Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
I. Title Page (1 page maximum)
Title:
Subtheme this proposal is
responding to
Principal Investigator and
Receiving Institution
Co-Principal Investigator
Agency Collaborator
Agency Collaborator
Agency Collaborator
Agency Collaborator
Grants Contact Person
Funding requested:
Total cost share
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
2a) Roadway and urban stormwater management
(linked to decision support tools)
Michael Hogan
Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc.
PO Box 7559
Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone: 530.581.4377
Fax: 530.581.0359
Email: mhogan@ierstahoe.com
Dr. Mark Grismer
Vadose Zone Hydrology/UC Davis
7311 Occidental Road
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: 530.304.5797
Fax: 530.752.5262
Email: megrismer@ucdavis.edu
Dave Roberts
Tahoe Resource Conservation District
870 Emerald Bay Road, Suite 108
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone: (530) 543-1501
Fax: (530) 543-1579 fax
Email: droberts@tahoercd.org
Woody Loftis
NRCS
870 Emerald Bay Rd STE 108
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6414
Phone: (530) 543-1501
Fax: (530) 543-1579 fax
Email: William.Loftis@ca.usda.gov
Eric Larson
TRPA
PO Box 5310
Stateline, NV 89449
Phone: (775) 589-5200
Fax: (775) 588-4527
Email: elarson@trpa.org
Chief John Pang
Meeks Bay Fire Protection District
P.O. Box 189.
Tahoma, California 96142
Phone: (530) 525-7548
Fax: (530) 581-1458
Email: mbfire@wildblue.net
Kevin Drake
IERS
POB 7559
Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone: 530.581.4377
Fax: 530.581.0359
Email: kdrake@ierstahoe.com
$ 116,219
$ 20,000
1
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
II. Proposal Narrative
a. Project abstract (1 paragraph summary for public distribution)
This project fills a critical information gap identified in the Lake Tahoe Environmental
Improvement Program, discussed briefly in the Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Pollutant Load Opportunity Report and hinted at in nearly every defensible space directive– the
need for practical residential defensible space practices that effectively reduce fire risk and while
controlling erosion and reducing runoff. Unfortunately, current defensible space practices are
tending toward removal of protective soil cover, thus increasing erosion and water quality risk.
This proposed research will identify, study and quantify defensible space practices around homes
that are capable of reducing or eliminating fire risk (as per CA Public Resources Code 4291),
while minimizing erosion, protection water quality, infiltrating stormwater and snowmelt,
reducing runoff and gaining acceptance from fire agencies and homeowners. This research is, in
fact, focused primarily on protecting water quality from poorly thought out defensible space
strategies and perhaps improving water quality protection through implementation of defensible
space practices. We propose to evaluate eight promising soil protection Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for both flammability and erosion control parameters. We will directly
measure both variables and, in coordination with BMP implementation staff, fire districts and
homeowners, will implement the most mutually-effective BMPs at three residences to showcase
defensible space practices that achieve both fire protection and erosion control-water quality
objectives. We anticipate developing the information quickly by leveraging the large existing
database of Tahoe Basin rain simulation data (Grismer and Hogan, 2004-2009; Hogan and
Drake, 2009), projects such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) SNPLMA
Round 9 Area-Wide Conservation Planning Grant, and current cooperation with fire agency
representatives around the Basin through the Fire and Fuels Team. Our results will be developed
such that they can be directly incorporated into TMDL load reduction estimation, tracking and
crediting efforts through the Pollutant Load Reduction Model (PLRM) and the revision of the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) BMP Handbook.
b. Justification statement: explain the relationship between the proposal and the
subtheme(s)
Water quality and clarity linked to development impacts has been an overriding environmental
concern in the Lake Tahoe Basin for at least thirty years. Now, fear over the ever-growing risk of
catastrophic wildfire, as exhibited in the aftermath of the Angora Fire, has begun to drive
management direction for land management and fire protection agencies throughout the Basin. In
an effort to reduce fire risk around homes, fire protection districts have suggested, or require,
removal of all flammable material immediately adjacent to structures. However, that removal of
mulch, duff and vegetation leaves surrounding lands highly vulnerable to accelerated erosion.
