
when events occur. The Master Plan and the Open Space Plan should be updated to
address construction/development in areas prone to this hazard.
5.3.2
Earthquake
5.3.2.1 Nature
An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling caused by a release of strain accumulated
within or along the edge of the earth’s tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be
felt far beyond the site of its occurrence. Earthquakes usually occur without warning and,
after just a few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. The most
common effect of earthquakes is ground motion, or the vibration or shaking of the ground
during an earthquake.
The severity of ground motion generally increases with the amount of energy released
and decreases with distance from the fault or epicenter of the earthquake. Ground motion
causes waves in the earth’s interior, also known as seismic waves, and along the earth’s
surface, known as surface waves. There two kinds of seismic waves. P (primary) waves
are longitudinal or compressional waves similar in character to sound waves that cause
back-and-forth oscillation along the direction of travel (vertical motion). S (secondary)
waves, also known as shear waves, are slower than P waves and cause structures to
vibrate from side to side (horizontal motion). There are also two kinds of surface waves:
Raleigh waves and Love waves. These waves travel more slowly and typically are
significantly less damaging than seismic waves.
In addition to ground motion, several secondary hazards can occur from earthquakes,
such as surface faulting. Surface faulting is the differential movement of two sides of a
fault at the earth’s surface. Displacement along faults, both in terms of length and width,
varies but can be significant (e.g., up to 20 feet), as can the length of the surface rupture
(e.g., up to 200 miles). Surface faulting can cause severe damage to linear structures
including railways, highways, pipelines, and tunnels.
Earthquake-related ground failure due to liquefaction is another secondary hazard.
Liquefaction occurs when seismic waves pass through saturated granular soil, distorting
Douglas County
24
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
its granular structure and causing some of the empty spaces between granules to collapse.
Pore water pressure may also increase sufficiently to cause the soil to behave like a fluid
for a brief period and cause deformations. Liquefaction causes lateral spreads (horizontal
movements of commonly 10 to 15 feet, but up to 100 feet), flow failures (massive flows
of soil, typically hundreds of feet, but up to 12 miles), and loss of bearing strength (soil
deformations causing structures to settle or tip). Liquefaction can cause severe damage to
property.
The effects of earthquake waves at the surface can be measured using the Modified
Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, which consists of arbitrary rankings based on observed
effects, or the Richter Magnitude Scale, a mathematical basis that expresses the effects of
an event in magnitude (M).
5.3.2.2 History, Location, Extent and Probability of Future Events
Douglas County is in Nevada’s highest earthquake region with approximately ten faults
within its jurisdiction as shown in the University of Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology’s Regional Fault map located in Appendix A There are numerous young faults
capable of creating large earthquakes and very high levels of background seismicity in
the County. Continuing threats and instances of earthquake in and around the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range and the northern Nevada area indicate that the County is
susceptible to seismic events. The widely dispersed nature of the population combined
with the single family dwellings and simple business and office complexes somewhat
reduces the risk to residents, but the potential for hazard is, nonetheless, considered
significant because the largest population concentration is located close to identified
faults (etf, gfz dsffz). Any significant seismic activity in the three identified faults will
greatly impact Genoa, Minden, Gardnerville, Gardnerville Ranchos, Stateline, and
Zephyr Cove and impact the remaining Douglas County area. (See Sensitive Facility List
in Vulnerability section)
Earthquakes provide a significant containment threat to all areas where the Carson River,
diversions dams, and irrigation systems exist. In addition, roadways and bridges, county
buildings and residents, and other significant infrastructure are susceptible to construction
damage. The seismic effect can damage tanks, rupture pipelines, and cause operating
systems to malfunction. Some effects may not be noticeable in the initial stages or
immediate aftermath of an earthquake. Often, aftershocks cause the most damaging force
on systems weakened by the initial quake.
The following two paragraphs are an excerpt from the article by Gene A Ichinose,
Kenneth D. Smith and John G. Anderson of the University of Nevada Reno
Seismological Laboratory written for the Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol
88. No. 6, pp 1363-1378, December 1998. The Double spring flat earthquake (Mw=5.8)
occurred at 12:23 GMT (5:23 AM PST) on September 12, 1994. Its location was 30 km
south of Carson City, Nevada, and it was felt strongly throughout the Reno-Carson City
region (pop. approximately 400,000). The damage was fortunately light because the
epicenter area was not inhabited. This paper reports on the locations and mechanism of
Douglas County
25
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
the earthquake and its aftershock sequence, and seeks to understand the role this sequence
plays in the regional tectonics. The study is also important because of its impact on
understanding the local seismic hazard.
The 1994 Double Spring Flat (DSF) earthquake (DePolo et al., 1994 Ramelli et al, 1994)
occurred within the overlap of two major range bounding faults, the Genoa and Antelope
valley fault zones, and it has increased the concern for a major earthquake near the
population centers of northwestern Nevada. The Antelope Valley and Genoa fault zones
are part of the Sierra frontal fault system, which are capable o an M7.5 to 7.8 earthquake
(Ryall and Van Wormer, 1980).
Note: Damages will increase relative to the population in the area. Nevada continues to
be the state with the fastest growing population in the Nation.
The most recent major earthquake was September 12, 1994, at 12:23 GMT. This the
Double Springs Flat earthquake, which cracked foundations, caused some non-structural
damage, and brought down a chimney in Minden. This event was fortunately centered in
rurally populated mountains 10 miles south on hwy 88 on the Nevada/California border
(See attached map). However, the potential exists for having damaging earthquakes near
all of the communities in the county. The largest faults in Douglas County, the Genoa,
East Carson Valley, and Antelope Valley faults are capable of creating magnitude 7+
sized earthquakes. The frequency of said magnitude quakes is estimated at once every
1500-4000 years. The community of Genoa is most vulnerable as it sits atop the most
active fault area within the county. Genoa is comprised of approximately 500 residential
structures and represents less then 5% percent of the county valuation. Earthquake
awareness, preparedness, and risk management is the key to living in earthquake country.
The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, under Dr. Craig DePolo, Jim G. Rigby, Gary
L. Johnson, Steven L. Jacobson, John G. Anderson and Thomas J. Whytes, 1996,
University of Nevada, completed a comprehensive study of earthquakes in the region
“Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake in Western Nevada.” This study depicts a
detailed analysis of the plausible consequences of a hypothetical magnitude 7.1
earthquake along the northern Carson Range front in the Reno-Carson area. The Douglas
County Hazard Mitigation has elected to use this document as a point of reference and to
increase the alliance with the authors in an attempt to better understand the effects of
earthquakes on the area.
A map of prominent fault zone areas for the Douglas County and surrounding areas is
made available in Appendix B, Figure B-5.
See attachment entitled “Douglas County HAZUS Earthquake Analysis. UNR Bureau of
Mines and Geology ran the Hazus scenarios for the Double Spring, East Tahoe, and
Minden Genoa faults Appendix C.
Douglas County
26
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
The University of Nevada Reno, Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological
Laboratory provided the maps found in Appendix B, Figures B-1 and B-2 of historic
earthquake events in Nevada.
The table below shows the probability of experiencing an earthquake of a given size or
greater over a 50-year period within 50 kilometers (31miles) of major communities
(Minden) in Nevada, and the maps linked with this table are intended to give people
throughout Nevada an idea of their earthquake risk. These maps were generated for four
magnitude thresholds: M≥5.0, M≥6.0, M≥6.5, and M≥7.0 using the U.S. Geological
Survey PSHA (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis) Model. The map shown in Figure
B-8 is for M>6.5 in the Minden area of Douglas County.
County
% Probability of Magnitude Greater
Than
County Seat/Other
Town
Carson City Carson City
5
6
6.5
7
>90
70
50-55
12-15
Churchill
Fallon
80-90 30-40 20-25
6-8
Clark
Las Vegas
40-50 10-20
<1
Douglas
Minden
Elko
Elko
>90
<5
60-70 50-60
10-12
30-40 10-15
6-8
0.5-1
Esmeralda Goldfield
80-90 20-30
5-10
<1
Eureka
Eureka
40-50 10-15
4-6
<0.5
Humboldt
Winnemucca
50-60 15-20
5-10
1-1.5
Lander
Battle Mountain
60-70 15-20
10
1.5
Austin
60-70
20
10-15
2-3
Lincoln
Pioche
30-40
6-10
2-3
<0.5
Lyon
Yerington
>90
60
40-45
12
Mineral
Hawthorne
>90
60
30-40
10-12
Nye
Tonopah
70-80 20-30
5-10
<1
Beatty
70-80 30-40 20-30
12
Douglas County
27
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Gabbs
>90
Pershing
Lovelock
Storey
Virginia City
>90
Washoe
Reno
Gerlach
40-50 20-25
50-60 10-20
White Pine Ely
6-8
10
1-2
65-70
50
12-15
>90
65-70
50
12-15
40
10-15
6-10
2-3
20-30
4-6
1.5-2
<0.5
As shown in the map and by historical records there is a high probability of a strong
earthquake happening in Douglas County. The need for public awareness of nonstructural protection and structural mitigation to older homes is evident. The County has
taken steps through “Project Impact” funds to do non-structural and structural mitigation
to public buildings.
5.3.2.3 Summary
Again, the Open Space and Master Plans should be updated to address development in
areas located within the identified seismic faults. The County Commissioners and the
public must be aware of the gravity of this risk within the County.
5.3.3
Flood
5.3.3.1 Nature
Flooding is the accumulation of water where there usually is none or the overflow of
excess water from a stream, river, lake, reservoir, or coastal body of water onto adjacent
floodplains. Floodplains are lowlands adjacent to water bodies that are subject to
recurring floods. Floods are natural events that are considered hazards only when people
and property are affected.
Nationwide, floods result in more deaths than any other natural hazard. Physical damage
from floods includes the following:

Inundation of structures, causing water damage to structural elements and contents.

Erosion or scouring of stream banks, roadway embankments, foundations, footings
for bridge piers, and other features.

Impact damage to structures, roads, bridges, culverts, and other features from highvelocity flow and from debris carried by floodwaters. Such debris may also
accumulate on bridge piers and in culverts, increasing loads on these features or
causing overtopping or backwater effects.
Douglas County
28
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT

Destruction of crops, erosion of topsoil, and deposition of debris and sediment on
croplands.

