United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

 
 Cover photo:

View of Emerald Bay and Fannette Island from viewing area east 

of US Hwy 89 on Lake Tahoe’s west shore. 

 Credit – all photos, graphs and maps: 

U.S. Forest Service staff, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

may be duplicated for public use (not for profit)

Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual 

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or 

protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the 

Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 

45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional 

information can be found online at: www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at 

any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of 

the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, 

by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons with Disabilities 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to 

contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

ROD Table of Contents ■ i

DRAFT Record of Decision Table of Contents 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ R-1 

The Decision ........................................................................................................ R-2 

Components of the Decision ................................................................................ R-2 

Tribal Relations ................................................................................................. R-3 

Rationale for the Decision ................................................................................... R-5 

National Policy Considerations ............................................................................. R-5 

The Decision ..................................................................................................... R-6 

Issue Areas ....................................................................................................... R-7 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................... R-7 

Terrestrial Ecosystems .................................................................................... R-7 

Recreation and Access and Travel Management .................................................. R-8 

Wilderness Recommendations ........................................................................ R-10 

Backcountry Management Area ...................................................................... R-11 

Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................. R-11 

Specially Designated Areas ............................................................................ R-12 

Monitoring ................................................................................................... R-12 

Relationship of the Revised Plan to Existing Decisions ........................................... R-13 

Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity ..................................................... R-14 

Research Natural Areas .................................................................................... R-14 

Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... R-15 

Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................... R-15 

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ............................................................... R-19 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...................................................... R-19 

Public Involvement ........................................................................................... R-19 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ............................................ R-20 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) ................................................ R-20 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) ............................................................. R-21 

Management Indicator Species ....................................................................... R-22 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) ........................................................................... R-22 

Clean Water Act .............................................................................................. R-22 

Clean Air Act ................................................................................................... R-22 

Flood Plains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) ............................. R-22 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) ................................................... R-23 

Civil Rights Laws ............................................................................................. R-23 

Accessibility .................................................................................................... R-23 

Tribal Government Consultation (Executive Order 13084) ...................................... R-23 

The Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577 [16 U.S. C. 1131-1136]) ............................ R-25 

Implementation ................................................................................................ R-25 

Objection Opportunities .................................................................................... R-26 

Implementation Date ....................................................................................... R-27 

Contact Person .................................................................................................. R-27 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ii ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision

 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

ROD ■ R-1

Introduction 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) manages 154,850 acres of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands within a mix of forested lands and urban communities that surround Lake 

Tahoe. The public has expressed strong feelings about the importance of sustaining and 

enhancing the natural resource values and benefits that make the Lake Tahoe Basin unique. I 

believe that my decision balances human and natural resource needs and maximizes net public 

benefits by providing management options that will enable future generations to continue to 

enjoy sustainable recreation opportunities, healthy forests and watersheds, and appropriate 

community protection from wildland fire. My decision adopts measures that will continue to 

provide a broad range of recreation opportunities while conserving and restoring the health of 

NFS lands - reducing risks from wildland fire, invasive species, and other threats, restoring forest 

health and watershed processes and protecting water quality, and conserving and restoring 

habitat for a multitude of plant and animal species. My decision also includes strategies for 

enhancing the ability of natural and social systems to adapt to a changing climate. 

I have reviewed the range of alternatives, read the public comments, and considered the 

evaluation of the alternatives in the FEIS. Based on all of this, I have selected Alternative E 

for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit land management plan. Alternative E is a 

modification of the preferred alternative analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) released in 2012. Alternative E was created using elements from within the range of 

alternatives and based on the public comments received during the 90-day comment period. By 

selecting this alternative, I am approving the Forest Plan that describes in detail the strategic 

vision and guidance for the LTBMU, including the Desired Conditions, Objectives, Suitable 

Uses and Management Areas, and Standards and Guidelines described in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the 

Forest Plan. 

My decision strikes a reasonable balance between maintaining and restoring the natural resource 

values of the LTBMU and providing a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities for over 5.7 

million annual visitors. Although the responsibility for this decision is mine, I have made the 

decision using the information and help of many others. Over 18,000 comments were received 

during the development of the Forest Plan. 

My decision applies only to the LTBMU and does not apply to any other federal, state, or private 

lands, although the effects to these lands and the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the 

national forest have been considered. This decision does not alter the management of the Grass 

Lake Research Natural Area which is administered by the Pacific Southwest Research Station. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-2 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

The Decision 

The current Forest Plan was implemented in 1988 with some minor revisions over time. Major 

revisions occurred in both 2004 and 2007. The Forest Service proposes to revise the LTBMU 

Forest Plan under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA, 16 U.S.D. 1604, et 

seq.) and the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations (36 CFR Part 219, 1982). The 2012 

regulations currently in effect allow use of the previous regulations for plan revisions initiated 

before the 2012 regulations took effect (36 CFR 219.17 (b) (3)). 

Components of the Decision 

I am making the following decisions: 

 Approval of the Desired Conditions described in Part 1: Vision and the Objectives 

described in Part 2: Strategies of the Forest Plan (36 CFR 219.11(b), 1982). The 

Desired Conditions are long term strategic goals, some of which may not be achieved in 

the expected 15-year planning period. Objectives are milestones in achieving the Desired 

Conditions and are planned to be accomplished in this 15 year planning period. 

 Approval of the Management Areas (displayed in Table 1 of this ROD) and Suitable 

Uses, which are fully described in Part 2 of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan describes 

four land use zones in Part 2 and displays the zones on the Management Area map (Map 

1, Forest Plan map packet) included with this plan (36 CFR 219.11(c)). Management 

Area descriptions convey the general management emphasis and intent for broad areas of 

the forest. 

 Approval of the suitable uses within the management areas and the land suitable for 

specific uses. The suitability of different lands for different uses is described by the 

management areas and with the accompanying Suitable Uses table in Part 2 (Table 5) of 

the Forest Plan and the descriptions of uses and activities that follow the table (36 CFR 

219.14 and 36 CFR 219.16). 

 Approval of the Standards and Guidelines described in Part 3: Design Criteria of the 

Revised Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines govern resource management activities. 

Some standards and guidelines apply forest-wide, others to specific Management Areas 

or Specially Designated Areas. Standards and Guidelines are constraints on project and 

activity decision making, which are established to help achieve or maintain the Desired 

Conditions, over the life of the plan. 

 Approval of the monitoring and evaluation requirements described in Appendix A 

(FEIS). The monitoring plan is designed to help the LTBMU evaluate progress towards 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-3

meeting Desired Conditions and to help identify necessary future Plan adjustments. 