Thus, residential lots are likely to once again become major sources of fine sediment and
nutrients in urban upland areas. These practices place upland area practices in direct conflict with
water quality protection goals and the Lake Tahoe TMDL and places a number of stakeholders in
the middle of a potential policy conflict and associated breakdown. We are faced with a
significant policy and management question: “How can we protect urban water quality by
protecting against soil erosion around homes and thus maintain or improve urban water quality
2
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
while providing a fire safe, fire resistant soil surface and other fire safe BMPs?”
A lack of applied research to address this management and policy question has left fire districts
and other resource managers with no defensible alternatives to that of maintaining bare ground
around homes. The need to address this issue is especially important given that urban areas have
been identified as the primary source of fine sediment particle (FSP, <16um) loading in the
Tahoe Basin (Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunities Report, 2008) and TMDL
implementation efforts are being targeted in urban areas to achieve Lake clarity goals. If
integrated treatment strategies are not developed to resolve this issue, TMDL efforts may be
largely overridden by the need to manage fire risk, placing counties and others who will be
tasked with meeting TMDL targets, in a position where they will be unable to meet their
sediment reduction goals. Conversely, by researching fire resistant soil protection practices and
developing data to support effective, multi-objective residential BMPs, counties and entities will
be able to use that data to estimate FSP load reduction to help meet upcoming TMDL load
reduction allocations and to protect homes against ground based ignition sources.
c. Concise background and problem statement
Beginning in the mid 1900’s, fire suppression efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the west in
general has resulted in overstocked forests that have reached either maturity or in many cases,
decadence, overcrowding and suppressed growth forms. Such forests are prone to environmental
stresses and related insect and disease attack that greatly increase an already high risk of
catastrophic wildfire. Beginning in the 1960’s, the Tahoe Basin began its trajectory toward
increasing urbanization. Given that the Lake Tahoe Basin is dominated by a mixed conifer
forest-type ecosystem which has coevolved with fire, urbanization within existing forest stands is
highly prone to home-destroying wildfires. While some forested areas were thinned or logged to
accommodate residential development, most trees were left in place as part of the ambiance and
perception of having a home or cabin “in the woods”.
In 2007, the Angora Fire burned approximately 3100 acres (12.5 km2) destroying 254 residences,
67 commercial structures, and partially damaging 35 other homes. In August of 2007, the
Washoe Fire on the northwest shore of Lake Tahoe near Tahoe City was contained at less than
20 acres (0.08 km2) with 5 homes destroyed. Both incidents immediately brought public
attention and awareness to the very real potential of property damage and losses possible from
wildfires burning near their homes due to existing forest conditions. Since that time, an
increasing amount of attention and resources have been expended in planning and implementing
forest vegetation management efforts aimed at changing forest stand structure. These efforts are
likely to be intensified over the next several years. Those management activities are being
implemented in order to minimize crown fires and fire transmissibility through forest stands.
Additionally, fire districts, CalFire and the Emergency California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire
Commission Report (“Blue Ribbon Commission”) emphasize the removal of flammable
materials around homes, suggesting and enforcing a 30 to 100 feet or larger “buffer” area around
homes, leaving large areas of bare ground susceptible to accelerated erosion. Research by
Grismer and Hogan (2004-2005) as well as others, have shown that maintenance of a surface
mulch layer and/or maximizing soil infiltration can be highly effective at reducing erosion and
sediment loading while conserving soil moisture. However, little work has been done to apply
3
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
these findings to home landscapes. Thus, what remains unknown is how such mulches and soil
treatments might affect fire risk when adjacent to structures.
One element of this proposal addresses the issue of lack of supporting data for management
activities around homes. The other element is the ability to put that information and data directly
into the hands of those who need it. This research project is set up to address the general lack of
direct connection between research, planners and end users of that research. Research science
has been shown to, at times, be at odds with or at least be distanced from management actions
(Gibbons et al. 2009). Research findings are left to agency staff, management professionals and
others to interpret and apply to management activities but in a relatively unstructured manner.