Release of sewage and hazardous or toxic materials as wastewater treatment plants
are inundated, storage tanks are damaged, and pipelines are severed.
Floods also cause economic losses through closure of businesses and government
facilities; disrupt communications; disrupt the provision of utilities such as water and
sewer service; result in excessive expenditures for emergency response; and generally
disrupt the normal function of a community.
Although Nevada is the driest state in the Union, with an average annual precipitation of
only about nine inches (Houghton and others, 1975), many floods have occurred in
western Nevada since the first settlers began arriving in this region in the mid nineteenth
century. These floods can be placed into three general groups:
(1) Flash floods caused by summer thunderstorms;
(2) Floods caused by rapid snowmelt; and
(3) Floods caused by frontal rains and frontal rains on snow or
frozen grounds.

Flash floods result from intense rainfall in localized areas during thunderstorms,
usually during the months of June to November. These floods, while intense, tend
to be localized because the storms usually cover a small area. Floods from rapid
snowmelt tend to occur between March and June, and can cover a large area but
tend to flood areas close to the main river channel. Floods resulting from rain on
snow or frozen ground tend to occur between November and April and have
caused some of the greatest regional historical floods.
In Douglas County, the primary cause of river flooding has always been winter
rainstorms saturating and melting the Sierra snow pack at elevations between 4,500 and
8,000 fee or higher. Though most winter storms bring snow to elevations above 6,000
feet, a pattern of warm storms (known as the Pineapple Express or Pineapple Connection
because they come from the warm pacific islands) occasionally dumps rain at higher
elevations. Winter floods can occur any time between November and April in successive
years, or not occur at all for many years.
5.3.3.2 History, Location, Extent and Probability of Future Events
The Carson River begins in the Sierra Nevada in California south of Lake Tahoe, and
consists of two forks, the West Fork Carson River and the East Fork Carson River. These
Tributaries flow northward into Nevada before joining to form the main-stem Carson
River in Carson valley. The west Fork Carson River enters Nevada west of Mud Lake
and several miles west of U.S. 395. It continues in a northerly to northwesterly direction
along the western side of Carson valley and is joined by several small streams from the
Carson Range to the west and joins the East Fork. The East Fork enters Nevada
Douglas County
29
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
approximately 5 miles east and south of the West Fork in a deep, narrow canyon incised
into volcanic bedrock. It flows northerly and enters the southern end of Carson Valley a
few miles east of the West Fork. The East Fork then turns northwestward, flows to the
west of the towns of Minden and Gardnerville, and joins the West Fork southeast of
Genoa, near the western side of the valley.
From near Genoa, the main-stem Carson River flows northeasterly through the northern
part of Carson Valley, crosses under U.S. 395 at Cradlebaugh Bridge, and exits the valley
at its northeast corner. The river then flows northerly along a deep, bedrock canyon near
Empire, just south of U.S. 50. After exiting the deep but short bedrock canyon a little
west of Dayton, the Carson River continues in a northeasterly direction for several miles,
traversing the broad, alluvial Carson Plains before entering a relatively confined bedrockbounded channel in the northern end of the Pine Nut Mountains at the east end of the
Carson Plains. As it enters the northern Pine Nut Mountains, the river turns nearly due
west and flows a total distance of about 12 air miles before exiting the mountains at Fort
Churchill. Downstream, the Cason River passes under Weeks Bridge on U.S. 95 Alt, and
enters Lahontan Reservoir a few more miles to the east. Downstream from Lahontan
Reservoir, the river flows northeastward to its terminus at Carson Sink.
The Carson River Basin in Nevada and California encompasses about 3,966 square miles,
of which about 3,360 square miles are in Nevada (Horton 1997c).
The table below shows a brief description of some of the larger floods that have been
documented along the Truckee, Carson and Walker Rivers and their tributaries. Much of
the material in this section is from USDA Nevada River Basin survey Staff (1969, 1973)
and Goodwin (1977).
Year
Flooding
Location
Comments
Estimated Losses
December
1852
Carson Valley
Two days of heavy snowfall followed by four
days of warm rain. Little damage occurred
because settlements were located away from
the low areas. It is likely flooding occurred
along other western Nevada rivers at this
time.
No Figures available
December
1861
January
1862
Carson and Truckee
River Basins
Two days of heavy snow before Christmas,
followed by extreme cold temperatures
freezing the snow. From Christmas Day until
December 27, a warm rain fell. It was
reported that Carson Valley became a lake.
At that time, most of the settlements were
located out of the valley along the eastern
slope of the Sierra Nevada, so little damage
was reported.
No Figures available
Douglas County
30
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
Year
Flooding
Location
RISK ASSESSMENT
Comments
Estimated Losses
December
1867
January
1868
Carson and Truckee
River Basins
On December 20, an unseasonably warm
rainstorm fell on snow accumulations in the
Sierra Nevada. This storm became more
intense on December 24 and ended on
Christmas Day. After a period of clear
weather, a second intense rainstorm began on
December 30 and continued through January
2, 1868. The Carson Valley again became a
lake. This flooding exceeded the 1861 flood
crest. All bridges in the Carson Valley
crossing the East Fork and West Fork Carson
River as well as the main-stem, were swept
away, including William Cradelbaugh’s toll
bridge, the first bridge over the Carson River
in Carson Valley.
No Figures available
March
1907
Walker, Carson and
Truckee River
Basins
A series of snow storms began on March 16,
turning to rain and continuing until March 20.
The Truckee River severely damaged the
Electric Light Bridge. In Carson Valley, all
of the bridges of the East Fork and West Fork
Carson River as well as the main-stem
Carson River were Either destroyed or
seriously damaged. Among the bridges
destroyed on the Carson River were the
Cradlebaugh bridge on the GardnervilleCarson city Road (U.S 395, and the
McTarnahan bridge on the toll-road on the
south end of Prison Hill. . .
No Figures available
March
1928
Walker, Carson and
Truckee River
Basins
A snowstorm began March 23 and soon
turned to a rainstorm below the 8,000-foot
elevation. On March 26 Temperatures
dropped. In the Carson Valley, both forks of
the Carson River and the main-stem Carson
River overflowed their banks, but little
damage was caused.
No Figures available
Douglas County
31
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
Year
Flooding
Location
RISK ASSESSMENT
Comments
Estimated Losses
December
1937
Carson and Truckee
River Basins
Rain began on the evening of December 9,
and continued until the afternoon of
December 11, melting most of the snow pack
at the higher elevations. After a short break,
the rain restarted and continued until
December 13. On the East Fork Carson
River, the Douglas Power (Ruhenstroth) Dam
was severely damaged. Flooding began in
the south end of Carson Valley on December
10. In the Gardnerville area, the flood crested
at 10.300 cfs late in the afternoon of
December 11 at the USGS stream gage on
the East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville.
On the West Fork Carson River, parts SR 37
present day SR 88. Were flooded to the depth
of 14 inches. On the Carson River,
Cradlebaugh Bridge was under about 18
inches of water, and the main highway
between Carson City and Gardnerville was
closed an not reopened until December 13.
No Figures available
November
December
1950
Walker, Carson and
Truckee River
Basins.
A sequence of rapid moving storms and
unseasonably high temperatures melted most
of the early snow pack in the Sierra. During a
period from November 13 to December 8,
total precipitation ranged from about 5 inches
at the foot of the Sierra Nevada in Nevada to
about 30 inches at the crest in California. On
the East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville,
the flood crested on November 21, at 12,100
cfs. At the north end of Carson Valley, the
peak discharge near Carson City was 15,500
cfs on November 22.
The estimate of damages in the
three river basins was $4.4
Million ($27.6 million in 1997
dollars) (U.S. Geological Survey,
1954);
Douglas County
32
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
Year
Flooding
Location
RISK ASSESSMENT
Comments
Estimated Losses
December
1955
Truckee, Carson
and Walker River
Basins
During December 21 to 24, an intense storm
of unseasonably high temperatures melted
part of the snow pack in the Northern Sierra
Nevada. Precipitation at the headwaters of
the principal river basins averaged from 10 to
13 inches. On the East Fork of the Carson
River near Gardnerville, the flood crested at
17,600 cfs on December 23. On the West
Fork Carson River at Woodfords, California,
the flood crested on December 23 at 4,810
cfs. In the Carson Valley, over 16,000 acres
were flooded (about the same acreage
flooded in New Year’s flood 1997) and many
families were forced to move out when their
homes were isolated and flooded. The largest
structure destroyed in Carson Valley was
Lutheran Bridge, which collapsed. At the
north end of Carson Valley, the flood crested
near Carson City on December 24 at 30,000
cfs, setting a record that stood until the New
Year’s flood 1997.
The estimate of damages in the three
river basins was $3,992,000
($22,327,000 in 1997 dollars) (U.S.
Geological Survey 1963b). One life
was lost.
January
February
1963
Truckee, Walker
and Carson River
Basins
As late as January 27, western Nevada was
having one of its worst winter droughts. An
intense storm of unseasonably high
temperatures started late January 28 and
continued through February 1. Precipitation
varied from 5 to more than 13 inches. The
freezing level was above 8,000 feet during
most of the storm and as high as 11,000 feet
at times. On February 1, the flood crested at
13,360 cfs on the East Fork Carson River
near Gardnerville, and at 4,890 cfs on the
West Fork Carson river at Woodfords (USGS
Survey, 1966 a).
Damage in the three river basins was
estimated at $3,248,000
($15,130,000 in 1997 in dollars)
(U.S. Geological Survey 1966a).
Douglas County
33
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
Year
Flooding
Location
RISK ASSESSMENT
Comments
Estimated Losses
December
1964
Truckee and Carson
River Basins
This flood resulted from a storm of
unseasonably high temperature and rain
melting part of the snow pack. During
December 21-23, warm air mass raised
temperatures, increased wind velocities and
caused torrential rains, as much as 16 inches
in the mountain areas. This flood was similar
to the December 1955 flood. On December
23, the East Fork Carson river near
Gardnerville crested at 8,230 cfs and the
West Fork Carson River at Woodfords
crested at 3,100 cfs. In Carson Valley,
13,500 acres of pasture, hay and grain were
flooded. The flood crested on the Carson
River near Carson City on Christmas Day at
8,740 cfs (USGS Survey 1971).
The estimate of damages in these
two river basins was $2,236,000
($10,111,000 in 1997 dollars) (U.S.
Geological Survey, 1966b).
February
1986
Truckee and Carson
River Basins
A light rain began February 12 becoming
heavy on February 15, diminishing on
February 18. On February 19, the East Fork
Carson River near Gardnerville crested at
7,380 cfs, and the West Fork Carson River at
Woodfords crested at 551 cfs (Pupacko and
others, 1988). Flooding in Carson Valley
caused the closing of Cradlebaugh Bridge on
U.S. 395 over the Carson River on February
17.
Damage resulting from this flood
was estimated at $12,700,000
($17,760,000 in 1997 dollars)
(Donna Garcia, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, verbal commun., 1997)
December
1996
January
1997
Walker, Carson and
Truckee River
Basins
This flood resulted from several moderate to
heavy snowstorms during December 1996,
followed by three subtropical, heavy
rainstorms from the Pacific. The third storm
melted most of the snow pack in the Sierra
Nevada below 7,000 feet and produced heavy
rainfall up to 10,000 feet.
Estimated initial damage
(Interagency Hazard mitigation
Team for FEMA-1153-DR-NV)
$21,310,567. .
Based on historical events, flooding is a high probability in the Carson Valley (Douglas
County).
5.3.3.3 Summary
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners must be made aware of the need for
