United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

 
 Cover photo:

View of Fallen Leaf Lake with Mt. Tallac in the background, 

approximately one mile south of the city of South Lake Tahoe. 

 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). 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Front Matter ■ i 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2013 

Alpine, El Dorado, and Placer Counties, California 

and 

Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada 

This Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) describes the framework that 

will guide on-the-ground projects and program activities. 

Public notification for commencement of the 60-day objection period has been published in the 

Federal Register and Sacramento Bee newspaper. 

A copy of the notice may be accessed from the LTBMU Forest Plan Revision website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ltbmu/ForestPlanRevision

 

Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Randy Moore 

Regional Forester 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

(707) 562-9000

For more information contact: Theresa Corless 

Regional Appeals Coordinator 

Pacific Southwest Region. 

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

(707) 562-8768
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ii ■ FEIS Abstract

ABSTRACT: 

The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1988 Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Forest Plan) for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Plan 

revision would provide an updated Forest Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit (LTBMU) that would guide management of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin for approximately the next 15 years. 

 The proposal updates the management direction for approximately 154,000 

acres of NFS lands in California and Nevada by describing desired conditions, 

objectives, suitable uses, standards and guidelines and monitoring 

requirements. 

 In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Forest 

Service provided opportunity for the public to comment on a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Draft Forest Plan. 

 Comments have been responded to in this Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) which analyzes the consequences of five alternatives 

including a “no action” alternative which would continue management under 

the 1988 Forest Plan, as amended. 

 Alternative E (which was added as a result of comments on the DEIS) is the 

Agency’s Preferred Alternative and is fully embodied in the Draft Forest Plan. 

CITATION: 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2013. Final Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan Final EIS. R5-MB-254A. U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit. CA: South Lake Tahoe. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TOC ■ iii 

FEIS Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... ES-1

Abstract .................................................................................................................. ES-1

Decision to Be Made ...................................................................................................... ES-1

The Planning Process .................................................................................................... ES-1

The Final Environmental Impact Statement .................................................................. ES-2

Issues .................................................................................................................. ES-2

Alternatives ................................................................................................................... ES-4

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... ES-9

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan ................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Changes between DEIS and FEIS ................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Plan Area ...................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Applicable Planning Regulations .................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Purpose and Need for Forest Plan Revision ................................................. 1-5

1.6 Decision Framework ..................................................................................... 1-6

1.7 Plan Content ................................................................................................. 1-9

1.8 How the Management Direction Is Applied ............................................... 1-11

1.9 The Role of Science in Environmental Analysis .......................................... 1-11

1.10 Summary of Public Involvement, Scoping, & Collaboration ..................... 1-12

1.11 Plan Revision Issues................................................................................... 1-13

1.12 Laws, Regulations and Policies .................................................................. 1-19

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ..................................................... 2-1

2.1. Development of Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-1

2.2. Elements Common to All Alternatives .......................................................... 2-3

2.3. Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................. 2-4

2.3.1. Alternative A: No Action (1988 Plan, as amended) ............................................ 2-5

2.3.2. Alternative B: DEIS Preferred Alternative .......................................................... 2-7

2.3.3. Alternative C ................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.4. Alternative D ................................................................................................ 2-11

2.3.5. Alternative E: FEIS Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 2-13

2.4. How the Alternatives Address Relevant Issues ......................................... 2-14

2.4.1. Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems ...................................................... 2-14

2.4.2. Terrestrial Ecosystems ................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.3. Recreation .................................................................................................... 2-16

2.4.4. Access and Travel Management ...................................................................... 2-17

2.5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................... 2-19

2.5.1. Conduct Revision as Part of a Sierra Nevada Ecoregion Plan ............................. 2-19

2.5.2. Recommend Additional Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................ 2-19

2.5.3. Revise the Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designations .............................................. 2-20

2.5.4. Increase the Pace and Scale of Ecosystem Restoration ..................................... 2-22

2.5.5. Citizen’s Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................................... 2-23

2.5.6. No Grazing Alternative ................................................................................... 2-23

2.5.7. 2001 SNFPA Alternative ................................................................................. 2-24

2.5.8. Consider the Document “National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation 

 Strategy” As an Alternative. ................................................................................ 2-27

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-28

2.6.1. How Plan Decisions Change by Alternative ...................................................... 2-28

2.6.2. Comparison Tables ........................................................................................ 2-33
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

iv ■ FEIS Abstract

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............................. 3-1 

 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.2. Organization of the Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.2.1. Introduction and Scope of the Analysis ................................................................................. 3-3 

 3.2.2. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................3-3 

 3.2.3. Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 3-3 

 3.2.4. Overview of the Affected Environment .................................................................................3-3 

 3.2.5. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................3-4 

 3.2.6. Analytical Conclusions............................................................................................................3-4 

 3.3. Assumptions Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 3-10 

 3.3.1. Recreation Expansion under All Analysis .............................................................................. 3-12

 3.4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences by Resource Area ......... 3-13 

 3.4.1. Access and Travel Management.............................................................................................3-13 

 3.4.2. Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................3-28 

 3.4.3. Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ....................................................................................3-78 

 3.4.4. Botanical Habitat and Species. .............................................................................................3-122 

 3.4.5. Terrestrial Invasive Species. ................................................................................................3-153 

 3.4.6. Built Environment ...............................................................................................................3-166 

 3.4.7. Climate Change ..................................................................................................................3-173 

 3.4.8. Cultural Resources. ............................................................................................................3-192 

 3.4.9. Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................3-195 

 3.4.10. Fire and Fuels ..................................................................................................................3-198 

 3.4.11. Forest Vegetation ............................................................................................................3-237 

 3.4.12. Interpretive and Education, Partnerships and Volunteers .............................................3-290 

 3.4.13. Lands Program ...............................................................................................................3-295 

 3.4.14. Management Indicator Species (MIS)..............................................................................3-306 

 3.4.15. Minerals...........................................................................................................................3-356 