Unfortunately, this approach has left managers with few understandable, accessible,
scientifically-validated tools to use to plan and implement water quality and fire safe BMPs,
beyond the largely uncalibrated erosion models. Further, managers have not always been able to
adequately translate to researchers the questions or information gaps that need to be filled in
order to help them make better, science-based management decisions. With an increasing
emphasis on application of fire-safe practices around homes in the Basin, it is incumbent upon
scientific investigators to work directly with fire and fuels managers to develop cost-effective,
quantifiable management strategies that reduce both fire danger and erosion potential. It is
incumbent upon the scientific community to provide fire protection managers and residential
BMP planners and implementers with scientifically-defensible, field-verified management
practices that achieve both important objectives. If we are not able to integrate these two
management objectives, we will likely have thrown the proverbial water quality baby out with
the bathwater as we attempt to reduce fire danger around homes. Intuition-based solutions are
unlikely to solve this problem. This project directly addresses the lack of integration of fireresistant and erosion-resistant landscapes, the lack of data needed to support an intelligent
evaluation of management alternatives and the gap between scientific findings and management
actions.
d. Goals, objectives, and hypotheses to be tested
Hypotheses
1. Management practices and materials exist that can both effectively control erosion and
satisfy defensible space needs in residential settings in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
2. Those practices can be best defined through scientific investigation and that investigation
will likely lead to improved practices over time.
3. Data from this scientific investigation can be used to directly address Tahoe TMDL
tracking and crediting needs.
4. By working directly with fire districts and residential BMP implementers to develop and
test fire and erosion safe BMPs, adoption and promotion of these measures will be much
more efficient and effective.
Goals
1. To identify effective measures for providing defensible space and protection against soil
erosion around homes.
2. To provide a scientific basis for evaluating and implementing defensible space and
erosion protection alternatives for residential lots.
4
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
3. To provide data and information to build fire district and homeowner acceptance and use
of effective defensible space and erosion protection practices around homes.
4. To develop these data, tools and guidance in a short timeframe.
5. To develop a focused education and training program for managers and homeowners in
order to distribute and support implementation of the findings.
6. To develop data and effective practices that support Lake Tahoe TMDL implementation
and tracking.
7. To develop this data and information in coordination with and support of the TRPA BMP
Manual revision (in conjunction with Eric Larson and Tim Hagan, TRPA).
Objectives
1. To define eight promising defensible space and erosion protection practices
2. To test these practices for flammability
3. To test these practices for erosion protection using direct measurements (including
simulated rainfall and runoff, constant head permeameter/infiltrometer, cone
penetrometer and other monitoring methods identified by steering-technical team)
4. To work directly with implementers, regulators and homeowners to process information
and develop treatment tools through the steering-technical team (see below)
5. Install effective practices gleaned from research findings, in at least three residential
“demonstration” sites (funded primarily by NRCS Area-Wide Conservation Planning
effort [Round 9 SNPLMA grant] and TRCD ongoing efforts)
6. Produce a concise and brief Handbook of Fire and Erosion Safe BMPs (final name to be
determined) with supporting data, installation guidance, and reference to other related
resources such as “Living with Fire”, NRCS and RCD contact information.
7. Develop handbook elements and research findings to integrate into the TRPA BMP
handbook. (Note: these elements are not currently addressed in the update but are
explicitly needed and encouraged. Pers. communication w/ Tim Hagan, TRPA)
8. Develop a training module for understanding and implementing the outcome of this
research project for fire districts and homeowners and hold two trainings for those
groups.
9. Generate data on sediment reduction values for fire-safe defensible space BMPs for the
Pollutant Load Reduction Model for use by counties and other responsible entities to
meet TMDL load reduction tracking requirements.
e. Approach, methodology and location of research
Approach
The approach to this research and development project will consist of the following steps:
1. We will organize a small steering-technical team (one group) consisting of NRCS, Tahoe
Resource Conservation District (TRCD), Meeks Bay Fire, TRPA BMP representative,
scientific investigators and committed homeowner(s). This steering-technical group will
consist of a maximum of eight members who will guide efforts by helping to identify
eight practices to test, will assist in locating test sites, in getting permission to work in
those sites and in implementing the tests. This group will leverage information exchange
in a number of directions (between scientists and managers, homeowners and regulatory
personnel) from other ongoing research and implementation efforts through NRCS,
5
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
TRPA and the Tahoe Basin Fire and Fuels Committee. This group will integrate the
scientific investigation undertaken in this project directly with actual implementation and
education.
