DOCSLIB.ORG

Carson River Flood Event Planning Project East Fork Fire Protection District Carson River Flood Event Planning Project Executive Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carson River Flood Event Planning Project East Fork Fire Protection District Carson River Flood Event Planning Project Executive Summary East Fork Fire Protection District Serving as Douglas County Emergency Management Under an Inter-local Contract Carson River Flood Event Planning Project East Fork Fire Protection District Carson River Flood Event Planning Project Executive Summary Prepared by Tod F. Carlini, District Fire Chief The East Fork Fire Protection District is charged with the responsibilities of Emergency Management for Douglas County, Nevada under an inter-local agreement between the Fire Protection District and Douglas County. While there are many uncertainties regarding the potential of flooding along the Carson River in Douglas County and an El Nino driven weather situation which could produce abnormal potential for that flooding, including alluvial, riverine, and debris type flooding, the East Fork Fire Protection District has taken a lead role in the development of flood orientated contingency and response planning. Douglas County has experienced all three types of flood events. Some with devastating results, such as was the case with the 1997 flood event. Most recently, the Johnson and Stephanie Lane community areas were heavily impacted with alluvial flooding following heavy rainfall in the Pine Nut Mountain Range, while the Fish Springs area actually saw debris/mudflow flooding in July of 2014. Debris from the 24,000 acre Bison Fire of 2013 contributed to this type of event. While not to deminimize the effects of flash flooding on the citizens and properties impacted by alluvial flooding, the attached work product and information gathering will focus primarily on the potential for riverine flooding, specifically along the East and West Forks of the Carson River as it flows through the Carson Valley. Consideration must also be made for a debris/mud flow type event due to the impacts of the 2015 Washington Fire in Alpine County. The information contained herein has been prepared from an emergency management perspective and represents the first phase of a two phase effort. As we attempted to design a functional Flood Response Guide, one of the first steps to assess the condition of the Carson River and evaluate conditions and hazardous, which under a flood situations, would either need to be addressed or at a minimum be identified as a concern. In meeting that objective our desire was to collect information from a core group of individuals, all with interests in the Carson River. Solicitations were made regarding concerns, problematic features, known weaknesses, and possible solutions more from a “practical” point of view, rather than from any type of specific engineering perspective. While Carson Valley Flood Event Planning Project 1 environmental considerations are an absolute necessity when addressing any issues along a navigable water course, such as the Carson River, the primary focus was in terms of what potentially could be done as emergency measures and/or assess flood potential necessary for the development of a separate Flood Emergency Guide Manual. The 1997 Flood resulted in one fatality, forced the closure of much business, flooded over 50 homes throughout the valley, forced the evacuation of 140 citizens, isolated many of the valleys communities, destroyed millions of dollars of public infrastructure, and resulted in a total loss of $55,000,000. Several years of drought have left the Carson River chocked with new growth vegetation, sand and gravel islands and other deposits, and an overall loss of river channel capacity. The flood of 1997 saw flows of 23,000 CFS, which is 4 feet above flood stage. The information contained within this document and the recommendations made, are the by-product of conversations and discussions with what should be considered one of Carson Valley’s most important resources, that being its agricultural community and the interest and history that it represents. This work would not have been possible without collaborating with members from the agricultural community, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and other interests along the Carson River and Carson Valley. The primary objectives for the Fire Protection District are actually quite clear and will serve as a basis for the development of the Flood Response Guide which is a separate document, however, understanding these objectives as part of this project is important: They include: 9 Reduce the loss of life and property of residents and visitors due to flooding through response coordination and mitigation actions 9 Ensure the safety of all responders and participants in the response 9 Support the residents, visitors, and businesses in prepare for, responding to and recovering from flooding 9 Provide an efficient, comprehensive organizational structure for emergency response and recovery 9 Coordinate ALL emergency operations within the county either with or without an official declaration 9 Coordinate the use of available resources, be they public or private, including, local, state, and federal 9 Recover from flood emergencies by providing for rapid and orderly damage assessment and providing necessary assistance to the highest degree 9 Establish a tiered activation of response levels following a deliberate and reliable