 3.4.16. Natural Hazards ...............................................................................................................3-360 

 3.4.17. Noise. ..............................................................................................................................3-363 

 3.4.18. Range Resources. ............................................................................................................3-370 

 3.4.19. Recreation........................................................................................................................3-375 

 3.4.20. Scenic Resources............................................................................................................3-427 

 3.4.21. Social and Economic Conditions. .................................................................................3-444 

 3.4.22. Soils Resource. ............................................................................................................3-455 

 3.4.23. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ........................................................................3-470 

 3.4.24. Water Quality and Soil Erosion. ....................................................................................3-533 

 3.4.25. Water Quantity...............................................................................................................3-553 

 3.4.26. Watershed Condition......................................................................................................3-558 

 3.4.27. Wilderness .....................................................................................................................3-569 

 3.5. Cumulative Environmental Consequences .......................................................... 3-579 

 3.5.1. Non-Forest Service Lands. ................................................................................................3-580 

 3.5.2. Cumulative Effects by Resource Area.................................................................................3-581 

 3.6. Environmental Justice............................................................................................ 3-600 

 3.7. Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity............................. 3-600 

 3.8. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 3-601 

 3.9. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..................................... 3-601
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TOC ■ v 

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination...................................................................... 4-1 

 4.1. Preparers and Contributors.................................................................................... 4-2

 Interdisciplinary Team Members – USDA Forest Service..................................................................4-2 

 List of Preparers.................................................................................................................................4-7 

4.2. Consultation..........................................................................................................4-10 

4.3. Distribution............................................................................................................4-11 

 Notification of DEIS release to Individuals & Organizations...............................................................4-11 

 Distribution of FEIS to Additional Agencies and Community Locations.............................................4-14 

Index of FEIS Topics......................................................................................................I-1 

FEIS Maps 

FEIS Map 1. Management Areas – Alts. A and B 

FEIS Map 2. Management Areas – Alt. C 

FEIS Map 3. Management Areas – Alt. D 

FEIS Map 4. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

 Zones – Alts. A, B and C 

FEIS Map 5. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

 Zones – Alt. D 

FEIS Map 6. Existing Developed & Permitted 

 Recreation Sites 

FEIS Map 7. Existing Developed & Permitted 

 Recreation Sites – Inset 

FEIS Map 8. Recreation Residence Tracts 

FEIS Map 9. Condition Class Mean Fire Return 

 Interval (FRI) 

FEIS Map 10. Changes in Recreation 

 Opportunities – Alt. D 

FEIS Map 11. PAC and HRCA Alts. A, B, C and D 

FEIS Map 12. Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEA) 

 and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR) 

FEIS Map 13. Species Refuge Areas (Biological) 

 – Alts. B, C and D 

FEIS Map 14. Whitebark Pine Species Refuge 

 Area 

FEIS Map 15. Management Areas – Alternative E 

FEIS Map 16. Stanford Rock Backcountry 

 Management Area 

List of Table and Figures 

FEIS Tabes

Table ES-1. Major program strategies by alternative..............................................................................ES-6 

Table 1-1. Changes to developed recreation baseline between DEIS and FEIS.......................................1-3 

Table 2-1. Summary of Key Strategic Differences among Alternatives...................................................2-34 

Table 2-2 Comparison of Alternatives by Management Area..................................................................2-43 

Table 2-3 Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Consequences on Resources...........................2-45 

Table 3-1. Ongoing Activities and Uses......................................................................................................3-4 

Table 3-2. LTBMU Road System Description, by Maintenance Level......................................................3-14 

Table 3-3. LTBMU Trail System Description by Managed Use..................................................................3-15 

Table 3-4. Miles of road by jurisdiction in the LTBMU Administrative 

 Boundary................................................................................................................................................3-15 

Table 3-5. Summary of Air Quality Issues and 

Indicators...................................................................................................................................................3-31 

Table 3-6. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (μg m-3 (ppm)).......................................3-37 

Table 3-7. Wildland fire acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin from 2001 to 2010.............................................3-40 

Table 3-8. 2010 Estimated annual average emissions (tons/day) for natural sources 

 (including wildfire)....................................................................................................................................3-42 

Table 3-9. Average concentration of NH3, HNO3, and O3 for 2002, 2006, and 2010...........................3-43 

Table 3-10. LTBMU acreages by Watershed Assessment Units (HUC6) and condition for grouping for N 

 deposition................................................................................................................................................3-45 

Table 3-11. Baseline (2000-2004) vs. 2005-2009 data from the Bliss IMPROVE site showing the trend for 

 worst visibility days.................................................................................................................................3-51 

Table 3-12. Baseline (2000-2004) vs. 2005-2009 data from the Bliss IMPROVE site showing the trend for 

 the best visibility days..............................................................................................................................3-52
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

vi ■ FEIS Table of Contents

Table 3-13. Best and worst deciviews for the glide path........................................................................3-54 

Table 3-14. Pollutant emissions from prescribed fire for Period 1 (tons) .............................................3-57 

Table 3-15. Pollutant emissions from wildfire for Period 1 (tons) .........................................................3-58 

Table 3-16. Total pollutant emissions (prescribed and wildfire) for Period 1 (tons)..............................3-59 

Table 3-17. Emissions from Snowmobiles (tons/yr) ..............................................................................3-64 

Table 3-18. Pollutant emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons) ................................................3-65 

Table 3-19. Air toxic emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons of CO2 

 equivalent)................................................................................................................................................3-67 

Table 3-20. Air Quality Impact summary................................................................................................3-77 

Table 3-21. Biological Resource Groups and 

 Emphasis................................................................................................................................................3-99 

Table 3-22. Comparison of Consequences by Alternative, Aquatic 

 Wildlife...................................................................................................................................................3-119 

Table 3-23. Plant species analyzed in the revised Forest Plan FEIS......................................................3-123 

Table 3-24 Management Status and Rarity of TEPCS Species...............................................................3-131 