2. We will identify 8 soil protection measures for testing and set up and implement fire
testing on those materials (depending on flammability) with Meeks Bay fire and a partner
landowner, based on University of Nevada (UNR)-University of California (UC)
Cooperative Extension experimental design.
3. We will set up and implement erosion testing on 8 materials using UCD-Integrated
Environmental Restoration Services (IERS) protocols for rainfall simulation, runoff
simulation, total cover, mulch depth, soil moisture and soil density.
4. We will work with NRCS, TRCD, TRPA and Meeks Bay Fire to determine a target
neighborhood and identify potential BMP’s to install in that neighborhood, depending on
the outcome of fire and erosion tests. We will work with NRCS, the TRCD, TRPA and
Meeks Bay Fire to implement fire and erosion safe landscaping BMPs at at least 3 homes
in that neighborhood. This work will be primarily funded by NRCS under the Area-Wide
Conservation Planning program (previous SNPLMA grant).
Methodology
Research methodology
Material selection
We will determine 8 of the most promising soil protection treatments as determined by the
steering-technical team. Some treatment-materials combination already under discussion include
wood chips and tub grindings tilled into the soil to two (2) depths, pine needle mulch mixed into
the soil, rock mulch, composted wood chips tilled in and vegetative cover of low growing plants.
The materials choices are partially derived from unpublished data (in prep) from Ed Smith (UNR
Cooperative Extension) and Dr. Steven Quarles (UC Cooperative Extension) from mulch
flammability tests done in the Carson Valley two years ago. Their tests were strictly
flammability tests. We will incorporate our materials into the soil to maximize infiltration,
control erosion and minimize surface material that may contribute to the spread of fire.
Choices for the materials are based on the following parameters: 1) materials must be readily
available, 2) materials must be able to be installed by a ‘handy’ homeowner or moderately
trained landscape technician, 3) materials must be relatively inexpensive, 3) the final product
must be aesthetically neutral or at least not displeasing to the eye based on opinions of 25
randomly chosen ‘judges’, 4) materials must have the potential to slow or discourage surface
erosion by a statistically significant amount 5) materials must not contain any toxic elements 6)
materials must comply with all regulations and ordinances currently in place in the Lake Tahoe
Basin.
We will apply those materials to two adjoining areas in 8’ x 8’ grids on moderate slopes. One
area will be burned and the other area will be used for simulated rainfall and runoff tests.
Ignition methodology
Ignition tests will generally follow the methods used for tests done by UNR and UC Cooperative
6
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
extension. Burn test will be conducted in square rather than round areas. Materials will be placed
on the surface of the soil in test areas and where appropriate, incorporated into the soil. Each
treatment area will be ignited, if possible, by drip torch. The area will be aspirated by fan to
mimic specific wind conditions. Burning will take place on a red flag day or if that is not
possible, as close to a red flag day as possible. Fire spread rate, surface temperature, flame
height, flame temperature, flame and ember residence time will all be measured as per Smith and
Quarles (report in prep). Post burn, we will record surface conditions, and any other notes
relative to site conditions that may influence erosion potential from that site. Burns or attempts to
burn will be video taped for reference. A burn log will be kept with all relevant data, personnel
present, and climate and weather conditions.
NOTE: it is probable that some or perhaps all the treatments will not be able to be ignited. In this
case, we will note that no ignition was possible.
Erosion-water quality methodology
Plots will be set up as described in the previous section that are identical to plots used in the burn
tests. Sediment yield from treatment plots will be measured (not estimated) using direct
application of simulated rainfall and runoff as described in Grismer, Schnurrenberger, Arst and
Hogan (2009) and the Sediment Source Control Handbook (Hogan and Drake, 2009). Further,
we will use other tools that have been developed for a more rapid assessment of field conditions
both before and after treatment. These monitoring tools will be available for use by BMP
implementation planners and contractors for implementation adequacy. We will measure
infiltration rate, time to runoff, depth to wetting front, sediment yield, fine sediment fraction and
organic matter content in the runoff, soil density, soil moisture, solar input and total soil cover.