enforcement of the master plan (using the floodplain studies) for future development,
public awareness to include the flood insurance program information and an active
mitigation program.
Douglas County
34
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
5.3.4
RISK ASSESSMENT
Landslides
5.3.4.1 Nature
A landslide is the movement of rock and soil that may take place gradually over a small
area or it may be very rapid and involve a huge area, such as the landslides that have been
documented at Slide Mountain. Landslides may also be initiated by removal, or absence,
of soil-retaining vegetation, from causes such as range fires or changes in agricultural
practices. Removal of material at the base of slopes may result in unstable conditions.
Heavy building structures, road fill and mine dumps may add enough stress to initiate
landslide movement in otherwise stable conditions.
5.3.4.2 History, Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events
Landslides in Nevada include rock falls. Some rock falls occur where sedimentary rocks
are capped by volcanic rocks (lava flows and other layered volcanic rocks). When the
sedimentary rock weathers and erodes, it undermines the lava cap and a rock fall results.
Another type of land sliding in Nevada occurs in areas cut by perennial streams. Water
undermines the supporting base of a steep surface, which eventually collapses. An
example of this type of slide is Mogul, on the Truckee River, west of Reno. Landslides
in Nevada tend to be localized and therefore tend not to result in very large dollar
damages. They can occur with earthquakes and major storms and floods, and they can be
initiated by melting ice and snow. The largest recorded event in recent history was May
30, 1983 on the eastern slopes of Slide Mountain. The rockslide killed one man,
destroyed a house and caused $2,000,000.00 damage to the area. Patrick Glancy, a
hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey has conducted extensive research on the
rockslide and flood. He says, “It is a very hazardous place.” U.S.G.S. reports there are
other dangers of slides South of Kingsbury Grade (Douglas County) and along Second
Creek where the neighborhoods of Incline Village exist today. This risk will need to be
re-evaluated if development continues at the base of the historic slide area slopes.
Population South of Kingsbury Grade remains sparse making this a low risk hazard. Its
impact would be minimal as the number of structures in the hazard areas is sparse.
5.3.4.3 Summary
The County Master Plan should address the issue of future increase development in the
area and this risk. The losses due to this risk are estimated to be null due to the lack of
structures in the hazard area.
5.3.5
Severe Weather
5.3.5.1 Nature
Winds are horizontal flows of air that blow from areas of high pressure to areas of low
pressure. Wind strength depends on the difference between the high- and low-pressure
Douglas County
35
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
systems and the distance between them. Therefore, a steep pressure gradient results from
a large pressure difference or short distance between places and causes strong winds.
Strong and/or severe winds often precede or follow frontal activity, including cold fronts,
warm fronts, and dry lines. Generally, in the southwestern United States, frontal winds
can remain at 20–30 mph for several hours and reach peak speeds of more than 60 mph.
Winds equal to or greater than 57 mph are referred to as severe winds.
In addition to strong and/or severe winds caused by large regional frontal systems, local
thermal winds are caused by the differential heating and cooling of the regional
topography. In a valley/mountain system, as the rising ground air warms it continues
upslope as wind and is replaced by inflow from outside the valley. The intensity of the
resulting wind depends on a number of factors, including the shape of the valley, amount
of sunlight, and presence of a prevailing wind. The Carson Valley is well known worldwide by glider enthusiasts for its thermal currents. These same thermals that cause
windstorms also produce hailstorms, thunderstorms, and heavy rain in the County.
Thunderstorms are formed from a combination of moisture, rapidly rising warm air, and a
force capable of lifting air, such as warm and cold fronts or a mountain. A thunderstorm
can produce lightning, thunder, and rainfall and may also lead to the formation of
tornados, hail, downbursts, and microburst of wind. Thunderstorms may occur singly, in
clusters, or in lines. As a result, it is possible for several thunderstorms to affect one
location in the course of a few hours.
Most commonly associated with thunderstorms are thunder and lightning. Lightning
occurs when the rising and descending motion of air within clouds produce a separation
of positively and negatively charged particles. This separation produces an enormous
electrical potential both within the cloud and between the cloud and the ground.
Lightning results as the energy between the positive and negative charge areas is
discharged. As the lightning channel moves through the atmosphere, heat is generated by
the electrical discharge to the order of 20,000 degrees (three times the temperature of the
sun). This heat compresses the surrounding clear air, producing a shock wave that then
decays to an acoustic wave as it moves away from the lightning channel, resulting in
thunder.
In addition, hail can occur as part of a severe thunderstorm. Hail develops within a lowpressure front as warm air rises rapidly in the upper atmosphere and is subsequently
cooled, leading to the formation of ice crystals. This cycle continues until the hailstone is
too heavy to be lifted by the updraft winds and falls to the earth. The higher the
temperature at the earth’s surface, the stronger the updraft, thereby increasing the amount
of time the hailstones are developed. As hailstones are suspended longer within the
atmosphere, they become larger. Other factors impacting the size of hailstones include
storm scale wind profile, elevation of the freezing level, and the mean temperature and
relative humidity of the downdraft air.
Finally, downbursts and micro bursts are also associated with thunderstorms. Downbursts
are strong, straight-line winds created by falling rain and sinking rain that may reach
speeds of 125 miles per hour (mph). Micro bursts are more concentrated than
Douglas County
36
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
downbursts, with speeds reaching up to 150 mph. Both downbursts and micro bursts
typically last 5 to 7 minutes.
5.3.5.2 History, Location, Extent and Probability of Events
The following table is a result of the National Climatic Data Center’s data base query for
severe weather in Douglas County. It provides a history of severe weather events in the
area, and if available, the damage caused and cost of damages due to the event.
Query Results
24 event(s) were reported in Douglas County,
Nevada between 01/01/1950 and 06/30/2005
(High Wind limited to speed greater than 0
knots).
Click on Location or County to display Details.
Mag:
Dth:
Inj:
PrD:
CrD:
Magnitude
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
Crop Damage
Nevada
Location or
County
Date
Time
Type
Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD
1 Douglas
08/20/1983 1910 Hail
No report
1.00 0
in.
0
0
0
2 Douglas
07/26/1985 1840 Tstm Wind
No report
56
kts.
0
0
0
0
3 Douglas
09/13/1987 1845 Tstm Wind
No report
55
kts.
0
0
0
0
4 Douglas
07/18/1991 1900 Hail
No report
0.75 0
in.
0
0
0
5 Douglas
08/14/1991 1720 Hail
No report
0.75 0
in.
0
0
0
6 Minden
11/22/1993 1600 High Winds
0
kts.
0
1
0
0
7 Gardnerville 12/13/1993 1700 High Winds
No report
0
kts.
0
0
0
0
8 Gardnerville 01/23/1994 1146 High Winds
0
0
0
0
0
Wind gusts were reported in Minden
and the rest of Douglas County ranging
in speed from 68 to 80 MPH during the
time period 1200 PST to 1645 PST. A
young boy was injured when he was
blown down while walking his bike
A wind gust of 63 mph was reported in
Douglas County
37
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Nevada
Location or
County
Date
Time
Type
Gardnerville.
Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD
kts.
9 Douglas
02/10/1994 1300 High Winds
0
kts.
0
0
0
0
10 Douglas
03/14/1994 1500 High Wind \ Wind gusts to 60 mph were
0
kts.
0
0
0
0
N/A 0
0
500K 0
reported in Minden at 1430 MST and
again at 2257 MST
11 Minden
07/22/1994 1515 Flash Floods
A strong thunderstorm produced a flash
flood in the Johnson Lane area, just
north of Minden and Gardnerville. Two
or three feet of water washed mud and
debris through yards and into homes.
The storm also produced an unusual
amount of half inch diameter hail. The
hail accumulated to three or four inches
deep, turning hillsides white.
12
Gardnerville
04/21/1997 01:00 Other
PM A dust devil was reported in the
N/A 0
0
0
0
13
Gardnerville
09/05/1998 03:17 Flash Flood
PM Mud covering one side of Fish Springs
N/A 0
0
0
0
0.75 0
in.
0
0
0
07/03/2001 03:30 Lightning
PM Newspaper report of lightning hitting a
N/A 0
0
2K
0
07/03/2001 04:00 Wild/forest Fire
PM Spotter report of dry lightning that
N/A 0
0
0
0
17
Gardnerville
07/13/2002 03:32 Tstm Wind
PM Spotter report of dry lightning that
51
kts.
0
0
0
0
18 Glenbrook
07/17/2002 12:30 Hail
1.00 0
0
0
0
Gardnerville area Monday afternoon. It
lifted a 3 year old child a half foot off the
ground and knocked over a swing set.
Road. Reported by Douglas County
Sheriff.
14 Topaz Lake 06/23/2000 04:20 Hail
PM Douglas County Sheriff reported 3/4
inch hail in Holbrook Junction.
15 Minden
house in Minden. Several electrical
appliances were damaged beyond
repair.
16 Genoa
started a wildfire near Genoa. No
injuries or damaged was reported
started a wildfire near Genoa. No
injuries or damaged was reported
Douglas County
38
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Nevada
Location or
County
Date
Time
PM
Type
Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD
One inch hail A severe thunderstorm
moved over Douglas and Washoe Co.
near the Nevada shore of Lake Tahoe.
Glenbrook Fire Dept. reported 1 inch
hail at 1:43 pm PDT and about 20
minutes later, spotters in Incline Village,
NV reported 1 inch hail.
in.
19
Gardnerville
08/01/2002 01:50 Heavy Rain
PM 1 inch of rain in 85 minutes A line of
N/A 0
0
0
0
20 Minden
11/07/2002 04:00 Heavy Rain
PM 24 hour rainfall total of 1.75 inches.
N/A 0
0
0
0
21
Countywide
07/20/2003 02:35 Heavy Rain
PM Numerous reports of one half to three
N/A 0
0
0
0
22 Minden
07/31/2003 12:10 Heavy Rain
N/A 0
PM A spotter measured .60 inches of rain in
0
0
0
N/A 0
1
0
0
04/27/2005 12:30 Lightning
N/A 0
PM Lightning struck a poplar tree at a home
0
0
0
TOTALS: 0
2
502K 0
slow-moving thunderstorms moved
across Douglas Co., NV during the
afternoon hours. The storms dropped
.60 inches of rain in 45 minutes and a
total of 1 inch of rain over an 85-minute
period in Gardnerville, NV. Small hail
was also reported with these storms
quarters of an inch of rain falling in 1015 minutes across Douglas County due
to thunderstorms.
15 minutes from a thunderstorm.
23Gardnerville 08/12/2004 04:00 Lightning struck
Continued
PM a 12-year-old girl was struck by
lightning in Gardnerville during the
afternoon of the 12th. The condition of
the girl was not known at the time of the
report.
24
Gardnerville
Douglas County
in Gardnerville. The lightning bolt blew
out the front door jamb of the house. An
automobile's windshield was badly
cracked. Computers, televisions, and
VCRs throughout the neighborhood
were damaged from the strike. In a
house a few doors away, kitchen lights
were blown from their sockets.
39
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
NCDC / Climate Resources / Climate Data / Events / Storm Events / Results / Search
/ Help
Based on historical records, Douglas County is susceptible to severe weather storms.
This includes summer (heavy rains, hailstorms, thunderstorm, lightning and wind) and
winter storms (blizzards, heavy snow, and wind).
5.3.5.4 Summary
Due to the eastern location of the County at the foot of the Sierra Mountains, both the
Tahoe and the East Fork Townships are susceptible to severe weather hazards. A public
awareness campaign to include residential mitigation activities related to these events
will be effective in minimizing risk to life and property.
5.3.6
Wildfire
5.3.6.1 Nature
A wildland fire is a type of wildfire that spreads through consumption of vegetation. It
often begins unnoticed, spreads quickly, and is usually signaled by dense smoke that may
be visible from miles around. Wildland fires can be caused by human activities (such as
arson or campfires) or by natural events such as lightning. Wildland fires often occur in
forests or other areas with ample vegetation. In addition to wildland fires, wildfires can
be classified as urban fires, interface or intermix fires, and prescribed fires.
The following three factors contribute significantly to wildland fire behavior and can be
used to identify wildland fire hazard areas.

Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildland fire spread increases.
South-facing slopes are also subject to more solar radiation, making them drier
and thereby intensifying wildland fire behavior. However, ridge tops may mark
the end of wildland fire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be
unable to spread downhill.

Fuel: The type and condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the
occurrence and spread of wildland fires. Certain types of plants are more
susceptible to burning or will burn with greater intensity. Dense or overgrown
vegetation increases the amount of combustible material available to fuel the fire
(referred to as the “fuel load”). The ratio of living to dead plant matter is also
important. The risk of fire is increased significantly during periods of prolonged
drought, as the moisture content of both living and dead plant matter decreases.
The fuel’s continuity, both horizontally and vertically, is also an important factor.

Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildland fire behavior is weather.
Temperature, humidity, wind, and lightning can affect chances for ignition and
spread of fire. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can
Douglas County
40
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
lead to extreme wildland fire activity. By contrast, cooling and higher humidity
often signals reduced wildland fire occurrence and easier containment.
The frequency and severity of wildland fires also depends upon other hazards, such as
lightning, drought, and infestations. If not promptly controlled, wildland fires may grow
into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can threaten lives and resources and
destroy improved properties. In addition to affecting people, wildland fires may severely
affect livestock and pets. Such events may require emergency watering/feeding,
evacuation, and shelter.
The indirect effects of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land
of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil,
waterways, and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to
absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of
rivers and streams, thereby increasing flood potential, harming aquatic life, and degrading
water quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased debris flow
hazards, as described above.
5.3.6.2 History
Several large wildfires have occurred in the recent history of Douglas County. Between
1980 and 2003, 48,005 acres (ten percent of Douglas County) burned in wildland fires.
The largest fire recorded in the county was the 16,600-acre Indian Creek II Fire in 1984
that started in California and burned approximately 12,400-acres in Douglas County.
Table 3-2 summarizes the large fire history and fire ignitions recorded by year for public
lands within Douglas County. Figure 3-2 illustrates the recorded fire history in the
vicinity of Douglas County. Several wildland fires have occurred on private lands within
the county. Often these fires are not reported to federal agencies and are therefore, not
reflected in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Summary of Reported Fire History
Data 1980-2003
Year
Number of Fire
Ignitions
Total Fire
Acreage
1980
8
NA
1981
13
2,650
1982
6
NA
1983
11
2,163
1984
13
12,882
Douglas County
41
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 3-2. Summary of Reported Fire History
Data 1980-2003
Year
Number of Fire
Ignitions
Total Fire
Acreage
1985
8
10
1986
9
2
1987
19
61
1988
22
577
1989
4
55
1990
19
521
1991
10
2
1992
7
2
1993
3
2
1994
10
10,060
1995
2
0
1996
7
15,197
1997
4
18
1998
3
<1
1999
14
89
2000
17
2,453
2001
10
445
2002
8
813
2003
9
3
236
48,005
TOTAL
Source: Fire history data provided by the
National Interagency Fire Center, Boise,
Idaho. Fire acreage is derived from BLM and
USFS fire perimeter data and specific to fire
acreage within Douglas County.
Douglas County
42
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ignition risks for wildfires fall into two categories: lightning and human caused. In the
Douglas County database, records for 201 fire incidents include the ignition source; 162
were due to natural causes (lightning) and 39 were human caused.
5.3.6.3 Location, Extent, Probability of Future Events
The following information originates from the Nevada Community wildfire Risk/Hazard
Assessment Project, Douglas County. Several excerpts from this document are
incorporated in this portion of the Mitigation Plan.
The Nevada Fire Safe Council contracted with Resource Concepts, Inc. (RCI) to
assemble a project team of experts I the fields of fire behavior and suppression, natural
resource, ecology and geographic information systems (GIS) to complete the assessment
for each Douglas County community listed in the Federal Register.
Five primary factors that affect potential fire hazard were evaluated to develop a
community hazard assessment score: Community design, construction materials,
defensible space, availability and capability of fire suppression resources, and physical
conditions such as the vegetative fuel load and topography. Information on fire
suppression capabilities and responsibilities for Douglas County communities was
obtained through interview with local Fire Chiefs and local agency Fire Management
Officers (state and federal). The fire specialists on the RCI Project team assigned an
ignition risk ration of low, moderate, or high to each community. That rating was based
upon historical ignition patterns, interviews with local fire department personnel,
interviews with state and federal agency fire personnel, field visits to each community,
and the Fire Specialist’s professional judgment based on experience with wildland fire
ignitions in Nevada. The Spooner Lake Unit of Lake Tahoe State Park is located in the
western portions of both Carson City and Douglas County along US Highway 50 in the
southern portion of Lake Tahoe State Park. Because there is no permanent community,
very few structures and no features listed in the National Register of Historic Places
within the State Park, the Risk/hazard assessment was not completed. However, the
Spooner Lake Unit of the State Park is listed as a critical feature potentially at risk.
Existing Bureau of Land Management fuel hazard data for the wildland-urban interface
was evaluated and field-verified by the RCI Project team Wildfire Specialists and Natural
resource specialists.
There is a high to extreme potential for a catastrophic fire event in the wildland-urban
interface areas of Bodie Flats, China Spring, Fish Springs, Genoa, Holbrook Junction,
Job’s Peak Ranch, North Foothill Road Corridor, Pine Nut Creek, Sheridan Acres, Spring
Valley/Double Springs, and Topaz Ranch Estates. These elevated hazard ratings are
attributed to inadequate defensible space, combustible building materials, steep slopes,
and moderate to extreme fuel hazards, often in either volatile pinion-juniper or Jeffrey
pine/bitterbrush fuel types.
Douglas County
43
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Moderate potential for catastrophic fire event in the wildland-urban interface exists for
the communities of Alpine View, Dresslerville, Jacks Valley/Indian Hills, Johnson Lane,
Ruhenstroth, and Topaz Lake. Either reduced fuel hazards or adequate implementation
of defensible space has partially mitigated the potential for a destructive wildfire in these
communities.
There is a low potential for catastrophic fie event in the wildland-urban interface
communities of East Valley Gardnerville, Gardnerville Ranchos and Minden. A
combination of irrigated agricultural lands, adequate defensible space, fire-resistant
construction materials, and a career-staffed fire department within five miles of the
community have mitigated the primary risks and hazards associated with wildfire in these
areas.
In the Lake Tahoe Basin, Cave Rock/Skyland, Elk Point/Zephyr Heights/Round Hill,
Glenbrook, Kingsbury, and Logan Shoals were rated high to potential ignition risk with a
heavy vegetative fuel load and at least a high fire hazard rating. Chimney Rock scored an
extreme fire hazard rating and Stateline scored a moderate rating.
Based on the historical data depicted on Table 3-2, Douglas County can expect
approximately 23 fire ignitions annually.
5.3.6.4 Summary
The County Commission has actively worked to increase wildfire response capabilities in
the County through installation of static water tanks and additional firefighting personnel.
The County Commission must consider necessary modification to existing Master Plan,
Open Space Plan and County Building Code (Title 20) to reduce risk due to wildfire.
5.4
Asset inventory
The third step in the risk assessment process is the identification of assets that may be
affected by hazard events. Assets identified for the risk assessment include population,
buildings, and critical facilities and infrastructure that may be affected by hazard events.
The assets identified are discussed in detail below. Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide a
complete list of assets and insurance or replacement values where applicable.
5.4.1
Population and Building Stock
Population data were obtained from the certified 2001 to 2003 Estimated Population NV Dept. of Taxation and NV State Demographers, NSBDC-UNR. The estimated
population for 2005 was 50,000. Population density throughout the planning area is
shown in Appendix B, Figure B-11.
Estimated numbers of residential and nonresidential buildings and replacement values for
those structures, shown in Table 5-3, were obtained through spatial analysis of Assessor
Data and GIS Data. 100 percent of the residential buildings were considered in this
analysis, including single-family dwellings, mobile homes, multi-family dwellings,
Douglas County
44
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
temporary lodgings, institutional dormitory facilities, and nursing homes. 100 percent of
the nonresidential buildings in the entire planning area were also analyzed, including
industry, retail and wholesale trade, personal and repair services, professional and
technical services, religious centers, entertainment and recreational facilities, theaters,
and parking facilities. The Planning Committee understands the approach of 100 percent
losses is not realistic, but will include a more comprehensive and realistic risk exposure
in the next iteration of this plan.
Table 5-3
Estimated Population and Building Inventory
Population
Residential Buildings
Nonresidential Buildings
2005
Total Value of
Total Value of
Total Building
Total Building
Estimated
Buildings
Buildings
Count
Count
Population
(Millions of $)
(Millions of $)
Count
Community
Douglas
County
50,000
22,685
3,569.9
1227
1,276.0
Source: Population - Certified 2001 to 2003 Estimated Population - NV Dept. of Taxation and NV State Demographer, NSBDC-UNR
Source: Building count and value taken from updated Douglas County GIS Department and Assessor database.
5.4.2
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
A critical facility is defined as a public or private facility that provides essential products
and services to the general public, such as preserving the quality of life in the planning
area and fulfilling important public safety, emergency response, and disaster recovery
functions. Similar to critical facilities; critical infrastructure is defined as infrastructure
that is essential to preserving the quality of life and safety within the planning area.
Douglas County’s critical facilities and infrastructure are listed in Table 5-4 and shown in
Appendix B, Figure B-10.
Table 5-4
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Category
Facilities
Douglas County
Type
Sheriff
Stations/Substations
/EOC
Number
Estimated Value Per
Structure/Mile
5
$15,571,231
Fire Stations
17
$599,972
Public Primary and
Secondary Schools
13
$8,452,058
Hospitals / Urgent
Care Facilities
4
$7,040,365
Communication
Facilities*
3
$300,000
45
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
Category
Infrastructure
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type
State and Federal
*Highways (miles)
Number
Estimated Value Per
Structure/Mile
100
$100,000,000
Airport Facilities
1
$66,000,000
Bridges**
32
$1,906,250
Railways
0
Bus
0
* Source 2003 HAZUS data base
** Source Douglas County GIS and Nevada Department of Transportation
5.5
Vulnerability Assessment
The fourth step of the risk assessment, and its primary intent, is the vulnerability
assessment. This section includes an overview of the vulnerability assessment,
methodology, data limitations, and exposure analysis.
5.5.1
Overview of a Vulnerability Assessment
The requirements for a risk assessment, as stipulated in the DMA 2000 and its
implementing regulations, are described below.