Table 3-25. Range of estimated whitebark pine abundance on LTBMU................................................3-134 

Table 3-26. Comparison of Consequences by Alternative, Threatened or Endangered Plant 

 Species...................................................................................................................................................3-149 

Table 3-27. Acreage, quantity, and relative percentages of known mapped invasive plants 

 infestations.............................................................................................................................................3-156 

Table 3-28. Infestations on Non-NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin.............................................3-157 

Table 3-29. Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies numerical ranking...........................3-189 

Table 3-30. Mean (range) surface fuel characteristics estimated for reference (Ref.) and contemporary 

 (Con.) forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA.......................................................................................3-211 

Table 3-31. Mean (range) canopy fuel characteristics for reference and contemporary forests in the Lake 

 Tahoe Basin..........................................................................................................................................3-212 

Table 3-32. Weather recorded on days when large fire occurred in Lake Tahoe Basin........................3-214 

Table 3-33. Number of ignitions and acres burned by cause (human versus natural) over the last three 

 decades................................................................................................................................................3-215 

Table 3-34. Average annual lightning strike occurrence by area approved for managed wildfire by 

 alternative, and estimated ignitions calculated from regression equation..........................................3-221 

Table 3-35. Acre contributions to effects on indicator by the various vegetation and fuels 

 treatments.............................................................................................................................................3-226 

Table 3-36. Acre contributions to effects on indicator 2 by prescribed fire and managed 

 wildfire...................................................................................................................................................3-230 

Table 3-37. Seral stages by canopy and tree sizes.................................................................................3-240 

Table 3-38. Current Status and Trend of Indicators without treatment and forest restoration goals in the 

 Lake Tahoe Basin.................................................................................................................................3-246 

Table 3-39. Annual Aerial Tree Mortality Survey for the Years 2000 to 2011.......................................3-248 

Table 3-40. Modeled Pre-Settlement Historical Reference Conditions...................................................3-251 

Table 3-41. Desired range of stocking (density) and basal area of live trees and number of snags and 

 tons per acre of coarse woody debris on the forest floor.....................................................................3-252 

Table 3-42. Current Forest Conditions by California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Class and Seral Stage 

 based on Forest Inventory.....................................................................................................................3-253 

Table 3-43. Summary of all forest type trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of five 

 decades................................................................................................................................................3-256 

Table 3-44. Summary of white fir/mixed conifer trend changes from current conditions over a prediction 

 of five decades.......................................................................................................................................3-256 

Table 3-45. Summary of Jeffrey pine trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of five 

 decades................................................................................................................................................3-257 

Table 3-46. Summary of Red fir trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of five 

 decades................................................................................................................................................3-257 

 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TOC ■ vii 

Table 3-47. Relative Comparison of the Positive Effects of Each Alternative to Achieving Desired 

 Conditions.............................................................................................................................................3-288 

Table 3-48. Special Use Permits issued by the LTBMU, as of 12/9/2011.............................................3-300 

Table 3-49. Management Indicator Species (MIS) components for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

 Unit.........................................................................................................................................................3-309 

Table 3-50. Number of surveyed fires with Black-backed Woodpecker detections, points 

 surveyed................................................................................................................................................3-332 

Table 3-51. Estimated geologic hazards, consequences and risks within the LTBMU...........................3-361 

Table 3-52. Range Resources Impact Summary....................................................................................3-374 

Table 3-53. National Forest Visits to the LTBMU....................................................................................3-380 

Table 3-54. 2010 Recreation Activity Participation on LTBMU...............................................................3-381 

Table 3-55. NVUM overall satisfaction ratings 2005 and 2010...............................................................3-382 

Table 3-56. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification for NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

 (2011)...................................................................................................................................................3-383 

Table 3-57. Inventory of Developed Recreation Sites...........................................................................3-389 

Table 3-58. Management Areas Comparison to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum..............................3-395 

Table 3-59. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification by Alternative..............................3-397 

Table 3-60. Maximum ski area operational footprint acreage on NFS lands in Lake Tahoe 

 Basin......................................................................................................................................................3-418 

Table 3-61. Existing Scenic Integrity Inventory, NFS Acres & Percent of Total Area...........................3-430 

Table 3-62 Existing Scenic Stability — NFS Acres and Percent of Total Area.......................................3-431 

Table 3-63. Comparison of Consequences to Scenic Integrity by Alternative.......................................3-440 

Table 3-64. Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective, by Acres and Alternative .......................................3-442 

Table 3-65. Annual Visitation Estimate...................................................................................................3-447 

Table 3-66. Activity Participation on LTBMU..........................................................................................3-447 

Table 3-67. Trip Spending and Lodging Usage....................................................................................3-449 

Table 3-68. LTBMU Economic Contribution to Lake Tahoe Region (2008) ..........................................3-450 

Table 3-69. Employment by Program Area for the Lake Tahoe Region................................................3-451 

Table 3-70. LTBMU Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) and the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 

 (LTRA Program Funding by Fiscal Year) .............................................................................................3-452 

Table 3-71. LTBMU Program Funding Provided by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act 

 (SNPLMA) .............................................................................................................................................3-453 

Table 3-72. Summary of Alternatives by Economic 

 Alternative.............................................................................................................................................3-454 

Table 3-73. Employment (for the Lake Tahoe Region as defined by zip codes) – total number of jobs 

 contributed..........................................................................................................................................3-454 

Table 3-74. Comparison of Consequences to the Soil Resource............................................................3-468 

Table 3-75. Special-status species for the LTBMU, listing status, habitat, and potential for occurrence in 

 the LTBMU during the life of the Plan...................................................................................................3-471 

Table 3-76 SPECTRUM model predicted changes in late seral closed canopy CWHR classes 5M, 5D, and 6 

 for the five Alternatives........................................................................................................................3-511 

Table 3-77. SPECTRUM model predicted changes in mid seral closed canopy CWHR classes 3M, 3D, 4M, 

 and 4D for the five Alternatives............................................................................................................3-512 