Output data
Output data will be presented and ultimately synthesized into a rating system, consistent with
TMDL efforts to date that include a 1-5 or 0-5 rating system that is used to identify effectiveness.
Effectiveness will be addressed in terms of both (0-5) and erosion effectiveness (0-5) as well as
ignition and spread resistance. This data will be incorporated into a handbook format that will
include complete, graphical as-builts for constructing plots, data summaries showing
effectiveness, photos, diagrams and description of materials, methods, sources for materials and
sources for additional and related information. This handbook is intended to provide guidance for
planners, installers, fire district staff, regulators and homeowners. It is also intended to provide
input to the TRPA BMP Manual, which is striving for increased scientific defensibility.
Therefore, we will work directly with Eric Larson and Tim Hagan to format and prepare the
BMP handbook. The handbook will also include an appendix for use by urban jurisdictions who
are being required to address sediment loading at the urban catchment scale so that they can
directly use this data and rating system to help implement and track sediment load reductions
required under the TMDL.
Location
The research site will be chosen with the steering-technical team and is expected to be in the
Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (as they are partners in this project). Chief Pang has
developed very strong working relationships with his constituency, the neighborhoods tend to be
discreet and easier to address as a whole than many others in the Tahoe Basin. We will build on
those relationships to work with a specific neighborhood to facilitate the Area-Wide
7
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
Conservation Planning effort being spearheaded by NRCS (Loftis et al, SNPLMA Round 9). We
will work directly within that program and the TRCD and NRCD if possible, to implement the
findings of the burn and erosion research at three (3) residential demonstration sites. We will also
encourage others to implement these BMPs at their residences as demonstrations and we will
train individuals and groups to do so. We have already had at least 5 unsolicited inquiries into
implementing findings, even though no research has been conducted yet, thus indicating the need
and level of interest that supports this work.
The actual burn and erosion tests can be done in any number of areas along the west shore
including State Parks land, California Tahoe Conservancy, private or other lands. Meeks Bay
Fire, IERS, TRCD and NRCS all have a long and successful history of working with these
entities and given the fact that at least one fire protection district will be working directly with us
and others will be kept apprised of our efforts through the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team, we will
have a high probability of finding areas for and safely implementing burn tests. The primary
selection criterion for mulch test areas is that there is a clear space around the burn tests adequate
to protect vegetation and structures. Meeks Bay Fire and others will determine where burn tests
can be conducted safely and will also provide fire protection as needed. The burn-erosion test
sites will also be located on moderate slopes common to many forested residential areas and
consistent with available erodibility data developed from similar unburned sites.
f. Relationship of the research to previous and current relevant research, monitoring,
and/or environmental improvement efforts
This research effort will integrate many previous studies completed by IERS and Dr. Mark
Grismer using simulated rainfall and runoff to directly measure the performance of many soilbased restoration treatments. This long-term (>9 years) research program has produced many
peer-reviewed publications documenting the methodology, the results and management
applications for overall assessment of site conditions and effectiveness of treatment efforts (e.g.
Grismer and Hogan, 2004 & 2005, Grismer et al., 2009), the Sediment Source Control Handbook
(Hogan and Drake, 2009), the forested upland chapter of the Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant
Reduction Opportunities Report (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2008), and an ongoing program of
restoration and erosion control research and improvements throughout the Tahoe Sierra. Part of
this ongoing effort includes TMDL implementation research at Homewood Resort through a
grant from the State of California Water Board (319 funding source). The proposed research will
leverage a great deal of that work as a foundation for effectiveness. This work will form input
data and products for TRPA’s BMP Handbook update. We will link this data directly to a large
and increasing body of data related to the Lake Tahoe TMDL by working directly with agency
personnel to incorporate our data into the TMDL tracking program and will set up data output to
be used for the PLRM model with is intended to be used for TMDL crediting in the urban
uplands.
g. Strategy for engaging with managers and obtaining permits
A key strength of this project, absent in a great deal of applied research, is the direct linkage
between field investigators, managers, agency staff and, perhaps most importantly towards
implementation, the end users. This applied research project has evolved from numerous
8
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
discussions with managers, agency staff and fire protection professionals and integrates
individuals from those various professions into the formulation and testing of hypotheses and the
development of treatment tools. In this way, managers are fully engaged from start to finish.