situational awareness and input data from credible sources Carson Valley Flood Event Planning Project 2 9 Apply institutional knowledge, historical recollection, and recognize the roll that the agricultural community can plan in flood management in the Carson Valley Secondary and complimentary to the development of a Flood Response Guide, this is also an attempt to document notes, comments, historical perspective, and to define and prioritize potential emergency project work along the Carson River. While the scope and responsibility of that work is vested with others, and strictly from an Emergency Management standpoint, this work may serve as a starting point for Carson Valley Conservation District, engineering disciplines, environmental specialist, and regulatory agencies in the future. The executive management of the East Fork Fire Protection District would like to thank those members of the Carson Valley agricultural community and representatives from the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California who participated in this endeavor. Basic History The Carson River is a northwestern Nevada river that empties into the Carson Sink, an endorheic basin. The main stem of the river is 131 miles (211 km) long although addition of the East Fork makes the total length 205 miles traversing five counties: Alpine County in California and Douglas, Storey, Lyon, and Churchill Counties in Nevada, as well as the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City, Nevada. The river is named for Kit Carson, who guided John C. Frémont's expedition westward up the Carson Valley and across Carson Pass in winter, 1844. The 205 mile Carson River watershed encompasses 3,966 square miles and includes two major forks in the Sierra Nevada in its upper watershed region. The 74-mile-long East Fork rises on the north slopes of Sonora Peak (just north of Sonora Pass at about 10,400 feet in southern Alpine County, southeast of Markleeville in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. The 40-mile-long West Fork rises in the Sierras near Carson Pass and Lost Lakes at 9,000 feet elevation and flows northeast into Nevada, joining the East Fork about 1 mile southeast of Genoa. The Carson River then flows north 18 miles to the end of the upper watershed at Mexican Dam just southeast of Carson City. In the middle watershed the river runs generally northeast from Carson City across Lyon County, past Dayton. The middle watershed ends in eastern Churchill County at the Lahontan Dam. Here river flows are augmented by water from the Truckee River and stored in the Lake Lahontan reservoir. Downstream from the dam (in the lower watershed) much of the water is used for irrigation in the vicinity of Fallon, with limited flows continuing northeast into the Carson Sink. Clear Creek, which begins at about 8,780 feet on Snow Valley Peak (Toiyabe National Forest, Carson Range) west of Carson City, is the only perennial tributary of the Carson River main stem, and is protected by the Nature Conservancy. Carson Valley Flood Event Planning Project 3 Flood Types There are actually three types of flooding that can impact Douglas County. They include main stem riverine flooding, alluvial fan flooding, and debris flow/mud flow flooding. Douglas County most recently experienced alluvial fan flooding and debris flow/mudflow flooding on the eastern side of the Carson Valley and in Southern Douglas County. Main Stem Flooding Flooding of the main channel of a river involves flows that overbank and flood adjacent areas known as floodplains. A floodplain is generally described as a strip of relatively smooth land bordering a river that overflows at time of high water. Specific geomorphic features define a floodplain. For example, the Carson Valley is broad and flat due to the uplift and subsequent erosion of the Sierra Nevada, Carson, and Pine Nut Ranges as well as deposition of sediment carried by the Carson River at flood stage. Likewise, the Carson River channel looks more like a creek bed rather than a deep incised channel found in larger rivers across the Nation. Because the source of most of the stream flow originates from the mountain snowpack, the Carson River has not needed to incise its channel to accommodate snowmelt runoff but simply uses the floodplain as a discharge surface. Alluvial Fan Flooding Alluvial-fan flooding occurs on alluvial-fan surfaces adjacent to the mountain block which are gently sloping; fan-shaped landforms created over time by deposition of eroded sediment, and are common at the base of mountain ranges in arid and semiarid regions such as much of the western United States (National Research Council, 1996). Flooding on alluvial fans is characterized by high-velocity flows, active processes of erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and unpredictable flow paths. This type of flooding is the result of intense cloudbursts from summer convective storms — common in Nevada.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Newlands Project