Table 3-78. Listed 303(d) stream segments in the Lake Tahoe Basin (2010).......................................3-536 

Table 3-79. Comparison of overall Best Management Practices Evaluation Program Ratings 

..................................................................................................................................................................3-536 

Table 3-80. Wilderness Indicators - Recommended Wilderness Acres and Trails by 

 Alternative.............................................................................................................................................3-570 

Table 3-81. Wilderness lands located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit........................3-572 

Table 3-82. Impervious cover by land ownership in the Lake Tahoe Basin..........................................3-593 

Table 3-83. Impervious cover on National Forest System lands by Land Capability Class 

..................................................................................................................................................................3-594 

Table 3-84. Listed 303(d) stream segments in the Lake Tahoe Basin (2010) .......................................3-596 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

viii ■ FEIS Table of Contents

FEIS Figures 

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map of National Forest System Lands on the LTBMU..........................................1-4 

Figure 2-1. Proportion of Lands in each Management Area, Alternatives B, C, D, and E...2-44 

Figure 3-1 Air Quality Jurisdictions for LTBMU Area..............................................................................3-35 

Figure 3-2 Area designations for federal 8-hour ozone........................................................................3-39 

Figure 3-3 Area designations for state 8-hour ozone...........................................................................3-39 

Figure 3-4 Areas likely to contain NOA in the Lake Tahoe Area............................................................3-41 

Figure 3-5. Passive samplers average O3..........................................................................................3-43 

Figure 3-6. Passive samplers average O3..........................................................................................3-44 

Figure 3-7. Passive samplers average NH3.......................................................................................3-47 

Figure 3-8. Passive samplers average NH3.......................................................................................3-48 

Figure 3-9. Glide path proposed in the visibility SIP........................................................................3-50 

Figure 3-10. BLIS1 pollutant species for the best and worst 20%...................................................3-50 

Figure 3-11. Light extinction from each pollutant on worst visibility days at BLIS1........................3-52 

Figure 3-12. Light extinction from each pollutant on best visibility days at BLIS1...........................3-53 

Figure 3-13. Worst and best 20% visibility days.................................................................................3-54 

Figure 3-14 Pollutant emissions from prescribed fire for Period 1 (tons) ..........................................3-57 

Figure 3-15. Pollutant emissions from wildfire for Period 1 (tons) ...................................................3-58 

Figure 3-16 Total pollutant emissions (prescribed and wildland) for Period 1 (tons) .....................3-59 

Figure 3-17. Air toxic emissions for Period 1 (tons) ........................................................................3-60 

Figure 3-18. Period 1 black carbon emissions (tons)........................................................................3-61 

Figure 3-19 GHG emissions for Period 1 (metric tons of CO2 equivalents).......................................3-62 

Figure 3-20. Biomass removed in Period 1 (bone dry tons)...............................................................3-64 

Figure 3-21. Pollutant emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons) ..........................................3-67 

Figure 3-22. Air toxic emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons of CO2 equivalents) 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-68 

Figure 3-23 Above-ground live biomass (bone dry tons) .....................................................................3-69 

Figure 3-24 Carbon sequestration under each alternative (equivalents of CO2 in metric tons) 

..................................................................................................................................................................3-70 

Figure 3-25. Page from the Washoe Lands document “Lake of the Sky: Washoe Stewardship of Lake 

 Tahoe"...................................................................................................................................................3-197 

Figure 3-26. Percent of ignitions throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by fire management unit (FMU) and 

 cause (Human vs. Natural) 1973-2010................................................................................................3-207 

Figure 3-27. Number of ignitions throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by fire management unit (FMU) and 

 cause (Human vs. Natural) 1973-2010................................................................................................3-207 

Figure 3-28. Fire type map based on FLAMMAP output........................................................................3-209 

Figure 3-29. Condition Class based on mean FRID (CC[FRI]) ............................................................3-213 

Figure 3-30. Wildfire acres burned in the Lake Tahoe Basin by decade (1973-2010) ........................3-216 

Figure 3-31. Number of human and natural ignitions 1973-2010.........................................................3-216 

Figure 3-32. Fire Causes and Acres Burned by Year..............................................................................3-217 

Figure 3-33. Monthly average number of days that meet permissible burn day and burn plan prescription 

 criteria...................................................................................................................................................3-218 

Figure 3-34. Average lightning strike occurrence in the Lake Tahoe Basin recorded by month from 1990 

through 2009..........................................................................................................................................3-219 

Figure 3-35. Average number of lightning strikes occurring from 1990 through 2010 in areas approved for 

 managed wildfire by alternative............................................................................................................3-219 

Figure 3-36. Linear regression of lightning ignitions by lightning strikes from 1990 through 

 2010......................................................................................................................................................3-220 

Figure 3-37. Potential acres of managed wildfire produced using the Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) 

 model......................................................................................................................................................3-222 

Figure 3-38. Major Forest California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation 

 types......................................................................................................................................................3-241 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TOC ■ ix 

Figure 3-39. Cumulative Mortality, trees per acre (TPA) across the LTBMU, 2000-2011 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-249 

Figure 3-40. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.................................3-259 

Figure 3-41. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A 

............................................................................................................................................................3-260 

Figure 3-42. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A 

............................................................................................................................................................3-260 

Figure 3-43. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.................................3-261 

Figure 3-44. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A........................3-261 

Figure 3-45. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.......................................3-262 

Figure 3-46. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A..............................3-262 

Figure 3-47. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative A......... 