While we anticipate needing fire or burn permits, these will be obtained by fire agency personnel
that are a part of the project steering-technical team. Other construction-related permits, such as
for installation of BMPs, will be addressed in the Area-Wide Conservation Planning project
(Loftis et al.), which this project will dovetail on. Engaging managers and others has also been
covered in other portions of this proposal. However, we here reiterate that this proposal is
partially the result of conversations with and requests by managers to develop this project where
data more directly informs their decisions.
h. Description of deliverables/products and plan for how data and products will be
reviewed and made available to end users
Tasks
Deliverables
Task 1: Frame and Scope Project
1.1: Steering-Technical Team meetings
1.2: Identify 8 BMPs to be tested
1.3: Develop hypotheses to be tested
Task 2: Conduct Flammability and
Erosion Control Tests on Selected BMPs
2.1: Construct test plots
2.2: Conduct flammability tests
2.3: Conduct erosion control tests
2.4: Data analysis and synthesis
Meeting notes; list of common management
goals and information gaps
List of BMPs to be tested
Memo summarizing hypotheses to be tested
and research design
As-built of test plot design
Data table summarizing results of flammability
tests; interpretation of data in context of
management practices
Data table summarizing results of erosion
control tests; interpretation of data in context of
management practices
Defensible Space and Erosion Protection
Handbook
Task 3: Defensible Space and Erosion
Protection Handbook
3.1: Produce Draft Handbook (for review)
3.2: Produce Final Handbook
Distribute Draft Handbook for review; summary
of reviewer feedback
Print and distribute 100 hard copies of
Handbook; post Handbook on appropriate
websites (TIIMS, Lahontan, TRPA, NRCS,
RCDs, Fire Districts)
Task 4: Residential Demonstration
Projects
4.1: Determine target neighborhood and
homes for demonstration sites
4.2: BMP installation at residential
demonstration sites
Work with NRCS, TRCD and Meeks Bay Fire to
get homeowner and neighborhood
implementation partners
As-builts for installed BMPs (at least 3
residences)
9
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
Tasks
Deliverables
4.3: TOUR-trainings
Host two trainings which includes 3-4 hours of
classroom overview of BMPs, installation, etc.,
and 4 hour field training at implementation sites
Task 5: Project Administration and
Reporting
5.1: Invoices and budget tracking
5.2: Quarterly progress reports
5.3: Annual accomplishments reports
5.4: Draft project report
5.5: Final project report
Quarterly invoices
Quarterly progress reports
Annual accomplishments reports
Draft project report
Final project report
Data review
Data review will be done by the steering-technical team who will receive input from other
members of their agencies. Data will be reviewed on four levels.
First, scientific peer review will take place by at least 5 science advisors. Initial suggestions
include Dr. Mark Grismer, Dr. Mike Singer-UCD, Dr. Steven Quarles-UC Cooperative
Extension, Dr. Ken Hubbert-PSW, Dr. Matt Busse-PSW, Dr. Tina Carlsen-CTC, Dr. Elwood
Miller-Fire and Fuels Team, Dr. Amy Horne-Lahontan Board, and Ed Smith-Resources
Specialist, UNR Cooperative Extension.
The second level of peer review will be from regulatory agency staff including from TRPA,
CalFire and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The third level of review will be from Fire Protection District project manager staff including
Meeks Bay Fire, North Tahoe Fire, North Lake Tahoe Fire and Lake Valley Fire. Other fire
managers will be asked to review data and products if time and resources permit.
The final level of review will be from end users such as home owners and property managers.
This thorough review will assure that the output of this work will be applicable, understandable
and above all, useful.