Monitoring is clearly emphasized and must be accomplished. Monitoring is a key 

element to assure the achievement of desired conditions over time [36 CFR 219.11(d)]. 

Not all monitoring being done on the LTBMU is included in the monitoring plan. 

 Approval of the existing recommendation to Congress to designate a seven mile segment 

of the Upper Truckee River as a Wild River. 

Tribal Relations 

The relationship of the Forest Service with American Indians is important in the management 

and restoration of ecosystems in the Lake Tahoe Basin. To meet our trust responsibilities and to 

encourage the participation of American Indians in national forest management, I am continuing 

these commitments which were made in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA) ROD on behalf of the Forest Service: 

 We will work with tribal governments and tribal communities to develop mutually 

acceptable protocols for government-to-government and tribal community consultations. 

These protocols will emphasize line officers' and tribal officials' roles and responsibilities. 

 We will consult with appropriate tribal governments and tribal communities regarding 

fire protection and fuels management activities that potentially affect rancherias, 

reservations, and other occupied areas. We will develop fire protection plans for such areas in 

consultation with appropriate tribal or intertribal organizations. We will coordinate with 

tribes and appropriate tribal organizations regarding training, outreach, and other items of 

mutual interest in order to support tribal and national forest fire programs. 

 Traditional American Indian land use practices, tribal watershed and other ecosystem 

restoration practices and priorities will be considered early in national forest planning, 

analyses, decision making, and adaptive management processes. During landscape analyses 

and similar activities, we will assess vegetation community conditions where a specific area 

has an identified importance to an affected tribe or tribal community. We will consult with 

affected tribes, and, or tribal communities to consider traditional and contemporary uses and 

needs. 

 We will consider traditional American Indian vegetation management strategies and 

methods, and integrate them, where appropriate, into ecosystem restoration activities. We 

will cooperate with tribes, tribal communities, and intertribal organizations to develop 

ecosystem stewardship projects. 

 We will consider the relationship between fire management and plants culturally 

important to American Indians. Where fuels treatments may affect tribes or tribal 

communities, or plants culturally important to them, we will consult on the development of 

burn plans, and consider approaches that accommodate traditional scheduling and techniques 

of fire and vegetation management. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-4 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

 When implementing noxious weed management programs we intend to maintain or, if 

appropriate, increase the availability of plants traditionally used by American Indians. We 

will consult with appropriate tribes, tribal communities, or tribal organizations to identify 

areas of new or worsening weed infestations and develop plans for appropriate weed control. 

 We will, where appropriate, include culturally significant species in monitoring 

protocols related to management activities. 

 We will maintain appropriate access to sacred and ceremonial sites and to tribal 

traditional use areas. We will consult with affected tribes and tribal communities to address 

access to culturally important resources and culturally important areas when proposing 

management that may alter existing access. After appropriate assessment and consultation, 

we will consider proposing mineral withdrawals and other protection of inventoried sacred 

sites. 

 We will protect all sensitive and proprietary information to the greatest extent permitted 

by law. We will secure permission to release information from the tribe, tribal community, or 

individual who provided it prior to release to others. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-5

Rationale for the Decision 

National Policy Considerations 

National Strategic Plan – The revised forest plan is responsive to the Forest Service’s 2007-

2012 National Strategic Plan (FS 880) and to the goals relevant to the management of individual 

national forest units. 

Sustainability – This plan is designed to maintain the health, productivity, diversity, and overall 

integrity of the LTBMU. The plan integrates environmental, social and economic issues and 

values and accounts for future as well as present needs. 

Climate Change – the Forest Plan includes adaptation and mitigation strategies to enhance the 

ability of natural and social systems to adapt to a changing climate. This Plan provides a flexible 

and adaptive approach that can be adjusted as national policy emerges. 

Wildfire and Hazardous Fuels – This Plan continues to prioritize treatment of the Wildland 

Urban Interface (WUI) which comprises roughly 75% of NFS lands in the Tahoe Basin. 

Collaborative interagency planning has been undertaken with federal, state and local agencies 

and community organizations. Implementation of initial WUI treatments is expected to be 

complete during this planning period, at which time the focus will shift to maintenance 

treatments and treatments outside the WUI designed primarily to improve forest health and 

habitat. 

Invasive Species – Forest Plan direction for management and eradication of invasive species is 

greatly expanded from the 1988 Forest Plan. More specific direction for terrestrial species 

(weeds) is included. Aquatic invasive species such as quagga mussels and Eurasian water 

milfoil have emerged as growing threats to the health and beauty of Lake Tahoe and its 

tributaries. In response to this threat, Forest plan direction for control of these species is 

included, with a strong emphasis on collaboration with other agencies and groups. 

Adaptive Management – management within the context of an adaptive management 

framework is a key attribute of this decision. The Forest Plan is adaptive in that new knowledge 

and information can be analyzed and the plan amended, if appropriate, at any time. It provides 

overall intent and guidance, but also allows the flexibility needed for the Agency to work with 

the public and adapt management strategies to changing demands and conditions. This allows the 

latest science and public input to be considered at the time a project-level decision is to be made 

(Forest Plan, p.1). 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-6 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

The Decision 

The decision is consistent with national direction and focuses on the outcome of management 

activities rather than the production of outputs. The Plan emphasizes the importance of the 

condition of the land when management is completed rather than what is taken from the land. 

The decision places a clear emphasis on restoring ecosystem health and natural ecosystem 

processes, while continuing to provide a broad range of recreation opportunities, and protecting 

the valued scenic character of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The decision recognizes the value and 

need for partnerships and collaboration in managing NFS lands. It also recognizes the need to 

manage adaptively with an eye to strategies that will enhance the ability of natural systems to 

adapt to a changing climate and provide the flexibility to adapt recreation opportunities. 

Alternative E is based on the concept of sustainable multiple resource uses and conservation, and 

has been crafted using elements from other alternatives, and most importantly, on ideas from the 

public to help resolve the challenges stemming from the issues. 

My decision includes the approval for the use of four management areas (Table 1), including: 

General Conservation – All areas not included in one of the other management areas. 

These areas range from highly developed recreation sites to relatively pristine lands 

beyond the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

Santini-Burton/Urban Forest Parcels – primarily sensitive lands purchased under and 

governed by restrictions in the Santini-Burton Act. 

Backcountry – Currently designated Inventoried Roadless Areas comprise most of the 

Backcountry Management Area. The suitable uses and activities for Backcountry are 

limited to those that will perpetuate the roadless character of these lands. 