............................................................................................................................................................3-263 

Figure 3-48. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

 Alternative A.......................................................................................................................................3-263 

Figure 3-49. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B..............................3-265 

Figure 3-50. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B 

............................................................................................................................................................3-265 

Figure 3-51. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B 

............................................................................................................................................................3-266 

Figure 3-52. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B.................................3-267 

Figure 3-53. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B........................3-267 

Figure 3-54. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B.......................................3-268 

Figure 3-55. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B..............................3-268 

Figure 3-56. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative B......... 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-269 

Figure 3-57. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

 Alternative B........................................................................................................................................3-269 

Figure 3-58. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.................................3-271 

Figure 3-59. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C 

............................................................................................................................................................3-271 

Figure 3-60. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-272 

Figure 3-61. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.................................3-272 

Figure 3-62. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C........................3-273 

Figure 3-63. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.......................................3-273 

Figure 3-64. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C..............................3-274 

Figure 3-65. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative C......... 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-274 

Figure 3-66. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

 Alternative C.......................................................................................................................................3-275 

Figure 3-67. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D..............................3-276 

Figure 3-68. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D 

............................................................................................................................................................3-277 

Figure 3-69. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D 

............................................................................................................................................................3-277 

Figure 3-70. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D..............................3-278 

Figure 3-71. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D.....................3-278 

Figure 3-72. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D.......................................3-279 

Figure 3-73. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D..............................3-279 

Figure 3-74. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative D......... 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-280 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

x ■ FEIS Table of Contents

Figure 3-75. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

 Alternative D.......................................................................................................................................3-280 

Figure 3-76. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.................................3-282 

Figure 3-77. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-282 

Figure 3-78. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-283 

Figure 3-79. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.................................3-283 

Figure 3-80. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E........................3-284 

Figure 3-81. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E..........................................3-284 

Figure 3-82. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E.................................3-285 

Figure 3-83. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in alternative E......... 

...............................................................................................................................................................3-285 

Figure 3-84. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

 Alternative E..........................................................................................................................................3-286 

Figure 3-85. Map of Lake Tahoe Basin distribution and condition of 231 aquatic MIS sites for streams 

 tributary to Lake Tahoe........................................................................................................................3-315 

Figure 3-86 Condition scores for 231 sites sampled from 1998-2007 along 10 major tributaries of Lake 

 Tahoe......................................................................................................................................................3-316 

Figure 3-87. Map of the Sierra Nevada bioregion for MIS, comprised of ten national forests (including the 

 LTBMU) ................................................................................................................................................3-355 

Figure 3-88. LTBMU Program Funding by Fiscal Year...........................................................................3-453 

Figure 3-89. Map of HUC 6 Watersheds Defined in the Lake Tahoe Basin..........................................3-562 

Figure 3-90. HUC 7 Watersheds and Subbasins Defined in the Lake Tahoe Basin..............................3-56 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

Abstract 

The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). Plan revision would provide an 

updated Forest Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) that would guide 

management of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin for approximately 

the next 15 years. The proposal updates the management direction for approximately 154,000 

acres of NFS lands in California and Nevada by describing desired conditions, objectives, 

suitable uses, standards and guidelines and monitoring requirements. In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Forest Service provided opportunity for the 

public to comment on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Draft Forest Plan. 

Comments have been responded to in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which 

analyzes the consequences of five alternatives including a “no action” alternative which would 

continue management under the 1988 Forest Plan, as amended. Alternative E (which was added 

as a result of comments on the DEIS) is the Agency’s Preferred Alternative and is fully 

embodied in the Draft Forest Plan. 

Decision to Be Made 

The Regional Forester is the Responsible Official for the Forest Plan revision. The LTBMU 

developed alternatives, conducted analysis, and prepared the FEIS under the direction of the 

Forest Supervisor. 

The decision to be made by the Regional Forester is whether to: 

 Revise the current Forest Plan incorporating one of the action alternatives; 

 Revise the current Forest Plan by combining measures from two or more 

alternatives; or 

 Take no action at this time and continue to manage under the current Forest Plan, 

as amended. 

The Planning Process 

An interagency and public collaborative process called Pathway 2007 (Pathway) was initiated in 

2004 to coordinate planning efforts of the Forest Service (Forest Plan revision), the TRPA 

(Regional Plan Update), and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board/ Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection (Lake Tahoe TMDL). Local and national special 

interest groups were represented in a forum setting that included state and local governments and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-2 ■ Executive Summary

agencies. Pathway yielded a shared vision for the future of the Lake Tahoe Basin, incorporated 

in desired conditions in all five alternatives in this FEIS. 

After Pathway, the focus of collaboration and public involvement shifted to Forest Plan revision. 

Five Forest Service public workshops during 2008-2009 focused on forest health, fuels 

reduction, wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreation opportunities. 

A Notice of Intent to prepare a Forest Plan and EIS was published March 19, 2010. Two public 

meetings were held in the spring of 2010 to provide an update on the revision process and seek 

public input on potential alternatives to be analyzed in the Forest Plan EIS. 

Meetings requested by interested agencies and special interest groups began in the winter of 

2008 and will continue through the planning process. Consultation with the Washoe Tribe and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service from the states of Nevada and California will continue throughout 

the NEPA process. 

The DEIS was available for the 90-Day Comment period starting on June 1, 2012. Four public 

informational meetings were held, two on July 17, 2012 at the Forest Supervisors Office in South 

Lake Tahoe, CA and two on July 18, 2012 at the North Tahoe Conference Center in Kings 

Beach, CA. Over 250 individuals attended these meetings. In addition, on July 19, 2012 a 

webinar was hosted online by the LTBMU Forest Plan Revision IDT with approximately 20 

attendees. 

During the comment period the LTBMU received over 18,500 emails and letters commenting on 

the DEIS and supporting documents. All comments from these letters were sorted, grouped by 

subject and analyzed. The Response to Comment document can be found in Appendix N of 

Volume III of this document package. 