A summary of the community’s vulnerability to each hazard that addresses the impact
of each hazard on the community.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Overview
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to
the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of
each hazard and its impact on the community.
Element
 Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard?
 Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?
Source:

FEMA, March 2004.
An identification of the types and numbers of existing vulnerable buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities and, if possible, the types and numbers of
vulnerable future development.
DMA 2000 Recommendations: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Identifying Structures
Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of
existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area.
Element
Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and
Douglas County
46
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
DMA 2000 Recommendations: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Identifying Structures
critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
Source:

FEMA, March 2004.
Estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures and the methodology used
to prepare the estimate.
DMA 2000 Recommendations: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Estimating Potential Losses
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential
dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the
methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Element
 Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?
 Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?
Source:

FEMA, March 2004.
Present risk assessment information for the general planning area as well as the
particular jurisdiction in which a hazard may occur.
DMA 2000 Recommendations: Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment
Assessing Vulnerability: Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): [For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s
risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
5.5.2
Methodology
The methodology used to prepare the dollar estimates for vulnerability is described
below. Potential dollar losses are summarized in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 below.
A realistic exposure-level analysis was conducted to assess the risks of the identified
hazards. Douglas County’s Geographical Information System was employed to provide a
realistic analysis of any natural hazards and the damage related to commercial and
residential property. Hazard areas were determined using information provided by the
EPA, FEMA, HAZUS, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, and the NWS. This
analysis is a simplified assessment of the potential effects of the hazard on values at risk
without consideration of probability or level of damage.
Using the GIS parcel data layer, the parcels of all commercial and residential facilities
were compared, or overlaid, to the geographical boundaries of the various hazards
boundaries that are likely to occur in Douglas County. If any portion of the parcel
overlapped, or fell within the hazard boundary, it was counted as impacted. Only
Douglas County
47
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
residential parcels that have dwelling units on them were considered for this report.
Commercial parcels that fell into the categories of agricultural deferred (does not include
federal leased land) or agricultural deferred with residence were not considered under the
commercial analyses. Agricultural parcels with dwelling units were considered part of
the residential base when conducting this analysis. Commercial or residential parcels
where any portion of the property is overlapping or adjacent to the hazard were
determined to be vulnerable and were totaled by count. Earthquake risk assessment data
came from the 2003 HAZUS report that simulated a 100-year event with a magnitude of
6.7. The Flood Zone assessment used the 100-year flood zone as a basis for analysis. No
data was available at this time for the Extremely Hazardous Substances, Drought, or
Land Subsidence. The Thunderstorm area was deemed to cover all of Douglas County.
Wildland Fire Areas consist of all areas outside the Carson Valley area that have roofing
material controls and are situated in a forested area. The high Winter Storm and high
Windstorm areas consisted of the Lake Tahoe and Sierra Range portion of the county,
while the rest of the county was categorized in the moderate Winter Strom and
Windstorm Areas. A spatial analysis was also employed to determine the amount of
linear assets, such as highways and bridges, within a hazard area. The exposure analysis
for linear assets was measured in miles. The drought analysis was not completed for this
risk assessment due to lack of information and or data.
Replacement values, by parcel, were developed for physical assets and were obtained
from the Assessor’s database. Parcels that did not have specific values per building in a
multi-building scenario (e.g., schools, airport, or fire stations); the buildings were
grouped together and assigned one value. For each physical asset located within a hazard
area, exposure was calculated by assuming the worst-case scenario (that is, the asset
would be completely destroyed and would have to be replaced). Finally, the aggregate
exposure, in terms of replacement value for each category of structure or facility was
calculated.
A similar analysis was created to evaluate the amount of population at risk. Through
rough analysis, there are approximately 2.204 people per dwelling unit. When total
parcels for each category was calculated, multiply by 2.204 to figure out the number of
people that are affected. However, the analysis simply represents the number of people at
risk; no estimate of the number of potential injuries or death was prepared.
5.5.3
Data Limitations
The vulnerability estimates provided herein use the best data currently available, and the
methodologies applied result in an approximation of risk. These estimates may be used to
understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. However, uncertainties are
inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific
knowledge concerning hazards and their effects on the built environment, as well as
approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis.
Douglas County
48
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
The resulting analysis was complied to the highest degree possible with the hardware,
software and data availability limitations discovered during plan preparation.
Vulnerability assessment results are limited to the exposure of people, buildings, and
critical facilities and infrastructure to a hazard. It was beyond the scope of this HMP to
develop a more detailed or comprehensive assessment of risk (including annualized
losses, people injured or killed, shelter requirements, loss of facility/system function, and
economic losses). Such impacts may be addressed with future updates of the Douglas
County HMP.
5.5.4
Exposure Analysis
The results of the exposure analysis are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 and in the
discussion below.
There are currently 22,685 residential parcels that contain dwelling units and 1,227
parcels that are categorized as commercial. These parcels are the subject of this risk
assessment and are located within Douglas County. For each separate hazard, parcel
maps were compared to hazard boundaries using GIS software. The parcels that fell
within a hazard area were totaled by count and replacement values. Land Subsidence,
Drought, and Extremely Hazardous Substances data were not available at this time.
The Critical Facilities Assessment uses the same criteria for analysis. Affected parcels
were totaled along with replacement costs. The Ambulance Facilities data shows no
value due to the fact that all Ambulances are dispatched directly from one of the 17 area
Fire Stations; therefore the value is included with the Fire Station Value.
Douglas County
49
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 5-1
Potential Hazard Vulnerability Assessment - Population and Buildings
Hazard
Police Stations
Value
Number
($)1
Fire Stations
Value
Number
($)1
EOC's
Value
Number
($)1
Urgent Care
Facilities
Value
Number
($)1
Schools
Value
Number
($)1
Communication
Fac.
Value
Number
($)1
Ambulance Fac.2
Value
Number
($)1
Drought
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Earthquake - 100yr Magnitude 6.70
2
15.1
17
10.2
1
0.4
4
28.2
13
109.9
1
0.4
10
N/A
Flood - 100-Year Flood Zone
0
0.0
3
1.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
7.3
0
0.0
3
0.0
HM Event - 1-mile radius Extremely Hazardous Substances
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HM Event - 1-mile radius Hazardous Facilities
2
15.1
12
8.4
1
0.4
4
28.2
13
109.9
1
0.4
7
0.0
HM Event - 1-mile buffer transport corridors
2
15.1
9
6.7
1
0.4
4
28.2
8
70.6
1
0.4
6
0.0
Thunderstorms
2
15.1
17
10.2
1
0.4
4
28.2
13
109.9
1
0.4
10
0.0
Wildland Fires – Extreme
1
7.0
13
7.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
3
24.5
0
0.0
8
0.0
Windstorms – High
1
7.0
4
4.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
2
19.1
0
0.0
4
0.0
Windstorms – Moderate
1
8.2
13
6.2
1
0.4
2
13.3
11
90.8
1
0.4
6
0.0
Winter Storms – High
1
7.0
4
4.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
2
19.1
0
0.0
4
0.0
Winter Storms – Moderates
1
8.2
13
6.2
1
0.4
2
13.3
11
90.8
1
0.4
6
0.0
Land Subsidence
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
VALUE = Replacement Value in Millions of Dollars
N/A = Not Applicable
2
Ambulance Facilities: All Ambulance facilities are combined with area Fire Stations, where they are dispatched from, therefore the value of the Ambulance Facilities is figured in with the Fire Station Value.