Designated Wilderness – Areas currently included in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

Table R-1. LTBMU Forest Plan Management Areas 

Management Areas Acres Percent of 

NFS Lands 

General Conservation 67,078 43%

Santini‐Burton/Urban Forest Parcels 13,935 9%

Backcountry 49,172 32%

Wilderness 24,665 16%

Total NFS Lands 154,850 100%

The Management Areas are described in detail in Part 2 of the Forest Plan, along with the 

suitable activities and uses for each Management Area. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-7

Issue Areas 

Integration of resources is a key concept in the Forest Plan. Management direction for forest 

health is designed to also sustain and enhance terrestrial wildlife habitats and species, and 

management direction for watershed restoration is designed to sustain and enhance aquatic 

wildlife habitats and species.

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Watershed restoration theory and techniques have changed. Given a changing climate, there is a 

need for restoration strategies and techniques that enhance the ability of stream systems to adapt 

to the more extreme weather and climate conditions that are predicted. This decision reflects 

these changes. 

This decision also updates management direction for water quality protection and enhancement 

and reaffirms our commitment to the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and 

other tributary watershed TMDLs. 

Aquatic invasives are a new management concern not addressed in the 1988 Forest Plan. This 

decision incorporates management direction to control and eradicate these species, in 

collaboration with other agencies and groups. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

There is a growing recognition of the need to manage hazardous fuels in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Since the adoption of the SNFPA, new science relating to hazardous fuels and forest health has 

emerged (e.g. GTR-220 – North et al. 2009). We now recognize that forests must be able to 

adapt to the weather conditions accompanying climate change, such as increased frequency of 

both extreme wet and extreme droughty periods. The Forest Plan has been updated to reflect this 

new science. 

Management direction to perpetuate habitats which support old growth-dependent species has 

been updated to include the best available science. The management direction provided by the 

SNFPA largely still applies, but minor changes have been incorporated into the Forest Plan to 

improve the perpetuation and health of this habitat type. Limited restoration of unoccupied 

spotted owl and goshawk PACs/HRCAs is allowed to improve these habitats. Many of the late 

seral stands that comprise PACs/HRCAs currently have dense understories that inhibit the birds’ 

ability to fly through stands in search of prey. Understory density also increases the probability 

of stand-replacing wildfire. Allowing limited restoration in these habitats will enable 

improvement of habitat quality and protection from wildfire that could destroy the habitat. 

Based on the many comments we received, we have revised standards and guidelines to clarify 

our intentions for management of old growth habitats. Our intention is to perpetuate current late 

seral closed canopy stands, and promote development of selected mid-seral stands to late seral. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-8 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

During the latter part of the planning period we expect to shift vegetation management focus 

from hazardous fuels management within the WUI to maintenance of WUI treatments and 

restoration of forest health. The Comstock logging in the 19th and early 20th centuries has 

resulted in overly dense, even-aged forests. Restoring forests to a more natural structure includes 

both increasing old–growth (late seral stands and increasing young forest (early seral). This is 

generally accomplished by creating forest openings and allowing natural seedling and sapling 

regeneration. In response to the many comments received, we revised our management direction 

on how we will accomplish creation of openings. Contrary to many public comments, it is not 

our intention to clearcut large areas of the forest. While we have placed an upper size limit of 10 

acres on openings, we expect that few will be that large; creation of many large openings would 

not be consistent with the Desired Conditions in the Plan or with recommendations in the recent 

General Technical Reports published by our Pacific Southwest Research Station. We have also 

clarified our standards and guidelines to ensure that when openings are created, they are 

compatible with Desired Conditions for wildlife habitat, scenery, and other resources. 

In response to comments we have added management direction that recognizes the importance of 

burned forest habitats to certain species. This includes greater emphasis on retaining snags 

resulting from wildfire and prescribed fire, and provisions for creating snags where appropriate. 

Recreation and Access and Travel Management 

Recreation demands have changed dramatically since 1988 and continue to change. Mountain 

biking was a new activity at time of the 1988 Plan decision, and snowboarding did not exist. 

New activities continue to be developed, and the popularity of current activities changes along 

with population demographics. Climate change brings uncertainty about the future availability 

of traditional winter recreation opportunities such as downhill skiing ,snowboarding, crosscountry skiing and other snow sports. This decision recognizes the need to provide for changing 

demands and to provide year round opportunities to support recreation demands and the local 

economy. 

Population growth in areas adjacent to the Lake Tahoe Basin continues to increase the demand 

for recreation opportunities, and this increases pressure on our developed recreation facilities. 

While we recognize the need to accommodate some of this increasing demand, we also 

recognize that we cannot accommodate all of it. My decision allows a modest expansion of 

recreation sites, day use parking, overnight accommodations, and ski areas and slopes. Limits on 

developed recreation expansion are specifically defined in a Forest Plan Standard; exceedance of 

these limits would require a Forest Plan amendment. This decision prioritizes maintenance and 

renovation of existing recreation sites over expansion, and continues the emphasis on retrofitting 

existing sites to provide universal accessibility and protect water quality. 

My decision to limit recreation expansion is also based on a need to balance the demand for 

facilities with the need to preserve the scenic qualities valued by residents and visitors, while 

also conserving habitats and maintaining water quality. Recognizing that well-informed forest 

visitors are better able to assist us with stewardship of the natural resources that draw residents 

and visitors to the Lake Tahoe Basin, the decision also includes management direction for 

environmental interpretation and education programs. Balancing all these factors is essential to a 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-9

sustainable recreation program that benefits the recreating public, the environment, and the local 

economy. 

Roads and Trails 

The road and trail system allows access to the more remote areas of the LTBMU, for a variety of 

recreation and management activities. This decision does not include a programmatic increase in 

the road system, but rather focuses on maintaining the current system and completing the 

program of water quality improvements (BMP retrofits) during the planning period, as described 

in the Forest Plan Objectives. An increase in the trail system will focus on “adopting” usercreated trails, bringing them up to National Forest Service standards and including them in the 

maintenance schedule. 

Parking 

We received many comments on the availability of summer and winter parking. While many 

people would like additional parking, others oppose the creation of more parking areas. This 

decision would maintain the current volume of summer parking while addressing some of the 

safety and natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin highways. A 

small increase in parking at developed sites is allowed to accommodate some of the demand; it is 

limited because significant increases in parking would also increase crowding at popular sites, 

and could also increase the potential for natural resource damage. 

Our ability to create additional winter parking is constrained by budgets and also by road 

ownership and jurisdiction. Many of the roads that people would like to see plowed in the winter 

are city, state, or county roads. The Forest Service is open to collaborative solutions to 

addressing the challenge of winter parking. 