Publication of the FEIS and Draft Record of Decision (ROD) will begin a 60-day objection 

period. Members of the public, agencies, and groups who commented during the 90-day 

comment period may file an objection. After the time allowed for resolution of objections, a 

Record of Decision signed by the Regional Forester will be published and the revised Forest Plan 

will be in effect. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Issues 

The issues are generally regarded as subjects for which resource conditions, new science, or 

public perception of resource management have created a "need for change." The issues and 

concerns expressed during public scoping and collaboration have been used to develop the 

alternatives considered in this analysis. The issues that emerged during the public involvement 

process have been grouped into four major issue areas. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-3 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Some people favor major geomorphic stream channel restoration projects to restore watershed 

health and aquatic habitats, and reverse the trend of declining clarity in Lake Tahoe, while others 

would prefer to simply remove the major stressors to watershed health (e.g. barriers to stream 

flow) and allow natural processes to return systems to equilibrium over time. 

Some people would like development removed from sensitive aquatic habitat and riparian areas, 

and restoration of the areas to more natural conditions, while others enjoy the public amenities in 

these areas and would like them to remain, or be expanded. 

Active management of Stream Environment Zones (SEZs) to reduce fuel loads and restore native 

vegetation communities and habitats is supported by some, while others believe that 

management activities in SEZs should be minimized because they pose unacceptable risks to 

water quality, soil productivity, and habitats. 

While there is general agreement about the need to remove certain aquatic invasive species, such 

as Asian clams and Quagga mussels, some people would prefer to retain warm-water sport fishes 

that are considered aquatic invasives. 

There is a growing recognition that climate change is likely to result in hydrologic changes such 

as earlier snowmelt and higher peak flows in Lake Tahoe Basin streams. Some people believe 

that manipulating stream channel systems to restore natural stream and watershed processes will 

promote watershed resilience and maintenance of watershed function in changing climatic 

conditions. Others believe that any climate change is best addressed by allowing natural 

processes to control the rate of recovery. 

Forest Health, Hazardous Fuels, and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

There is broad agreement that dangerous levels of hazardous fuels are present throughout many 

parts of the Lake Tahoe Basin, the natural fire regime has been severely altered in many areas, 

and the mix of vegetation species and seral stages of vegetation communities are out of balance. 

There is disagreement on the best way to bring health and balance to our forests while sustaining 

wildlife. 

Some groups believe that the pace and scale of current restoration efforts is insufficient to keep 

up with the current pace of decline, the effects of altered fire regimes, and the changing climate. 

Although restoration of natural process is the ultimate goal, under current conditions, allowing 

natural process to operate might have catastrophic consequences, including devastation to human 

communities and habitat for special status species. Others believe that in most areas, protection 

and preservation are preferred over active management. Thinning treatments that attempt to 

mimic natural processes will have harmful impacts to soil and water as well as reducing wildlife 

habitat quality. 

Given current conditions and projections, some people believe that aggressive management is 

necessary to create conditions that are resilient to climate change. Others believe that allowing 

natural processes to operate as freely as possible will provide the mechanisms for restoration and 

produce the resilience needed to adapt to climate change. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-4 ■ Executive Summary

Sustainable Recreation 

Public opinions varied from those preferring urbanized settings with many social encounters and 

service amenities such as those opportunities offered at Forest Service resorts to those seeking 

more primitive opportunities such as those offered in backcountry settings or remote beaches. 

Some people believe that recreation development should be expanded and/or re-built to keep 

pace with demographic changes and user preferences as well as providing economic 

opportunities through year round use. Some favor allowing expansion outside the currently 

developed areas, such as additional parking to accommodate peak demands at popular sites. 

Other interests suggested that the Forest Service should provide more opportunities for private 

concessions and outfitter guides. 

Others favor limiting recreation development because it is at or exceeding the capacity for which 

it was originally intended. This group also expressed a desire for more opportunities that provide 

a greater degree of solitude than is normally found at developed sites, opposes construction of 

new developed recreation sites, and favors further restrictions to minimize use conflicts and 

resource impacts. 

Some groups felt that certain areas of NFS lands exhibit wilderness characteristics and should be 

evaluated and recommended for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Others felt that the current amount of wilderness is adequate. 

Access to National Forests via Facilities, Roads and Trails 

Some people would like LTBMU to increase the inventory of facilities, trails and roads to 

improve access to public lands, while others would prefer that LTBMU decrease the inventory of 

facilities, trails and roads to minimize impacts to public lands. 

There is general agreement about the need to plan and manage appropriately sized parking areas 

at popular destinations that reduce or avoid environmental impacts, but there is disagreement 

about how much parking should be provided. 

Some people believe that there is a need to lessen the dependence on the automobile for site 

access to alleviate pollution and crowding, and encourage alternative transportation options 

including public transit, boat ferries, pedestrian and bike and bike trails to NFS lands. Others 

prefer to access National Forest lands by private automobile and would like to retain and expand 

parking facilities. 

Some people prefer that mechanized uses be separated from non-mechanized uses in time and/or 

space, while others prefer trails and areas open to shared use. 

Alternatives 

The DEIS considers four alternatives in detail, which were developed in response to current 

management challenges and public issues and concerns: 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-5 

Alternative A is the no action alternative; management would continue as described in the 1988 

LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended and implemented. A 7-

mile segment of the Upper Truckee River is recommended for Wild and Scenic River 

designation (common to all alternatives). 

Alternative B (DEIS Preferred Alternative) does not significantly change the overall goals and 

management course set by the existing Forest Plan as currently implemented. It does, however, 

respond to present natural resource management concerns such as climate change, provides 

management direction that reflects current science, and provides direction that will better 

respond to contemporary recreation demands. Management Areas are reduced from 21 to 4, 

providing more uniform direction. Developed recreation emphasizes retirement of deferred 

maintenance and allows for a small increase in capacity. 

Alternative C proposes a more aggressive approach that would achieve fuels and forest health 

desired conditions more rapidly than other alternatives. This alternative allows for a modest 

expansion of developed recreation facilities, more than other alternatives. The Dardanelles 

Inventoried Roadless Area is recommended for Wilderness designation. No major changes are 

proposed to the road and trail inventory, but a greater percentage of roads and trails would 

provide easier access for people and for vehicles of all kinds. 