Douglas County
50
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 5-2
Potential Hazard Vulnerability Assessment - Critical Facilities
Police Stations
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
2
15.1
0
0.0
Fire Stations
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
17
10.2
3
1.3
EOC's
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
1
0.4
0
0.0
Urgent Care
Facilities
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
4
28.2
0
0.0
Schools
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
13
109.9
1
7.3
Communication
Fac.
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
1
0.4
0
0.0
Hazard
Drought
Earthquake - 100yr Magnitude 6.70
Flood - 100-Year Flood Zone
HM Event - 1-mile radius Extremely
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hazardous Substances
HM Event - 1-mile radius
Hazardous Facilities
2
15.1
12
8.4
1
0.4
4
28.2
13
109.9
1
0.4
7
0.0
HM Event - 1-mile buffer transport
2
15.1
9
6.7
1
0.4
4
28.2
8
70.6
1
0.4
6
0.0
corridors
Thunderstorms
2
15.1
17
10.2
1
0.4
4
28.2
13
109.9
1
0.4
10
0.0
Wildland Fires - Extreme
1
7.0
13
7.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
3
24.5
0
0.0
8
0.0
Windstorms - High
1
7.0
4
4.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
2
19.1
0
0.0
4
0.0
Windstorms - Moderate
1
8.2
13
6.2
1
0.4
2
13.3
11
90.8
1
0.4
6
0.0
Winter Storms - High
1
7.0
4
4.0
0
0.0
2
14.9
2
19.1
0
0.0
4
0.0
Winter Storms - Moderates
1
8.2
13
6.2
1
0.4
2
13.3
11
90.8
1
0.4
6
0.0
Land Subsidence
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
VALUE = Replacement Value in Millions of Dollars
N/A = Not Applicable
2
Ambulance Facilities: All Ambulance facilities are combined with area Fire Stations, where they are dispatched from, therefore the value of the Ambulance Facilities is figured in with the
Fire Station Value.
Douglas County
51
2/26/2009
2
Ambulance Fac.
Value
1
Number
($)
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
3
0.0
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION FIVE
5.5.5
RISK ASSESSMENT
Future Development
Annex B, Figure B-12 (also titled Table 5-7) shows the future growth projection in
Douglas County. All of the county’s receiving areas are mapped out and highlighted.
These receiving areas are designated for future housing developments and are an
indicator of future growth. There are approximately 4,735 acres designated for future
growth as of Jan. 1, 2006. Based upon this information, Douglas County Planning
Department expects the development of approximately 28,000 new homes in the future (6
homes per acre of receiving area). The annual rate of growth is approximately 4.5% (NV
State Demographer). All of the receiving areas lie in the valley and is in close proximity
to the existing population and infrastructure. All of the proposed developments will be
susceptible to the following hazards; Earthquakes, Moderate Wind and Winter Storms,
Thunderstorms, and Moderate Wild Land Fires. A small percentage of these homes will
be located in the 100-year flood zone.
Douglas County
52
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SIX
Section 6:
6.1
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Capability Assessment
Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
The County currently supports hazard mitigation through its regulations, plans, and
programs. The Douglas County Code Title 20 outlines hazard mitigation-related
ordinances. Additionally, the Douglas County Master Plan identifies goals, objectives,
and actions for natural hazards, including floods, drought, and earthquakes. In addition to
policies and regulations, the County carries out hazard mitigation activities by
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and has the Open Space
and Agricultural Lands Preservation Implementation Plan.
The following table, Table 6-1, summarizes the County’s hazard mitigation legal and
regulatory capabilities.
Table 6-1
Legal and Regulatory Resources Available for Hazard Mitigation
Regulatory
Tool
Title
Douglas County: Master Plan Update-
Effect on Hazard Mitigation
Lists goals, objectives, and policies to guide
land use planning and recommendations for
amending the existing zoning code. This plan
is divided into 13 Chapters, including:
Regional Community Plans, Growth
Management, Land Use and Conservation
Element...
Douglas County Open Space and
Agricultural Lands Preservation
Implementation Plan
This plan provides the framework by which
the County may pursue more specific actions
to preserve agricultural lands and open
space.
Programs
National Flood Insurance Program
Douglas County adopts and enforces a
floodplain management ordinance to reduce
future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP
makes Federally backed flood insurance
available to homeowners, renters, and
business owners in the County.
Ordinances
and
Policies
Douglas County Code Title 20
Outlines regulations within zoning districts,
variances, and consolidated development
standards in the County.
Plans
6.2
Administrative and Technical Capabilities
The administrative and technical capability assessment identifies the staff and personnel
resources available within the County to engage in mitigation planning and carry out
mitigation projects. The administrative and technical capabilities of the County are listed
in Table 6-2.
Douglas County
53
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SIX
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Table 6-2
Administrative and Technical Resources for Hazard Mitigation
Staff/Personnel Resources
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land
development and land management practices
Department / Agency
Community Development, Planning
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction
practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure
Community Development
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an understanding of
manmade or natural hazards
Community Development
Floodplain manager
Community Development Director
Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS-MH
Yes
Emergency Services
Emergency Management
Finance (grant writers, purchasing)
Yes
Public Information Officers
6.3
Sheriff’s Office
Financial Capabilities
The fiscal capability assessment lists the specific financial and budgetary tools that are
available to the County for hazard mitigation activities. These capabilities, which are
listed in Table 6-3, include both local and Federal entitlements.
Table 6-3
Financial Resources for Hazard Mitigation
Financial Resources
Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes
Effect on Hazard Mitigation
Yes. Upon approval of the Douglas County Board of
County Commissioners, staying within the stipulations
set forth in the Nevada Revised Statues.
Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees,
Assigns impact development fees to finance fire and
flood control capital improvement programs.
Incur debt through general obligation bonds
Yes. Upon approval of the Douglas County Board of
County Commissioners, staying within the stipulations
set forth in the Nevada Revised Statues.
Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds
Yes. Upon approval of the Douglas County Board of
County Commissioners, staying within the stipulations
set forth in the Nevada Revised Statues.
Incur debt through private activity bonds
Yes. Upon approval of the Douglas County Board of
County Commissioners, staying within the stipulations
set forth in the Nevada Revised Statues.
FEMA HMPG and PDM grants
Provides technical and financial assistance for costeffective pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation
activities that reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and
destruction of property.
Douglas County
54
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
The following provides an overview of the four-step process for preparing a mitigation
strategy: developing mitigation goals and objectives, identifying and analyzing potential
actions, prioritizing mitigation actions, and implementing an action plan.
Section 7:
7.1
Mitigation Strategy
Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The requirements for the local hazard mitigation goals, as stipulated in the DMA 2000
and its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy – Local Hazard Mitigation Goals
Local Hazard Mitigation Goals
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Element
 Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the
identified hazards? (GOALS are long-term; represent what the community wants to achieve, such as “eliminate
flood damage”; and are based on the risk assessment findings.)
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
During June of 2003 the Planning Committee reviewed the hazard profiles and initial risk
assessment results as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation
goals are defined as general guidelines that explain what a community wants to achieve
in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policyoriented statements representing community-wide visions. Objectives are statements that
detail how a community’s goals will be achieved. Typically, objectives define strategies
or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Using the local planning documents as
guidelines, the Planning Committee and consultant developed eleven goals with
associated objectives to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified
hazards.
7.2
Potential Mitigation Actions
The requirements for the identification and analysis of mitigation actions, as stipulated in
the DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive
range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis
on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Element
 Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
Douglas County
55
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions


Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure?
Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
In addition to developing goals and objectives, the Planning Committee created a list of
potential mitigation actions. Mitigation actions are activities, measures, or projects that
help achieve the goals and objectives of a mitigation plan. Mitigation actions are usually
grouped into six broad categories: prevention, property protection, public education and
awareness, natural resource protection, emergency services, and structural projects.
The Planning Committee and consultant reviewed the County’s hazard mitigation
capabilities and risk assessment as a basis for developing potential mitigation actions. In
addition, particular emphasis was placed on actions that reduced the effects of hazards on
both new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
7.3
Overview of the Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Potential Actions
Listed below are the County’s specific hazard mitigation goals and objectives as well as
related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that
provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the County has identified a range
of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal.
Goal 1. Promote disaster-resistant development.
Objective 1.A Ensure that the County’s planning tools to be consistent with the
hazard information identified in the HMP.
Action 1.A.1 Update the Douglas County Master Plan, Open
Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation
Implementation Plan and County Title 20 to be
consistent with the hazard area maps and
implementation strategies developed in the HMP.
Objective 1.B Pursue available grant funding to implement mitigation measures.
Action 1.B.1 Apply for PDM and HMGP grants to fund
mitigation actions identified in this HMP.
Action 1.B.2 Research State and Local entities with resources to
leverage new and existing funding (University of
Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension, Carson River
Water Sub conservancy District, and Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency).
Douglas County
56
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Goal 2. Build and support local capacity to enable the public to prepare for, respond
to, and recover from disasters.
Objective 2.A Educate County officials, department heads and emergency
response personnel about the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Action 2.A.1 Develop and provide presentation and/or
information about the hazard mitigation program
and this plan for distribution during meetings.
Objective 2.B Improve upon existing capabilities to warn the public of
emergency situations to include the education of the public about
the warning systems.
Action 2.B.1 Develop emergency evacuation programs for
neighborhoods in flood prone areas and wildland
fire areas by increasing the public awareness about
the evacuation programs.
Action 2.B.2 Add rain gages to existing warning system...
Objective 2.C Educate the public to increase their awareness of hazards,
emergency response, and recovery.
Action 2.C.1 Establish a budget and identify funding sources for
mitigation outreach to include all the identified
hazards (flood, earthquake, wildland fire, severe
weather, avalanche and landslides).
Action 2.C.2 Work with school districts to develop a public
outreach campaign that teaches children how to
avoid danger and behave during an emergency.
Action 2.C.3 Support the efforts and education of people with
disabilities to prepare for disasters.
Action 2.C.4 Distribute appropriate public information about
hazard mitigation programs and projects at Countysponsored events.
Goal 3. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to Natural Hazards.
Objective 3.A Protect existing assets, as well as any future development, from the
effects of an avalanche.
Action 3.A.1 Develop and adopt a development ordinance that
may stipulate building and landscaping
requirements in the avalanche prone area.
Objective 3.B Protect existing assets, as well as any future development, from the
effects of an earthquake.
Douglas County
57
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Action 3.B.1 Survey the public buildings to determine the need
for structural retrofit of critical facilities.
Action 3.B.2 Survey the public buildings to determine the need
for non-structural retrofit of critical facilities.
Action 3.B.3 Work with Nevada Earthquake Safety Council in
the compliance of the Nevada Earthquake
Mitigation plan goals and objectives.
Objective 3.C Protect existing assets, as well as any future development, from the
effects of a flood.
Action 3.C.1 Continue to strictly enforce the County’s building
code Title 20, the Open Space Plan and the Master
Development Plan.
Action 3.C.2 Support the efforts of the Carson Valley Water Sub
conservancy District in issues within the County’s
jurisdiction regarding development in the Carson
River Basin.
Action 3.C.3 Acquire Repetitive Loss Properties within the
County.
Objective 3.D Protect existing assets, as well as any future development, from the
effects of a landslide.
Action 3.D.1 Develop and adopt a development ordinance that
may stipulate building and landscaping
requirements in the landslide prone area.
Objective 3.E Protect existing assets, as well as any future development, from the
effects of severe weather.
Action 3.E.1
Install/maintain lightning detection systems and
rods for public outdoor venues and critical facilities.
Action 3.E.2 Develop an annual free curb-side dead tree and
branch removal pick-up program to protect
structures from a thunderstorm/lightning/wind
event.
Action 3.E.3 Continue to enforce and update the Building Code
provisions pertaining to construction relative to
snow and wind resistance.
Objective 3.F Protect existing assets, as well as new development, from wildland
fires.
Action 3.F.1 Review, update and enforce the Master Plan, Open
Space plan and building codes related to defensible
space requirements for new development.
Douglas County
58
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Action 3.F.2 Develop a curb-side dead tree and weed removal
pick-up program.
Action 3.F.3 Work with Nevada Division of Forestry, Nevada
Division of State Lands, Bureau of Land
Management and US Forest Service to conduct fuel
reduction project on state and federal property
surrounding each community.
Action Plan
As listed above, the Planning Committee identified potential mitigation actions that will
assist the County in mitigating the impact of natural hazards. The DMA 2000 requires the
evaluation, selection, and prioritization of the potential mitigation actions, as described
below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Implementation of Mitigation Actions
Implementation of Mitigation Actions
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the
actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction.
Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost
benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Element
 Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the
process and criteria used?)
 Does the mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered? (For example,
does it identify the responsible department, existing and potential resources, and timeframe?)
 Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36 of MultiHazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to maximize benefits?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The Planning Committee reviewed the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal,
Economic and Environmental feasibility of each of the identified actions (STAPLEE) to
help identify the actions that would best help the County fulfill its mitigation goals and
objectives, thereby reducing or avoiding long-term vulnerabilities to the identified
hazards.
Through this process, the Planning Committee prioritized the actions based on the
scoring. The STAPLEE scores are shown in Table 7-1 below.
Additionally, the Planning Committee identified how the action will be implemented and
administered, including which departments or agencies would be responsible, existing
and potential funding sources, and time frame. The final action plan is outlined in Table
7-2.
Douglas County
59
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-1
DOUGLAS COUNTY STAPLEEE RESULTS
STAPLEE Parameters (Scale 1=worst to 5=best)
Technical Administrative Political Legal Economic
Environmental
TOTAL
5
5
35
5
5
5
35
5
5
5
5
33
3
5
5
5
5
33
4
3
4
5
5
5
31
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
31
2.C.2
5
4
3
4
4
5
5
30
3.C.2
5
4
3
4
4
5
5
30
2.C.3
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
29
3.B.1
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
29
3.E.2
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
29
3.C.3
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
29
3.F.1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
28
1.B.1
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
27
1.B.2
5
4
2
3
4
4
4
26
1.A.1
5
4
3
1
2
4
4
23
3.B.3
5
3
2
3
3
2
5
23
3.D.1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
3.E.1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
3.E.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
3.F.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
3.F.2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
3.A.1
2
4
3
2
2
2
5
20
3.C.1
2
4
2
2
2
2
5
19
ID
Social
2.C.4
5
5
5
5
5
3.B.2
5
5
5
5
2.C.1
5
5
3
2.A.1
5
5
2.B.1
5
2.B.2
Douglas County
60
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
ID
2.C.4
3.B.2
Activity
Distribute appropriate public information
about hazard mitigation programs and
projects at County sponsored events
Survey the public buildings to determine
the need for non-structural retrofit of
critical facilities
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-2
Implementation Strategy
Funding
Source(s)
Lead Agency
County Emergency
General Fund and
Management, Fire
federal grants/
Districts
existing staff
Completion
Date
Critical Interim or Pilot Activities
2010
-Research acquisition of appropriate
brochures
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2010
-Research Project impact work completed
2.C.1
Establish Budget and identify funding
sources for mitigation outreach to
include all the identified hazards
County Emergency
Management
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2009
-Find existing PIO possibilities, grant funding
2.A.1
Develop and provide presentation and/or
information about the hazard mitigation
program and this plan for distribution
during meetings
County Emergency
Management
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2007
-Commission meetings, staff meetings, etc.
2.B.1
Enhance emergency evacuation
programs for neighborhoods in flood
prone area and wildland fire area s by
increasing the public awareness about
the evacuation programs
County Emergency
Management, Sheriff's
Office
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2008
-Find funding sources
2.B.2
Add rain gages to existing warning
system
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2008
-Find funding sources
Douglas County
61
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
ID
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-2
Implementation Strategy
Funding
Source(s)
Lead Agency
Activity
Completion
Date
Critical Interim or Pilot Activities
2.C.2
Work with school districts to develop a
public outreach campaign that teaches
children how to avoid danger and behave
during an emergency
County Emergency
Management
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2008
-Meet with school district board
3.C.2
Support the efforts of the Carson Valley
Water Sub conservancy District in issues
within the County’s jurisdiction
regarding development in the Carson
River Basin.
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2007
Meet with Executive Director to discuss
current funding sources
2.C.3
Support the efforts and education of
people with disabilities to prepare for
disasters.
County Emergency
Management
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2007
Find Points of Contact
3.B.1
Survey the public buildings to determine
the need for structural retrofit of critical
facilities
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2009
-Research Project Impact work completed
3.E.2
Develop an annual free curb-side dead
tree and branch removal pick-up
program to protect structures from a
thunderstorm/lightning/wind event.
County Emergency
Management, Fire
Districts
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2009
-Find similar programs in neighboring
counties.O16
3.C.3
Acquire Repetitive Loss Properties
within the County
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2010
-Discuss with State and local NFIP
coordinators
Douglas County
62
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
ID
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-2
Implementation Strategy
Funding
Source(s)
Lead Agency
Activity
Completion
Date
Critical Interim or Pilot Activities
Review, update and enforce the Master
Plan, Open Space plan and building
codes related to defensible space
requirements for new development
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
1.B.1
Apply for PDM and HMGP grants to
fund mitigation actions identified in this
HMP
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
1.B.2
Research State and Local entities with
resources to leverage new and existing
funding (University of Nevada Reno
Cooperative Extension, Carson River
Water Sub conservancy District, and
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency).
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
on-going
-Discuss with Co. commission
1.A.1
Update the Douglas County Master Plan,
Open Space and Agricultural Lands
Preservation Implementation Plan and
County Title 20 to be consistent with the
hazard area maps and implementation
strategies developed in the HMP
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
On-going
-Discuss with Co. commission
3.B.3
Work with Nevada Earthquake Safety
Council in the compliance of the Nevada
Earthquake Mitigation plan goals and
objectives
County Emergency
Management
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
On-going
3.F.1
Douglas County
63
On-going
2007
2/26/2009
-Have plan approved
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
ID
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-2
Implementation Strategy
Funding
Source(s)
Lead Agency
Activity
Completion
Date
Critical Interim or Pilot Activities
3.D.1
Develop and adopt a development
ordinance that may stipulate building and
landscaping requirements in the landslide
prone area.
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
2015
3.E.1
Install/maintain lightning detection
systems and rods for public outdoor
venues and critical facilities
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2008
3.E.3
Continue to enforce and update the
Building Code provisions pertaining to
construction relative to snow and wind
resistance.
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
On-going
3.F.3
Work with Nevada Division of Forestry,
Nevada Division of State Lands, Bureau
of Land Management and US Forest
Service to conduct fuel reduction project
on state and federal property surrounding
each community.
County Emergency
Management, Fire
Districts
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
On-going
Research funding sources
3.F.2
Develop a curb-side dead tree and weed
removal pick-up program
County Emergency
Management, Fire
Districts
General Fund and
federal grants/
existing staff
2008
Research funding sources
Douglas County
64
2/26/2009
-Find funding sources, research and prioritize
locations
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION SEVEN
ID
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TABLE 7-2
Implementation Strategy
Funding
Source(s)
Lead Agency
Activity
Completion
Date
3.A.1
Develop and adopt a development
ordinance that may stipulate building and
landscaping requirements in the
avalanche prone area.
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
2015
3.C.1
Continue to strictly enforce the County’s
building code Title 20, the Open Space
Plan and the Master Development Plan
County Emergency
Management,
Community Development
General
Fund/Existing
staff
On-going
Douglas County
65
2/26/2009
Critical Interim or Pilot Activities
Research similar ordinances
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION EIGHT
PLAN MAINTENANCE
This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the HMP remains
an active and applicable document. It includes an explanation of how the County and the
Planning Task Force intend to organize their efforts to ensure that improvements and
revisions to the HMP occur in a well-managed, efficient, and coordinated manner.
Section 8:
Plan Maintenance
The following three process steps are addressed in detail below:

Monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP

Implementation through existing planning mechanisms

Continued public involvement
8.1
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the HMP
The requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP, as stipulated in the
DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and
schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Element

Does the plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for monitoring and include a schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and meetings?)