End User Availability
End users include all of the participating entities described above. Data and findings will be
developed into a handbook for use by those entities. Each agency will distribute the handbook in
conjunction with field inspections, requests for information and as a web posting so that
distribution is cost-effective. The final document and data will be provided as a downloadable
PDF document so that each entity can post it and make it available from their respective web
sites. We will also work with local media to run stories on the efforts and products (handbook),
thus allowing members of the public to become aware of the project and availability of the
handbook resource. Part of our strategy is to produce the data and document in one season in
order to tier off of the currently heightened interest in defensible space and home fire protection.
10
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
III. Schedule of major milestones/deliverables
Projects should not expect to begin before May 1, 2010 at the earliest. Note that it is the
responsibility of the project proponent to coordinate with appropriate agency representatives or
partners and secure any agreements or approvals necessary prior to initiating research.
Start
Milestone/Deliverables
Date
Steering-technical team May 2010
formation and meetings
Build and implement
burn and erosion test
plots
Prepare, interpret data,
peer review
End Date
June 2010
July 2010
October
2010
November
2010
January
2011
Select residential
demonstration sites
June 2010
July 2010
Implement residential
BMPs (demonstration
sites)
July 2010
November
2010
Annual
January
Accomplishments
2011
Report
Defensible Space and
December
Erosion Protection
2010
Handbook
Site tour and
Sept 2010
educational trainings
for managers, agency
staff and homeowners
Prepare progress reports July 2010
February
2011
April 2011
May 2011
July 2011
Draft Project Report
June 2011
July 2011
Final Project Report
July 2011
August 2011
Description
Develop steering-technical team, define
and determine priority on treatment
types, identify burn locations
Build plots, burn, monitor (start date
depending on ability to burn, funding
start date)
Submit synthesized and interpreted
datasets to peer review group, receive and
incorporate comments
Install top performing fire-erosion safe
BMPs based on initial results of field
tests (in collaboration with TRCD,
NRCS)
Handbook of fire-erosion resistant
practices, implementation steps, cost
effectiveness, with data to support
Classroom and field training on
materials, implementation techniques and
research results
Submit brief progress report to Tahoe
Science Program coordinator by the 1st
of July, October, January, and April.
11
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
IV. Literature cited/References (Up to 2 pages)
Gibbons, et al. 2009. Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers
and policy-makers in natural resource management, Ecological Management and Restoration V9
n3
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2004. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 1. Method Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev.
13:573-588.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 2. Bare Soil Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev.
16:397-404.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 3. Treatment Assessment. Land Degradation &
Dev. 16:489-501.
Grismer, M.E. and A.L. Ellis. 2006. Sediment Particle-size Distributions in Runoff from
Disturbed Soils in the Lake Tahoe Basin. California Ag. 60(2):72-76.
Grismer, M.E., A.L. Ellis and A. Fristensky. 2008. Runoff Sediment Particle-sizes associated
with Soil Erosion in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Land Degradation & Dev. 19:331-350.
Grismer, M.E., C. Schnurrenberger, R. Arst and M.P. Hogan. 2009. Integrated Monitoring and
Assessment of Soil Restoration Treatments in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Environ. Monitoring &
Assessment. 150:365-383.
Hatchett, B., M. P. Hogan and M. E. Grismer. 2006. Mechanized Mastication Effects on Soil
Compaction and Runoff from Forests in the Western Lake Tahoe Basin. California Ag. 60(2):77-82.
Loftis, William and others. 2009. NRCS SNPLMA 9 Area-Wide Conservation Planning Grant
(in planning stages)
Hogan, M.P. and K.M. Drake. 2009. Sediment Source Control Handbook. Published by Sierra
Business Council. Truckee, CA.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection. 2008. Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report v2.0. Prepared by
Environmental Incentives, LLC. South Lake Tahoe, CA.
12
Defensible Space-Erosion Protection Tools Development
V. Figures (optional, up to 6 total) for project locations, schematics, sample outputs, etc.
Figures do not count toward page limits unless they are embedded in the narrative.
Figure 1: schematic of burn plot lay out and dimensions.
13