Over Snow Vehicle Use 

A large volume of the comments received surrounded the issue of over snow vehicle (OSV) use. 

The term OSV commonly refers to snowmobiles but includes any other motorized vehicle 

designed to travel over snow. Comments ranged from one extreme to the other regarding OSV 

use, with some wanting OSVs banned completely from NFS lands and others wanting all NFS 

lands open to OSV use. 

Some commenters suggested that OSVs damage the environment. The FEIS has been updated to 

include analysis of the effects of on-going use of OSVs to multiple resources. I concur with the 

FEIS finding that OSV use in the current designated OSV use areas does not result in significant 

consequences to the environment. 

Overall, there were notable misconceptions about the current situation. The group favoring nonmotorized use incorrectly portrayed that there were areas closed or unavailable to them. 

Currently 100% of the LTBMU is open to non-motorized use. Approximately 52% is open to 

OSVs, which means 48% of LTBMU lands are free of OSVs. Additionally there are over 19,600 

acres of state lands (CA State Parks, CA Tahoe Conservancy, and NV State Parks) open to nonmotorized use but closed to OSV use. Cumulatively this increases the area in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin that is free of OSVs by about 12%. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-10 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

Desired Conditions promote a range of recreational opportunities within the context of a rustic 

outdoor experience appropriate to NFS lands. On a small area such as the LTBMU (only about 

155,000 acres) with such a high use and many different kinds of use, there is simply not the area 

available to separate all users in a manner that gives them all exactly the part of the landscape 

they want to use. To achieve the Desired Conditions presented in the Plan, several major winter 

activities are accommodated on the LTBMU: downhill resort skiing, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing, OSV use and snowplay. They are provided in proportions that allow participants 

full enjoyment at least somewhere within the boundaries of the LTBMU. 

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) results for 2010 show that 98% of visitors to the 

LTBMU were “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their recreational experience. The 

national target is 85% (FEIS Ch. 3, Sec 3.4.17). The Plan does serve the majority of users by 

providing a very diverse and high quality recreational experience, which has led to a very large, 

satisfied group of users. 

The designated areas open and closed to OSVs are well known and have been in place for 25 

years. There was no agreement amongst commenters as to what the appropriate proportion of 

each activity should be and no one proposed a systematic, science based method for developing 

an appropriate and fair allocation, so this decision carries forward the current designations of 

areas open to OSV use, as shown on the map included in the Forest Plan and the published 

LTBMU Snowmobile Guide. We also initiated a collaborative process for winter recreation in 

2011 which is intended to find areas of agreement between opposing factions and propose 

solutions acceptable to all. This process is ongoing. 

Wilderness Recommendations

Currently, 16% of LTBMU lands are part of the National Wilderness System. My decision does 

not recommend any additional Wilderness areas for designation by Congress. The current 

proportion of Wilderness contributes to a balanced distribution of recreation opportunities and 

land management strategies across the LTBMU landscape. Alternative C proposes to increase 

Wilderness to 25% of LTBMU lands while Alternative D proposes to recommend more than 

double the current Wilderness area, to 35% of LTBMU lands. 

While Wilderness designation does provide some additional protection for natural resources, it 

also limits management and restoration of those resources. Strong concerns were expressed by 

Tahoe Basin Fire Management organizations regarding protecting adjacent communities. 

Additional Wilderness would eliminate mountain bike use and preclude development of 

additional trails in those areas. The LTBMU trail system is well-known nationally and also 

attracts international visitors. We received many comments from the people who enjoy 

mountain biking, many of whom are members of partner organizations who assist with trail 

building and maintenance. 

Recommendation of the Freel IRA (Alternative D) was the most controversial because in 

addition to reducing areas open to mountain bikes, this designation would eliminate a large and 

very popular OSV area that many residents currently access from their backyards and 

neighborhoods. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-11

Backcountry Management Area 

Currently designated Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) comprise most of the Backcountry 

Management Area. The suitable uses and activities for Backcountry will continue to be limited 

to those that will perpetuate the long term roadless character of these lands, as described in Part 2 

of the Forest Plan. It is my intention that Backcountry areas fill a recreation niche between 

Wilderness and General Conservation. Dispersed recreation opportunities include hiking, 

mountain biking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, camping, and wildlife viewing. Summer 

motorized recreation is prohibited while winter motorized use (Over-snow vehicle use) is limited 

to existing designated areas. 

This decision creates the Stanford Rock Backcountry Area located between Ward and 

Blackwood Creeks. Stanford Rock is 3,619 acres, and includes an additional 933 acres of 

Santini-Burton lands located entirely within the Stanford Rock area. Stanford Rock has been 

delineated to exclude the WUI threat and defense zones, so that hazardous fuels reduction may 

continue adjacent to area communities. 

My rationale for designating this area as Backcountry includes several factors. The area is 

mostly relatively steep and inaccessible, and is unroaded except for one road that is not currently 

in use, and is not expected to be needed in the near future. Portions of the Pacific Crest Trail and 

Tahoe Rim Trail pass through the area. 

Stanford Rock, in combination with the adjacent Granite Chief North and Granite Chief South 

IRAs and the Santini-Burton parcels brings the contiguous roadless acreage on NFS lands in this 

part of the LTBMU to 5,741 acres. The Stanford Rock Area contains portions of four California 

spotted owl and northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs), and will add a large area 

for wildlife migration corridors on the western side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Most of Stanford Rock is within the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class and the area will 

remain closed to motorized summer uses. My decision to designate this area as Backcountry 

retains the current designation of this area as open to OSV use as an exception within the ROS 

class, similar to the Freel Peak area. The full length of Blackwood Creek is very popular with 

OSV enthusiasts, and includes a CalTrans SnoPark parking and staging area just outside Stanford 

Rock at the base of Blackwood Creek. Retaining the open OSV designation in this area is 

consistent with my decision to carry forward existing OSV area designations and ROS class 

exceptions throughout the LTBMU. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

In 1999, the LTBMU Forest Supervisor’s recommendation to designate a segment of the Upper 

Truckee as Wild under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was documented in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Eight Eastside Rivers FEIS. The Regional Forester approved the 

decision at the time but no further action has been taken to designate this segment. Since that 

time, the river has been managed to ensure that eligibility is maintained by protecting the freeflowing status and the outstandingly remarkable river values identified in the ROD. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-12 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

As part of the revision process, an analysis was conducted to determine if there were any 

“changed circumstances” from those described in 1999 Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic 

River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement that affected the free-flowing 

status of any rivers, and to determine if any new outstandingly remarkable values are associated 

with any Lake Tahoe Basin rivers, streams, or creeks (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 80). This analysis is 

documented in Appendix B of the FEIS. 