Does the plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for evaluating the plan and include the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)

Does the plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The HMP was prepared as a collaborative effort between the Planning Committee and the
Consultant. To maintain momentum and build upon previous hazard mitigation planning
efforts and successes, the County will use the Planning Committee and the Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) to monitor, evaluate, and update the HMP. In
addition to the original members of the Planning Task Force, other interested parties,
including members of the County Commissioners and any other department
representative, can be responsible for implementing the HMP’s action plan. Harry Raub,
the Planning Committee leader, will serve as the primary point of contact and will
coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and revise the HMP.
The Planning Committee and LEPC will conduct an annual review of the progress in
implementing the HMP, particularly the action plan. The annual review will provide the
basis for possible changes in the HMP’s action plan by refocusing on new or more
threatening hazards, adjusting to changes to or increases in resource allocations, and
engaging additional support for the HMP implementation. The Planning Committee
Douglas County
66
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION EIGHT
PLAN MAINTENANCE
leader will initiate the annual review one month prior to the date of adoption. The
findings from this review will be presented annually to the Board of Commissioners. The
review will include an evaluation of the following:

Notable changes in the County’s risk of natural or human-caused hazards.

Impacts of land development activities and related programs on hazard mitigation.

Progress made with the HMP action plan (identify problems and suggest
improvements as necessary).

The adequacy of resources for implementation of the HMP.

Participation of County agencies and others in the HMP implementation.
In addition to the annual review, the Planning Committee will update the HMP every five
years. To ensure that this occurs, in the fourth year following adoption of the HMP, the
Planning Committee will undertake the following activities:

Thoroughly analyze and update the County’s risk of natural and man-made hazards.

Provide a new annual review (as noted above), plus a review of the three previous
annual reports.

Provide a detailed review and revision of the mitigation strategy.

Prepare a new action plan with prioritized actions, responsible parties, and resources.

Prepare a new draft HMP and submit it to the Board of Commissioners for adoption.

Submit an updated HMP to the Nevada DEM.
8.2
Implementation through Existing Planning Mechanisms
The requirements for implementation through existing planning mechanisms, as
stipulated in the DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the
requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement
plans, when appropriate.
Element

Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the requirements of the
mitigation plan?

Does the plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the requirements in other plans,
when appropriate?
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
Douglas County
67
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION EIGHT
PLAN MAINTENANCE
After the adoption of the HMP, the Planning Committee will ensure that the HMP, in
particular the action plan, is incorporated into existing planning mechanisms. The
Planning Committee will achieve this by undertaking the following activities.

Conduct a review of the regulatory tools to assess the integration of the mitigation
strategy. These regulatory tools are identified in Section 6 and include:

Douglas County Master Plan

Douglas County Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation Implementation
Plan

Douglas County Code Title 20

Work with pertinent divisions and departments to increase awareness of the HMP and
provide assistance in integrating the mitigation strategy (including the action plan)
into relevant planning mechanisms. Implementation of these requirements may
require updating or amending specific planning mechanisms.
8.3
Continued Public Involvement
The requirements for continued public involvement, as stipulated in the DMA 2000 and
its implementing regulations, are described below.
DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Continued Public Involvement
Continued Public Involvement
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community
will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
Element

Does the plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? (For example, will there be public
notices, an ongoing mitigation plan Task Force, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?)
Source:
FEMA, March 2004.
The County is dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and
updating of the HMP. Hard copies of the HMP will be provided to each department. In
addition, a downloadable copy of the plan and any proposed changes will be posted on
the County’s Web site. This site will also contain an e-mail address and phone number to
which interested parties may direct their comments or concerns.
The Planning Committee will also identify opportunities to raise community awareness
about the HMP and the County’s hazards. This could include attendance and provision of
materials at County-sponsored events. Any public comments received regarding the HMP
will be collected by the Planning Committee leader, included in the annual report to the
Board of Commissioners, and considered during future HMP updates.
Douglas County
68
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION NINE
Section 9:
REFERENCES
References
Summary of existing plan and study documents for DOUGLAS COUNTY
Plan/Study Name
Description
Plan/Study Author
Date
Completed
or
Implemented
Plan/Study Owner
Open lands and
agricultural protection
committee.
2000
County Emergency Operations
Plan
Delineates the process to purchase or transfer
development rights to maintain the agricultural
and rural characteristics of the region.
Plan outlining emergency response within
Douglas County.
Douglas County
2000
Douglas County Master Plan
Development plan for Douglas County
Douglas County
2000
Moment Tensor Solutions of the
1994-1996 Double Spring Flat,
Nevada Earthquake and
Implications for Local Tectonic
Models.
Location and mechanism of this earthquake and
its aftershock sequence to understand the role of
the sequence in the regional tectonics.
Gene Ichinose, Kenneth
Smith, John Anderson
1998
University of Nevada Reno
(UNR)
Planning Scenario for Major
Earthquake in Western Nevada
Detailed analysis of the plausible consequences of
a hypothetical magnitude 7.1 earthquake along
the northern Carson Range front in the RenoCarson City area.
Craig DePolo, Jim Rigby
1996
UNR
This report discusses the flooding and resultant
damages along the Truckee, Carson, and Walker
Rivers and their tributaries in January 1997. The
extent of flooding is shown in several full-color
maps, and there are numerous color and blackand-white photos of these floods and the damages
they caused.
by Jim G. Rigby, E.
James Crompton, Kate A.
Berry, Unal Yildirim,
Scott F. Hickman, and
David A. Davis
1998
UNR-BMG
Open Space Plan
Special Publication 23
The 1997 New Year's Floods in
Western Nevada
Douglas County
69
2/26/2009
Douglas County
Douglas County Emergency
Management
Douglas County Community
Development.
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION NINE
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., and J. Price. 2000. New FEMA Study Estimates U.S. Losses from Earthquakes at $4.4 Billion per Year.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/htdocs/pressreleases/fema.html...
County of Douglas. 2005. Douglas County Code Title 20. http://cocode.co.douglas.nv.us/T20TOC.htm. Accessed November 12.
FEMA1999, 2000, 2005. Flood Insurance Study: Douglas County, Nevada...
FEMA. 2001. How-To Guide #2: Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and Estimating Loss Potential. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-2.
http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc3.shtm.
FEMA. 2002a. 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206, RIN 3067-AD22, Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,
Interim Final Rule. In Federal Register 67, No. 38. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/fr02_4321.pdf.
FEMA. 2002b. State and Local Plan Interim Criteria under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 – Final Draft. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc4.shtm.
FEMA. 2002c. How-To Guide #1: Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-1. http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc5.shtm.
FEMA. 2002d. How-To Guide #7: Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-7.
FEMA. 2002e. 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206, RIN 3067-AD22, Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,
Interim Final Rule. In Federal Register 67, no. 190. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/fr02_24998.pdf.
FEMA. 2003a. How-To Guide #3: Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies. U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-3.
FEMA. 2003b. How-To Guide #4: Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-4.
National Weather Service. 2005. What is the Monsoon? http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/monsoon.php?wfo=fgz. Accessed
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology website. 2005. http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/eqprob/eqprob.htm. .
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. 2000. Living with Earthquakes: A Nevadan’s Guide to Preparing for, Surviving, and
Recovering from an Earthquake. Special Publication.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Map. Earthquakes in Nevada 1852-1908
www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/m119.pdf
Douglas County Master Plan. http://cocode.co.douglas.nv.us/mpindex.htm.
Douglas County
70
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
SECTION NINE
REFERENCES
Douglas County Opens Space Plan: http://www.co.douglas.nv.us/about.html. OpenSpacePlan.pdf. Resource Concepts, Inc. 2004.
Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project: Douglas County, Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District.
http://www.rci-nv.com/reports.asp.
United States Census Bureau. 2000. American Fact Finder Fact Sheet. http://factfinder.census.gov.
Douglas County Nevada. Wikipedia website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_County,_Nevada.
National Climatic Data Center website. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm.
Douglas County
71
2/26/2009
Douglas County Natural Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX A
Adoption Resolution
Resolution #
WHEREAS Douglas County has historically experienced severe damage from natural
and human-caused hazards such as flooding, wildfire, drought, thunderstorms/high
winds, and hazardous materials incidents on many occasions in the past century, resulting
in loss of property and life, economic hardship, and threats to public health and safety;
WHEREAS the Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan (the Plan) has been developed
after more than one year of research and work by the County’s Office of Emergency
Management in association and cooperation with the County Planning Team for the
reduction of hazard risk to the community;
WHERAS the Plan specifically addresses hazard mitigation strategies and plan
maintenance procedures for Douglas County;
WHEREAS the Plan recommends several hazard mitigation actions/projects that will
provide mitigation for specific natural and human caused hazards that impact Douglas
County, with the effect of protecting people and property from loss associated with those
hazards;
WHEREAS a public meeting was held to present the Plan for comment and review as
required by law;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the Douglas County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of Douglas County.
2. The respective officials identified in the mitigation strategy of the Plan are hereby
directed to pursue implementation of the recommended actions assigned to them.
3. Future revisions and Plan maintenance required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 and FEMA, are hereby adopted as a part of this resolution for a period of five
(5) years from the date of this resolution.
4. An annual report on the progress of the implementation elements of the Plan shall be
presented to the Douglas County Board of Supervisors by
of each
calendar year.
PASSED by the Douglas County Board of Supervisors this
Name: Kelly Kite, Chair
day of
, 2005.
Date:
Signatures:
Douglas County
72
2/26/2009