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, February 2016 Mid-Pacific Region, Newlands Project History The Newlands Project was one of the first Reclamation projects. It provides irrigation water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for about 57,000 acres of cropland in the Lahontan Valley near Fallon and bench lands near Fernley in western Nevada. In addition, water from about 6,000 acres of project land has been transferred to the Lahontan Valley Wetlands near Fallon. Lake Tahoe Dam, a small dam at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, the source of the Truckee Lake Tahoe Dam and Reservoir River, controls releases into the river. Downstream, the Derby Diversion Dam diverts the water into the Truckee Canal and Lahontan Dam, Reservoir, carries it to the Carson River. Other features and Power Plant include Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, Carson River Diversion Dam, and Old Lahontan Dam and Reservoir on the Carson Lahontan Power Plant. The Truckee-Carson River store the natural flow of the Carson project (renamed the Newlands Project) was River along with water diverted from the authorized by the Secretary of the Interior Truckee River. The dam, completed in 1915, on March 14, 1903. Principal features is a zoned earthfill structure. The reservoir include: has a storage capacity of 289,700 acre-feet. Old Lahontan Power Plant, immediately below Lahontan Dam, has a capacity of Lake Tahoe Dam 42,000 kilowatts. The plant was completed in 1911. Lake Tahoe Dam controls the top six feet of Lake Tahoe. With the surface area of the lake, this creates a reservoir of 744,600 acre- Truckee Canal feet capacity and regulates the lake outflow into the Truckee River.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Fallon and Stillwater Hunt Plans
    Draft Environmental Assessment for Waterfowl, Other Migratory Birds, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge and Fallon National Wildlife Refuge Date: March 2020 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open hunting opportunities for antelope (also called pronghorn) on Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge), and to open Fallon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) to hunting waterfowl, other migratory birds, upland game, big game, and other species. In 2003, the Service signed a Record of Decision for the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP-EIS) for the Stillwater NWR Complex. This draft EA is tiered from the 2002 CCP-EIS and focuses specifically on adding opportunities for antelope hunting at Stillwater NWR and opening the Fallon NWR to hunting as described in the Hunt Plan. This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2020-2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Hunting Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Whitefish Chances for Survival: Better 4 Prosopium Williamsoni
    Mountain Whitefish chances for survival: better 4 Prosopium williamsoni ountain whitefish are silvery in color and coarse-scaled with a large and the mackenzie and hudson bay drainages in the arctic. to sustain whatever harvest exists today. mountain whitefish in California and Nevada, they are present in the truckee, should be managed as a native salmonid that is still persisting 1 2 3 4 5 WHITEFISH adipose fin, a small mouth on the underside of the head, a short Carson, and Walker river drainages on the east side of in some numbers. they also are a good indicator of the dorsal fin, and a slender, cylindrical body. they are found the sierra Nevada, but are absent from susan river and “health” of the Carson, Walker, and truckee rivers, as well as eagle lake. lake tahoe and other lakes where they still exist. Whitefish m Mountain Whitefish Distribution throughout western North america. While mountain whitefish are regarded aBundanCe: mountain whitefish are still common in populations in sierra Nevada rivers and tributaries have California, but they are now divided into isolated popula- been fragmented by dams and reservoirs, and are generally as a single species throughout their wide range, a thorough genetic analysis tions. they were once harvested in large numbers by Native scarce in reservoirs. a severe decline in the abundance of americans and commercially harvested in lake tahoe. mountain whitefish in sagehen and prosser Creeks followed would probably reveal distinct population segments. the lahontan population there are still mountain whitefish in lake tahoe, but they the construction of dams on each creek.
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Travel Analysis Process
    LAKE TAHOE BASIN United States MANAGEMENT UNIT Department of Agriculture Forest Service Travel Analysis Process January 2012 Kjar, J. Craig. 2011. Travel Analysis Process. Boise, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Setting Up the Analysis ....................................... 1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1 Scale ............................................................................................................................................ 1 How the Report Will be Used ..................................................................................................... 2 Roles of Specialists ..................................................................................................................... 2 Identification of Information Sources ......................................................................................... 2 Analysis Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2 - Describing the Situation ....................................... 4 Existing Road System and Direction .......................................................................................... 4 Forest Highways and Scenic Byways ......................................................................................... 6 Forest Highways
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth.