Alternative D is characterized by a passive management approach to watershed restoration and 

forest health. After currently planned projects are completed, natural processes rather than active 

management would be relied upon to achieve the desired conditions. This alternative 

emphasizes dispersed recreation opportunities, limits expansion of developed facilities, and 

recommends both the Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried Roadless Areas for Wilderness 

designation. No major changes are proposed to the road and trail inventory, but they would be 

managed to emphasize more primitive routes with more challenge. 

Alternative E (Draft Plan; FEIS Preferred Alternative) was added in response to comments 

on the DEIS. It is similar to Alternative B, but adds approximately 3,800 acres to the 

Backcountry Management Area (from the General Conservation Management Area). It allows 

for recreation expansion with limits between those in Alternatives A and B (10% expansion in 

overnight accommodations and 5% expansion at ski areas). Changes in plan direction were 

explained in the response to comments on DEIS/Draft Plan (FEIS, Appendix N). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-6 

Table ES-1. Major program strategies by alternative 

Program Strategy 

Alternative A No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Continued active restoration of currently planned projects plus additional potential 

Continued active restoration of currently planned project plus additional potential 

Continued active restoration of currently planned projects plus additional potential 

After currently planned projects completed, rely natural processes for recovery; no active resto

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Management 

Current direction (2004 SNFPA ROD) 

Increase from current level and incorporate AIS 

Increase from current level and incorporate AIS 

Focus on high priority sp

Species Refuge Areas 

Active restoration Increased active restoration Increased active restoration Manage existing populat

PACs and HRCAs (CA Spotted owl and Northern Goshawk)

Current direction (2004 SNFPA ROD) 

Active management in PACs and HRCAs 

Active management in PACs and HRCAs 

Retain current direction SNFPA ROD) 

Native Species Management 

Active restoration Increased active restoration Increased active restoration Manage existing populat

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

Collaborative Fuels Strategy per 2004 SNFPA ROD 

Collaborative Fuels Strategy w/ exceptions to diameter limits and canopy cover requirements 

Collaborative Fuels Strategy w/ exceptions to diameter limits and canopy cover requirements 

Collaborative Fuels Straper 2004 SNFPA ROD 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ 

Forest Vegetation Management (Back Country, General Conservation & Santini-Burton) 

Treatments as currently planned under SNFPA 

Thinning and prescribed burning for forest stand resiliency Exceptions to diameter limits and canopy cover requirements Forest Structure Restorationestablish new age classes in the form of openings from 1-10 acres Convert fir to Jeffrey pine or mixed conifer in the form of openings, also results in forest structure change 

Similar to Alt. B with more acres treated at greater reduction in stand density 

Similar to Alt. A with empon use of fire (prescribed unplanned). 

Managed Wildfire(Natural ignitions allowed to burn for management objectives, assuming WUI is treated)

Desolation Wilderness Only All NFS lands except Defense 

Zone 

All NFS lands except WUI (Defense and Threat Zones) 

All NFS lands except DeZone 

Developed Recreation

Maintains existing & allows expansion up to PAOT capacity as described in the developed recreation prescriptions (approximately 10% expansion above current). 

Maintains existing & allows expanding existing facilities in permit areas before building new ones in General Conservation MA (approximately 5% above of current) on higher capability lands. 

Maintains existing & allows expanding existing facilities in existing permit areas and in General Conservation MA (approximately 15% above current) on higher capability lands. 

Maintains existing & alloreduction and relocation facilities (approximately of current) within permit forest plan amendment required in expansion geconservation areas. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-8 Recreation Setting

Mix of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes, based on 1982 land status (138,700 acres) 

Proposed updates to reflect current conditions and land acquisitions (154,784 acres) 

Proposed updates to reflect current conditions & additional SPNM for proposed wilderness 

Proposed updates to refcurrent conditions & addSPNM for proposed wilderness & backcountradditions 

Access to NFS Roads and Trails

Continue to implement current management objectives. 

Management objectives closely reflect current management. 

Allow increased access for passenger vehicles for recreation and administrative use by improving road surfaces and opening some currently closed routes. 

Decrease access for passenger for recreation administrative use vehicthrough management objectives that favor highclearance vehicles. 

Transit Use to access NF Lands 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate with Tahoe transportation partners tidentify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Vehicle parking & managed parking volume

Provide the same amount of parking as current condition. 

Provide the same amount of parking as current condition. 

Provide an overall increase in parking. 

Reducing overall parking

Backcountry Management Area

Retain Current Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) in Backcountry 

Retain Current Inventoried Roadless Areas in Backcountry 

Retain Current Inventoried Roadless Areas in Backcountry minus Dardanelles 

Retain Current InventoriRoadless Areas in Backcountry minus Dardanelles and Freel PRecommend additional ato Backcountry (motorizeuse ok on existing roads trails only) 

Recommended Wilderness Area 

No new recommendations No new recommendations Recommend Dardanelles IRA Recommend Dardanelle

& Freel IRA 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-9 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A 

Physical Resources 

Surface and groundwater resources would continue to be protected and enhanced. Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) milestones would be achieved and no water bodies would be 

added to the impaired (303d) list. Measureable improvements in stream channel geomorphic 

stability and floodplain connectivity would result. Watersheds in condition class 1 and 2 would 

be maintained and the Ward and Upper Truckee watersheds would continue to move towards 

Condition Class 1. Soil quality would be maintained at a sustainable level. 

Biological Resources 

Habitats such as wet meadows, montane riparian, lakeside marsh and shore, and aspen would 

have the potential for positive trend in condition from restoration. However, streams, lakes, 

wetlands and meadows may decrease in condition and function where impacted by land uses, 

especially where expansion of recreation increases potential for AIS transference. Jeffrey pine, 

white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, montane chaparral and cave 

and cliff habitat have potential for decreasing trend because of limited ability to improve stand 

resiliency, reduce potential for stand-replacing fire, and reduce continued homogenization of the 

landscape; vegetation treatments that do not target creation/maintenance and habitat is becoming 

converted to forest; where recreation, roads, and trails are expanded; and because lack of 

protection measures for caves and for cliffs if not occupied by nesting peregrine falcons. 