In response to concerns expressed during public meetings and comments submitted on the DEIS, 

the tributaries of the Upper Truckee River were re-analyzed. Potential outstandingly remarkable 

values were identified in association with many tributaries, but these tributaries were not found 

suitable. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin is one of the most heavily regulated landscapes in the United States. 

Federally designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water, the Lake Tahoe Basin has 

evolved into a rigorously scrutinized environment in which a cadre of federal, state, regional, and 

local regulatory agencies cooperatively manage and protect its most precious natural resource - 

Lake Tahoe and its contributing watersheds. 

Based on the information presented in Appendix B, my decision reaffirms the original 

recommendation to designate the identified segment of Upper Truckee River as a Wild River 

pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. It also adopts the Forest Plan Standard that 

requires management to maintain the eligibility of this segment. 

My decision also reaffirms the decision to not recommend the Truckee River. The Truckee 

River has retained the Outstandingly Remarkable Values described in the ROD, but its suitability 

is still challenged by the same issues that existed in 1999. In addition, the Truckee River has 

benefited from the more recent adoption of the 2008 Truckee River Operating Agreement 

(TROA), which provides many of the protections originally sought under the Wild and Scenic 

River designation. 

Specially Designated Areas 

My decision adopts the management direction in the Forest Plan for Specially Designated Areas. 

This decision does not recommend any additional Special Areas. Other than Wilderness, 

discussed above, no additional areas were brought forward for consideration by the public, other 

agencies, or the Forest Service. Specially Designated Areas are described in Section 2.4 of the 

Forest Plan. 

Monitoring 

This decision adopts the monitoring plan described in Appendix A (FEIS). This monitoring plan 

does not include all monitoring conducted by the LTBMU, but rather describes in broad terms 

the monitoring required to measure the degree to which on-the-ground management is 

maintaining or making progress toward the Forest Plan desired conditions and objectives. The 

monitoring plan will test assumptions, track changes, and measure management effectiveness, 

primarily through status and trend monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. The monitoring 

plan provides a framework that will be supplemented by more specific monitoring plans and 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-13

protocols. It will be adjusted as needed to respond to new information and unanticipated changes 

in conditions. 

Some members of the public have requested more extensive monitoring than we have proposed. 

The monitoring proposed in Appendix A (FEIS) reflects the base level of what we can afford 

based on current and expected future budgets. If more money is available through appropriated 

funds or funds from other sources, additional monitoring could be accomplished. 

Relationship of the Revised Plan to Existing Decisions 

This decision does not affect the direction in the following plans and projects: 

1. Eight East-Side Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report, Record of Decision and 

FEIS. Published Feb. 1999. USDA Forest Service, Tahoe NF and LTBMU. 

2. Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision. Published Nov. 1998, USDA Forest Service, Eldorado NF and 

LTBMU. 

3. Cave Rock Management Direction Record of Decision and FEIS. Published Aug. 2003, 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

4. Tallac Historic Site Master Plan, FEIS and Record of Decision. Published July 14, 1994, 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

5. Existing designated communication sites, 1988 Forest Plan, as amended, and are depicted 

in Forest Plan Map 8. Existing communication sites are as follows: 

a. East Peak 

b. Angels Roost 

c. Ward Peak 

d. Spooner Summit 

e. Brockway Summit 

f. Zephyr Heights Lookout 

g. Meeks water tank 

h. Tahoe Mountain 

i. Angora Lookout 

6. Land Acquisition Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final EIS, January 1982,as amended 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-14 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity 

The Revised Forest Plan classifies lands suitable for timber production and determines where on 

those lands timber harvesting would be allowed, in accordance with NFMA and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR 219.14). Chapter 3 and Appendix G of the FEIS detail the criteria and 

process used to determine the forest lands tentatively suitable for timber production. These are 

lands capable of producing commercial volumes of timber on a sustained-yield basis, where 

regularly scheduled timber harvest may occur. Areas legislatively withdrawn from timber 

harvest are not included. I have determined that under Alternative E, no lands are suitable for 

commercial timber production. Consequently, the Forest Plan does not have an allowable sale 

quantity for a sustained output of volume for commercial timber sales. 

This decision does include removal of timber to achieve the Desired Conditions expressed in Part 

1 of the Plan. Examples of the reasons that timber harvest could occur may include, but are not 

limited to: 

 Timber harvest to meet healthy forest and hazardous fuels objectives as part of 

community wildfire protection plans. 

 Maintaining or recruiting mature forest characteristics in areas where final 

regeneration of a stand is not planned. 

 Restoring meadow or riparian ecosystems being replaced by forest succession. 

 Cutting trees to promote the safety of forest users. This includes hazard tree removal 

in campgrounds, picnic grounds, and administrative sites, and along roads and trails 

open to public travel. 

 Timber harvest to meet early seral habitat objectives for wildlife 

 Timber harvest to meet scenic objectives that may include viewing areas or that 

increases scenic quality and integrity of an area. 

Demand for timber from the Forest is low. With the current depressed timber market, the lack 

of local manufacturing facilities dependent on National Forest timber, and the high cost of 

harvest and transportation, the demand is anticipated to remain at the same low level or be even 

lower over the next 10 to 15 years. 

Research Natural Areas 

The existing Grass Lake RNA will continue to be a component of the national RNA system. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-15

Alternatives Considered 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Five alternatives were considered in detail. 

Selected Alternative (Alternative E) 

 Continues water quality protection and commits to achievement of Lake Tahoe TMDL 

objectives. 

 Continues watershed restoration program and integrates it with aquatic habitat 

restoration. 

 Completes initial fuels treatments in the WUI defense and threat zones in initial part of 

planning period; focus shifts to restoring stand structure and composition outside the 

WUI and maintaining desired fuel conditions in the WUI during the latter part of the 

planning period. 

 Provides greatest opportunities for managed wildfire; managed wildfire prohibited only 

in WUI defense zone. 

 Integrates forest stand improvement with species and habitat conservation; allows for 

restoration treatments in PACs to benefit wildlife and forest health. 

 Provides for old forest habitat management consistent with most recent science. 

 Expands invasive species management to include strategies for control aquatic species 

and integrates invasive management with forestwide activities and uses. 

 Prioritizes deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and limits the expansion of 

recreation facilities, while allowing very modest increases from current capacity at 

developed sites. 

 Maintains the current volume of summer parking while addressing some of the safety and 

natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin highways. 

Allows a small increase in parking at developed sites. Expansion of winter parking would 

be contingent on budget and partnership opportunities. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt 

unauthorized routes. 