    [Show full text]
  • California Water Trust Network
    RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Aquatic Trail" Is a Lovely 13.7 Mile Stretch of Carson City Parks Recreation & Open Space the Carson River
    Natural History As you float the river you will be treated to impressive cottonwood galleries, streambanks filled with thick willows, Carson River and seasonal wildflowers. Throughout the year over 200 avian species can be iden- Aquatic Trail Map tified along the river; some are permanent residents, and some are just brief visitors. Red-tailed Hawks, herons, and swallows are a common sight, and owls are frequently spotted perching in the cottonwoods. Several mammals frequent the waters of the river, includ- ing Mule Deer, mountain lions, coyotes, weasels, musk- rats, and beavers. The Carson River is also host to several reptiles including Charles Lynch Collection, Carson City Historical Society Cathleen Allison/Nevada Momentum the Western Pond Turtle. Fish include catfish, bass, and The Morgan Mill circa 1900 Carson River Canyon rainbow trout. Empire City The Morgan Mill River Access Area is located in the Know Your Responsibilities midst of what was once Empire City, a 19th Century • Always paddle in a group. milling town that had its beginnings as a trading post • Always wear a properly fitted PFD (Personal Floatation along the California Overland Trail. Nicholas Ambro- Device). sia, also known as Nicholas Ambrose, or "Dutch Nick" • Wear appropriate clothing which includes closed-toe opened a trading post and saloon here in 1849. shoes and synthetic materials (no cotton!). Following the 1849 discovery of gold in Gold Canyon • Plan to get wet and plan for changes in weather and and the 1859 discovery of the Comstock Load, Empire temperature. City became a lumber and gold milling community. • Wear a helmet, carry a whistle, and bring food, water, Wood was floated down the river from Alpine County Photo: Nevada Momentum sunscreen, and extra clothes.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006
    DRAFT Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 DRAFT Table of Contents Page 10.0 CARSON RIVER AQUATIC TRAIL...........................................................................1 10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CARSON RIVER..................................................................... 1 10.1.1 River Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 1 10.1.2 General River Terminology.............................................................................................. 3 10.1.3 River Anatomy and Common River Hazards.................................................................... 4 10.1.4 Hazardous Dams on the Carson River............................................................................. 5 10.2 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 10.2.1 The State of Nevada.......................................................................................................... 5 10.2.2 Property
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Trail Extends from the BLM River Access Area at Sierra Vista Lane 10.1 Miles Downstream to the Lyon County Line (See Map)
    10 AQ U ATIC TRAIL The Carson River through Carson City is a beautiful resource that provides a source of water, wildlife habitat, and recreational oppor- tunities such as fishing, swimming and boating. The undeveloped na ture of the Carson River offers unique scenic and recreational opportuni- ties adjacent to the urban core. An exceptional feature of the river is that it offers two different segments that provide excellent boating opportunities to both beginner and intermediate skill levels. The Carson City portion of the Carson River Aquatic Trail extends from the BLM river access area at Sierra Vista Lane 10.1 miles downstream to the Lyon County line (see Map). This river section currently has pub- lic access points, active public river use, and approximately 30% of it is bounded by public lands. 10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CARSON RIVER The Carson River begins in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flows over 180 miles to its terminus in Lahontan Reservoir and the Carson Sink. The Carson River’s primary source of water is from precipitation and snow pack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The East and West forks of the Carson River merge on the west side of the Carson Valley, near Genoa in Douglas County, Nevada. From Genoa, the main stem of the Carson River flows to the northeast out of Carson Valley and into Eagle Valley on the east side of Carson City. The river then turns east and cuts through the Carson River Canyon, Dayton Valley, Churchill Valley, and ultimately terminates in the Lahontan Reservoir and the Carson Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Watershed Water Market (Exchange/Transfer) Program