 Some expansion of trail system; decommission selected routes or rehabilitate and adopt 

up to 30 miles of unauthorized routes. 

 Clarifies standards and guidelines in response to public comment. 

 Adds approximately 3,619 acres to the Backcountry Management Area. The Stanford 

Rock Backcountry Area is located between Ward and Blackwood Creeks and includes an 

additional 933 acres of Santini-Burton lands that are entirely within the Stanford Rock 

area. The boundaries were drawn to exclude lands within the WUI. OSV use is currently 

allowed in this area and would continue to be allowed. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-16 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

 Maintains current Wilderness areas and does not recommend any additional Wilderness. 

 Reaffirms existing recommendation for Wild status of 7 mile segment of the Upper 

Truckee River, and inclusion of this segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

Other Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action) 

 Continues water quality protection and commits to achievement of Lake Tahoe TMDL 

objectives. 

 Continues watershed restoration program. 

 Completes initial fuels treatments in the WUI defense and threat zones in initial part of 

planning period; focus shifts to restoring stand structure and composition outside the 

WUI and maintaining desired fuel conditions in the WUI during the latter part of the 

planning period. 

 Continues current management of WUI threat and defense zones. 

 Managed wildfire only allowed in Desolation Wilderness. 

 Retains current management of old forest emphasis areas and California Spotted Owl and 

Northern Goshawk PACs. 

 Continues current invasive species management but does not provide direction for 

aquatic species management. 

 Emphasizes deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and allows for greatest 

expansion of recreation facilities. 

 Allows for greatest expansion of summer parking while addressing some of the safety 

and natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin highways. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt 

unauthorized routes. 

 Some expansion of trail system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt unauthorized 

routes. 

 Maintains current Wilderness areas. 

 Reaffirms existing recommendation for Wild status of 7 mile segment of the Upper 

Truckee River, and inclusion of this segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

Alternative B 

 Continues water quality protection and commits to achievement of Lake Tahoe TMDL 

objectives. 

 Continues watershed restoration program and integrates it with aquatic habitat 

restoration. 

 Completes initial fuels treatments in the WUI defense and threat zones in initial part of 

planning period; focus shifts to restoring stand structure and composition outside the 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-17

WUI and maintaining desired fuel conditions in the WUI during the latter part of the 

planning period. 

 Provides greatest opportunities for managed wildfire; managed wildfire prohibited only 

in WUI defense zone. 

 Integrates forest stand improvement with species and habitat conservation; allows for 

restoration treatments in PACs to benefit wildlife and forest health. 

 Provides for old forest habitat management consistent with most recent science. 

 Expands invasive species management to include strategies for control aquatic species 

and integrates invasive management with forestwide activities and uses. 

 Prioritizes deferred maintenance of recreation facilities while limiting expansion. 

 Maintains the current volume of summer parking while addressing some of the safety and 

natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin highways. 

Allows a small increase in parking at developed sites. Expansion of winter parking would 

be contingent on budget and partnership opportunities. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt 

unauthorized routes. 

 Some expansion of trail system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt unauthorized 

routes. 

 Maintains current Wilderness areas and does not recommend any additional Wilderness 

 Reaffirms existing recommendation for Wild status of 7 mile segment of the Upper 

Truckee River, and inclusion of this segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

Alternative C 

 Continues water quality protection and commits to achievement of Lake Tahoe TMDL 

objectives. 

 Continues watershed restoration program and integrates it with aquatic habitat 

restoration. 

 Completes initial fuels treatments in the WUI defense and threat zones in initial part of 

planning period; focus shifts to restoring stand structure and composition outside the 

WUI and maintaining desired fuel conditions in the WUI during the latter part of the 

planning period. 

 More aggressive vegetation treatments allow for longer intervals between treatments. 

 Provides increased opportunities for managed wildfire; managed wildfire prohibited in 

WUI defense and threat zones. 

 Integrates forest stand improvement with species and habitat conservation; allows for 

restoration treatments in PACs to benefit wildlife and forest health. 

 Provides for old forest habitat management consistent with most recent science. 

 Expands invasive species management to include strategies for control aquatic species 

and integrates invasive management with forestwide activities and uses. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-18 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

 Prioritizes deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and allows for moderate 

expansion of recreation facilities. 

 Slightly increases the current volume of summer parking while addressing some of the 

safety and natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin 

highways. Allows a moderate increase in parking at developed sites. Expansion of winter 

parking would be contingent on budget and partnership opportunities. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt 

unauthorized routes. 

 Some expansion of trail system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt unauthorized 

routes. 

 Maintains current Wilderness areas and recommends the Dardanelles IRA for Wilderness 

designation. 

 Reaffirms existing recommendation for Wild status of 7 mile segment of the Upper 

Truckee River, and inclusion of this segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

Alternative D 

 Continues water quality protection and commits to achievement of Lake Tahoe TMDL 

objectives. 

 Limits watershed restoration program to currently planned projects and integrates it with 

aquatic habitat restoration. 

 Completes initial fuels treatments in the WUI defense and threat zones in initial part of 

planning period; focus shifts to restoring stand structure and composition outside the 

WUI and maintaining desired fuel conditions in the WUI during the latter part of the 

planning period. 

 Outside the WUI defense zone, mechanical treatments limited to removal of trees 12 

inches or less in diameter. 

 Emphasizes use of prescribed fire to achieve vegetation management goals. 

 Provides increased opportunities for managed wildfire; managed wildfire prohibited in 

WUI defense zones. 

 Eliminates the WUI threat zone. 

 Integrates forest stand improvement with species and habitat conservation; 

 Retains old forest emphasis areas and management direction for California Spotted Owl 

and Northern Goshawk PACs form the 2004 SNFPA ROD. 

 Expands invasive species management to include strategies for control aquatic species 

and integrates invasive management with forestwide activities and uses. Limits invasive 

species management to high priority species. 

 Prioritizes deferred maintenance of recreation facilities and does not allow for expansion 

of recreation facilities; any facilities removed would not be replaced. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-19

 Slightly decreases the current volume of summer parking while addressing some of the 

safety and natural resource concerns related to current roadside parking along basin 

highways. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system; decommission or rehabilitate and adopt 

unauthorized routes. 

 Slight decrease in motorized and mechanized trails and slight increase in hiking and 

equestrian trails. 

 Maintains current Wilderness areas and recommends the Dardanelles and Freel IRAsfor 

Wilderness designation. 

 Adds areas on the west and north shore to the Backcountry Management Area. 

 Reaffirms existing recommendation for Wild status of 7 mile segment of the Upper 

Truckee River, and inclusion of this segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail 

Eight alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. These alternatives are 

described in FEIS Section 2.5. 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

NEPA regulations require agencies to specify the alternative or alternatives which were 

considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR1505.2 (b)) in a Record of Decision. Forest 

Service policy (FSH 1909.15, Section 05) defines environmentally preferable as: 

“...the alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as expressed 

in NEPA’s section 101 (42 USC 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable 

alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and physical environment; 

it is also the alternative that best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural 

resources. In some situations, there may be more than one environmentally preferable 

alternative. (36 CFR 220.3)” 

Alternative E could be considered the environmentally preferable alternative because it provides 

the best balance of management and protection of the landscape. The aggressive fuels 

management program proposed in Alternative C has the greatest potential risk to adversely 

impact the physical and biological environment. While Alternative D has the least short term 

risk, it has the greatest potential for long term adverse impacts. See FEIS Chapter 2, Comparison 

of Alternatives. 

Public Involvement 

Public participation is essential to the Forest Plan revision process. I am grateful to the many 

individual members of the public, interest groups, and other agencies who have contributed to 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-20 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

the revision of the LTBMU Forest Plan; your participation has improved both the Plan and the 

accompanying analysis, and I expect that in turn, management of our NFS lands will also be 

improved. 

The LTBMU initiated Forest Plan Revision in 2004. Public involvement opportunities began 

with an inter-agency collaborative process called Pathway 2007 (Pathway). Through Pathway, 

the partner agencies and the public developed a shared vision for the future of the Lake Tahoe 

Basin which has been incorporated in the Desired Conditions of the Draft Forest Plan. 

Beginning in the winter of 2008 and continuing through 2013, 11 public meetings and 

workshops and one online webinar were held to solicit input and provide information on Forest 

Plan Revision. Additional meetings were held with local, state, and federal agencies and interest 

groups to discuss plan content during this period. 

The DEIS was available for comment from June 1 through August 30, 2012. Over 18,500 emails 

and letters commenting on the DEIS and supporting documents were received. All comments 

from these letters were sorted, grouped by subject and analyzed. The Response to Comment 

document can be found in Appendix N of the FEIS. Additional details about the public 

involvement process are available in Chapter 1 of the FEIS and in the project record. 

I find that the LTBMU has fulfilled the requirements for public participation in the revision of a 

land and resource management plan (36 CFR 219.6 and 219.10b, 1982). 

Findings Required by Other Laws and 

Regulations 

The Forest Service manages the LTBMU in conformance with many federal laws. In this section 

I consider the major laws involved in this programmatic-level decision. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

The NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare detailed statements on proposed actions that 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NEPA’s requirement is designed to 

serve two major functions: 

 To provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects 

of a proposed action prior to its adoptions; and 

 To inform the public of, and allow comment on, such efforts. 

I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with each of the 

major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-21

First, the FEIS considered a broad range of reasonable alternatives. The five alternatives 

considered in detail in the FEIS represent only part of the total number of alternatives considered 

over the course of analysis. Eight additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from 

detailed study for various reasons, as described in Section 2.5 of the FEIS. Alternatives 

presented in the FEIS encompass a broad range of responses to issues. Over the course of the 

analysis, public involvement was a collaborative effort where people had the opportunity to fully 

participate and contribute to alternative development, as well as give formal comments on the 

DEIS. Substantive comments made on the DEIS are responded to in Appendix N. Changes 

made in response to the comments included clarifying explanations in the FEIS, additions and 

revisions to Standards and Guidelines, and addition of approximately 3,600 acres to the 

Backcountry Management Area. 

Second, the FEIS discloses cumulative effects of the alternatives by evaluating past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the planning area. Moreover, although non-federal lands 

are outside the scope of this decision, effects from their use have been considered in the FEIS to 

a degree appropriate for a programmatic NEPA document at this scale. 

Third, the FEIS makes use of the best available scientific information. This use has been 

reviewed using a science consistency evaluation process that considered the quality of the 

information used, how the information was used, and whether risk and uncertainty were 

acknowledged. The available scientific literature was used to help estimate environmental 

consequences. Complex vegetation and wildlife habitat models were employed to better 

understand the relationships between management actions and potential impacts to forest 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. All of these tools, taken together, constitute use of the best 

available information. 

The decision here does not directly authorize any new ground disturbing activities or projects; 

ground disturbing activities and projects will be subject to additional site-specific environmental 

analysis that will tier to the FEIS for the Forest Plan and follow applicable public involvement 

and administrative review procedures. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

The NFMA implementing regulation specifies a number of requirements that guide Forest 

Service planning. The Forest Plan complies with each of these management requirements, as 

explained in this ROD and accompanying FEIS and Appendices. 

The implementing regulation calls for fish and wildlife habitat to be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area (36 

CFR 219.19, 1982). Appendix E describes how the Forest Plan will meet the regulatory 

requirements to maintain species diversity and viability, and lists the species analyzed in the 

FEIS. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-22 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

Management Indicator Species 

The implementing regulation for NFMA prescribes the use of management indicator species 

(MIS), whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response 

of other species with similar habitat requirements. Details regarding the identification and 

selection of these MIS, including the reasons for their selection, as required under the Planning 

Rule ((1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a)(1)), can be found in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests 

Management Indicator Species (SNFMIS) Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 2007a) and SNFMIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b), which are hereby incorporated by reference. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Consultation requirements under Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, are ongoing with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. A final Biological Assessment will be published concurrent with the 

final Record of Decision, after the objection resolution process is complete. 

Clean Water Act 

Full implementation of the Revised Forest Plan is expected to maintain and improve water 

quality and satisfies all State water quality requirements. I base this finding on the extensive 

standards and guidelines contained in the Revised Forest Plan, the application of state and 

nationally approved “Best Management Practices” specifically designed to protect water quality 

and the discussion of water quality contained in the FEIS, Chapter 3. Additionally, project level 

analysis for subsequent activities under the Revised Forest Plan will be required to demonstrate 

compliance with the Clean Water Act and state water quality standards. 

Clean Air Act 

At the scale of a programmatic plan such as this, the overall level of activities proposed under 

this decision is not anticipated to degrade air quality or violate state implementation plans. This 

finding is based on information presented in the FEIS. Conformity determinations and more 

detailed air quality impact analyses will be made at subsequent levels of planning and analysis 

where emissions can be more accurately quantified, reasonably forecasted, and local impacts 

assessed. 