    CARSON RIVER WATERSHED WATER MARKET (EXCHANGE/TRANSFER) PROGRAM Water Smart Grant Application; FOA # BOR-DO-18-F010; Funding Group 1 Edwin D. James,MAY 15, General 2018 Manager 777 E. William Street, Carson City, NV 89701 CARSON WATER SUBCONSERCONSERVANCY DISTRICT 775.887.7456 777 E. William Street, Suite 110A, Carson City, NV 89701 [email protected] Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Background Data ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................. 10 Element 4.1: Water Marketing Benefits ................................................................................. 10 Element 4.2: Level of Stakeholder Support and Involvement ................................................14 Element 4.3 Ability to Meet Program Requirements ..............................................................1 6 Element 4.4 Department of Interior Priorities ........................................................................ 18 5.0 Environmental and cultural resources compliance ............................................................... 19 6.0 Required permits or approvals .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Survey: Scientists Find Variety of Species, Page 3
    Award winning! Bat survey: Scientists find variety of species, page 3 Winter 2014 Bi-state compact to preserve Tahoe STEPS TOWARD REVITALIZATION turns 45 years old Staff Report Redevelopment projects expected to aid environment, economy The partnership between California and Nevada that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency By Devin Middlebrook (TRPA) turned 45 years old in Tahoe Regional Planning Agency December 2014 and is approaching a half-century of progress in the protection and restoration of Lake Lake Tahoe’s communities have struggled Tahoe and its treasured environment. for decades from environmental, economic, and President Richard Nixon signed social pressures. The advent of Native American the bi-state compact to create the gaming throughout Northern California drove TRPA on Thursday, Dec. 18, 1969. massive casino job losses, which were compounded Nixon’s signature in the Oval Office followed the compact’s ratification by the recent recession. To many, a visible clue by Congress, approval by both was the number of run-down or vacant buildings states’ legislatures, and signatures of around the Lake. Many of these buildings were former governors Ronald Reagan in constructed in the 1960s, prior to the Tahoe Regional California and Paul Laxalt in Nevada. Planning Agency being established, during a period U.S. Sen. Alan Bible (D-Nev.) of rampant growth with a lack of development introduced legislation to approve the bi-state compact in Congress. Bible regulations. Fifty years later, as the recession took called Nixon’s signature of the bill hold, the Region looked tired and in disrepair. “the best news possible for those Times are changing.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Rtp Final Awards
    2019 RTP FINAL AWARDS Project Title Applicant Grant Request Awards Trail Education for Northern NV Students Sierra Nevada Journeys$ 24,971.00 $24,971.00 Inspiring Next Gen of Enviro Stewards Tahoe Rim Trail Assoc.$ 30,015.02 $20,000.00 Lincoln Co. Rec Trails Mapping & Info Lincoln County Regional Development Authority$ 39,525.00 $10,978.12 Nevada Non‐Motorized Trail Mapping Great Basin Institute$ 13,991.04 $13,991.04 USFS Moto Travel Mgmt Route Signage Phase II Great Basin Institute$ 100,120.79 $100,120.79 Prison Hill Rec Area OHV Education & Design National Off‐HWY Vehicle Conservation Council$ 201,409.73 $100,000.00 Inyo Nat. Forest Planning/Storm Drainage Repairs Inyo National Forest$ 74,200.00 $37,100.00 Lincoln Co. Rec Trails Mapping & Info Lincoln County Regional Development Authority$ 39,525.00 $28,546.88 Tread Lightly! Nevada Tread Lightly!$ 129,505.00 $42,600.00 Outdoor Ethics Enthusiasts & OHV Safety Nevada Outdoor School$ 81,865.00 $81,865.00 Boulder City Railway Trail Boulder City Economic Vitality Commission$ 593,000.00 $100,000.00 Lake Tahoe NV State Park East Shore Trail Maint. Great Basin Institute$ 34,172.75 $34,172.75 Ice Age Fossils Interpretive Trail Signs NDSP$ 203,400.00 $166,802.97 Perimeter Trail Phase 2 USFS‐Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit$ 113,000.00 $85,000.00 Toiyabe Crest Trail Maintenance Great Basin Institute$ 59,243.62 $59,243.62 East Walker Recreation Enhancement Walker Basin Conservancy$ 158,170.82 $158,170.82 Peavine Trail Enhancement & Maint. Biggest Little Trail Stewardship$ 48,317.00 $48,317.00 Snow Valley Peak/Diamond Peak Rehab Tahoe Rim Trail Assoc.$ 58,085.97 $58,085.97 Griffith Peak Trail Rebuild Friends of Nevada Wilderness$ 100,274.00 $100,274.00 Table Mt.
    [Show full text]