Flood Plains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 

11990) 

These Executive Orders require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short term and 

long term effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of flood plains and the 

modification or destruction of wetlands. Forest-wide standards and guidelines for soil and water, 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-23

wetlands, and riparian areas are designed to minimize effects to flood plains and wetlands. They 

incorporate the National and Regional Best Management Practices. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

This decision is consistent with Executive Order 12898, which requires that all federal actions 

consider potentially disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities, 

especially if adverse effects to environmental or human health conditions are identified. Adverse 

environmental or human health conditions created by any of the alternatives considered would 

not affect any minority or low-income neighborhood disproportionately. 

In no case was the management direction in the Forest Plan based on the demographic makeup, 

occupancy, property value, income level, or any other criteria reflecting the status of adjacent 

non-federal land. Federally owned lands covered by this land management plan are distributed 

throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin and are intermixed with non-federal lands. My decision would 

not affect any non-federal land that would impact minority or low-income neighborhoods 

disproportionately. There is no evidence that any individual, group, or portion of the community 

would benefit unequally from this decision. 

Civil Rights Laws 

Civil Rights are defined as “the legal rights of United States citizens to guaranteed equal 

protection under the law” (USDA Forest Service Manual 1730). Civil rights impact analysis for 

environmental or natural resource actions is part of the social impact analysis package in a 

necessary environmental impact statement and is not a separate report (USDA Forest Service 

Handbook 1709.11). The Forest Service is committed to equal treatment of all individuals and 

social groups in its management programs in providing services, opportunities and jobs. 

Because no actual or projected violation of legal rights to equal protection under the law is 

foreseen under the Revised Forest Plan for any individual or category of people, no civil rights 

impacts are reported in the FEIS. 

Accessibility 

The Forest Service and its cooperators are required to incorporate access standards into all of the 

agency’s “Federally Conducted” or “Federally Assisted” facilities, programs, services, or 

activities. This direction is mandated in the following laws and regulations: Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 1978; 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title v, section 507) and 7 CFR 15(e). The LTBMU 

has incorporated accessibility requirement into the Forest Plan components. 

Tribal Government Consultation (Executive Order 13084) 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-24 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

Tribal representatives of the Washoe Tribe were involved throughout the Revision process. Prior 

to the release of the Notice of Intent to revise the Forest Plan, meetings were held with the 

Washoe Tribe to understand their unique issues and concerns. Information from personal 

meetings, phone calls, and correspondence with tribal representatives was considered in the 

selection of the Preferred Alternative. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-25

The Wilderness Act 

(Public Law 88-577 [16 U.S. C. 1131-1136]) 

Implementation of this Plan will comply with the provisions of the Wilderness Act (1964). The 

Management Area direction and Suitable Uses are consistent with the Act. The Plan also 

includes a Guideline requiring management of wilderness areas in compliance with specific 

wilderness management plans or stewardship components identified through national guidance. 

Implementation 

I am providing the following transition direction to ensure the orderly implementation of the 

Forest Plan that is made in this Record of Decision. The new direction will apply to all project 

decisions made on or after the effective date of this revision. 

Covered Projects Subject to Forest Plan Consistency Requirements 

“Covered Projects” are those project for which: 

 A Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not been 

published on or before the effective date of this decision, or 

 A legal notice of the availability to comment on an Environmental Assessment has not 

been published on or before the effective date of this decision, or 

 A legal notice of the availability to comment on a Categorical Exclusion has not been 

published on or before the effective date of this decision 

Projects currently under contract, permit, or other authorizing instrument, are not affected by the 

Forest Plan revision. However, projects may be modified to adopt all or part of this direction 

where Forest officers deem it appropriate. Reissuance of existing contracts, permits and special 

use authorizations will be treated as new decisions, which must be consistent with the new 

direction of the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan provides a programmatic framework within which project-level decisions are 

designed and implemented. As noted above, all projects for which a decision has not been made 

prior to the effective date of these amendments must be consistent with the Forest Plan. Any of 

these instruments which are determined by the responsible official to be inconsistent shall be 

adjusted as necessary to achieve consistency with the Forest Plan, but only to the extent legal 

authority exists to make adjustment and subject to valid existing rights. The Forest Plan does not 

provide final authorization for any activity, nor does it compel that any contracts or permits be 

advertised or awarded. 
 Revised LRMP – DRAFT Forest Plan Record of Decision 

R-26 ■ Forest Plan Record of Decision 

Objection Opportunities 

This plan revision is subject to objection under 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. A written notice of 

objection, including attachments, must be submitted (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, 

express delivery, or messenger service) within 60 days after the date of publication of the legal 

notice in the Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, CA (36 CFR 219.56). The written notice of 

objection must be submitted to Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, who is the Objection 

Reviewing Officer at: 

Hand Delivery: 

USDA Forest Service, EMC 

Attn: Judicial & Administrative 

Reviews 

RPC-6th floor 

1601 N. Kent Street 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Express Delivery: 

USDA Forest Service, EMC 

Attn: Judicial & Administrative Review 

Group 

201 14th St., SW 

Mailstop: 1104 

Washington, DC 20250 

Postal Delivery: 

USDA Forest Service, EMC 

Attn: Judicial & Administrative Review 

Group 

1400 Independence Ave., SW, 

Mailstop Code: 1104 

Washington, DC 20250-1104 

Fax: 703-235-0138 

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

pm. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. We will also accept electronically filed 

objections. Please send such objections to “objections-chief@fs.fed.us” (dash, not underscore). 

Electronically mailed objections must be in WORD, WordPerfect, PDF, or Rich Text Format 

(.rtf) file formats. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should normally receive an 

automated electronic acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender 

does not receive an automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the objection, it is the sender’s 

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. 

The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record (The Sacramento Bee) is the 

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection (36 CFR 219.56 (b)). Those wishing 

to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. 

Under 36 CFR 219.53(a), only those individuals or organizations who participated in the 

planning process through the submission of written comments may file an objection. A signature 

or other verification of authorship is required (a scanned signature when filing electronically is 

acceptable). In addition, objections must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 219.13(b). 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ROD ■ R-27

Implementation Date

If no objections are filed within the 60 day time period, the responsible official’s approval of this 

plan revision in a Record of Decision may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day 

following the end of the objection-filing period. 

The responsible official may not issue a decision document concerning this plan revision until 

the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all objections. 

A decision by the responsible official approving this plan revision must be consistent with the 

reviewing officer’s response to objections. 

This plan revision will be effective 30 days from the date of publication of approval. 

Contact Perso 

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, 

contact: 

Theresa Corless 

Regional Appeals Coordinator - Pacific Southwest Region 

(707) 562-8768 (phone) 

 

RANDY MOORE Date 

Regional Forester 

Pacific Southwest Region