Willow flycatcher, bald eagle, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox would have the 

potential for stability or positive trend in productivity from restoration and enhancement and 

vegetation treatments. Townsend’s big-eared bat productivity would be expected to remain stable 

with potential to increase where restoration improves foraging habitat; potential to decrease 

without cave and cave-surrogate protection measures. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Sierra 

Nevada Yellow Legged Frog species distribution would be expected to increase as 

recovery/restoration strategies progress. Tui Chub and Rams-horn species distribution would be 

expected to stay at baseline conditions or decrease with a potential increased distribution of 

existing and new AIS. Active management of Tahoe Yellow Cress and Whitebark pine and 

sensitive species would lead to stable or increasing habitat condition. 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

The current Forest Plan would retain tree diameter and stand canopy cover limits that would 

conflict with forest structure and forest resiliency conditions. Alternative A has more stringent 

diameter limits and thinning constraints which provides less flexibility and decreases the ability 

of Alternative A to meet or exceed fire behavior objectives. Alternative A provides the least 

opportunity to reduce the Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID). 

Recreation 

This alternative would continue to provide the current mix of setting and activities and would 

allow for additional development up to 10% in support of recreation opportunities. This 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-10 ■ Executive Summary

percentage corresponds to the following measurement indicators: permitted acres, overnight 

accommodation units, and day use parking spaces. In addition, Alternative A assigns the land 

management prescription of “Alpine Skiing” to NFS lands adjacent to permitted and private ski 

areas in support of future expansion. Alternative A would not result in any changes to existing 

OSV designations. 

Access and Travel Management 

Alternative A would continue the existing trends of access on NFS lands. 

Alternative B (DEIS Preferred Alternative) 

Physical Resources 

Surface and groundwater resources would continue to be protected and enhanced at a level equal 

to that in Alternative A. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) milestones would be achieved 

and no water bodies would be added to the impaired (303d) list. Improvements in stream 

channel geomorphic stability and floodplain connectivity would be similar to Alternative A. 

Watershed condition class would be maintained and improved as in Alternative A. Soil quality 

would be slightly improved over Alternative A. 

Biological Resources 

Habitats such as wet meadows, montane riparian, lakeside marsh and shore, and aspen would 

have a positive trend in condition because of restoration and enhancement as well as vegetation 

treatments that may more rapidly achieve improved condition more than other alternatives. 

However, streams, lakes, wetlands and meadows may decrease in condition and function where 

impacted by land uses; especially recreation, roads, and trails; though impacts would be less than 

Alternative A. Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, 

montane chaparral and cave and cliff habitat have potential for continued stability with potential 

for positive trend where vegetation treatments improve stand resiliency, habitat heterogeneity, 

and stand structural diversity; where forest type conversion and structure restoration 

create/maintain habitat because of protection of cave and cave-surrogate habitat as well as cliff 

habitat for multiple sensitive species. 

Willow flycatcher, bald eagle, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox would have the 

potential for productivity to increase because of habitat restoration efforts, species refuge areas 

that include critical habitat elements, and vegetation treatments that may more rapidly achieve 

improved condition than other alternatives. Townsend’s big-eared bat productivity would be 

expected to increase because of restoration of foraging habitat and protection of cave and cavesurrogate habitat. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog species 

distribution would be expected to increase as recovery/restoration strategies progress though they 

may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human 

interaction on occupied habitat at levels less than Alternative A. Tui Chub and Rams-horn 

species distribution would be expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued 

emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication with impacts less than Alternative A. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-11 

Active management of Tahoe Yellow Cress and Whitebark pine and sensitive species would lead 

to stable or increasing habitat condition with less recreation development than Alternative C. 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

Exceptions to exceed diameter and canopy limits for the purpose of enhancing old growth & 

increase resiliency to fire and beetles would result in near achievement of desired conditions for 

white fir and Jeffrey pine. Exceptions to exceed diameter and canopy limits would make 

Alternative B slightly better but about the same as Alternative A in reducing fire behavior. 

Alternative B would provide the greatest probability of success in reducing FRID. 

Recreation 

This alternative would continue to provide the current mix of setting and activities as Alternative 

A but would allow for additional development up to 5% in support of recreation opportunities. 

This percentage corresponds to the following measurement indicators: permitted acres, overnight 

accommodation units, and day use parking spaces. Unlike Alternative A, however, Alternative B 

removes the land management prescription of “Alpine Skiing” to NFS lands adjacent to 

permitted and private ski areas. Rather, additional infrastructure development within existing ski 

area permit boundaries would be authorized up to 5%. Alternative B would not result in any 

changes to existing OSV designations. 

Access and Travel Management 

Similar to Alternative A this alternative would continue along existing trends with minor 

changes to the road system and an increase in mechanized trail access. This alternative balances 

public access needs with economic impacts and resource goals. Alternative B would encourage 

the adoption of unmanaged parking areas for management which will require additional funding 

and will provide an opportunity for interpretation and education. 

Alternative C 

Physical Resources 

Surface and groundwater resources would continue to be protected and enhanced at a level equal 

to that in Alternatives A and B. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) milestones would be 

achieved and no water bodies would be added to the impaired (303d) list. Improvements in 

stream channel geomorphic stability and floodplain connectivity would be similar to Alternatives 

A and B. Watershed condition class would be maintained and improved as in Alternatives A and 

B. Soil quality would be slightly less than Alternative A, but would still be maintained at a 

sustainable level. 

Biological Resources 

Habitats such as wet meadows, montane riparian, lakeside marsh and shore, and aspen would 

have a positive trend in condition because of restoration and enhancement of habitat. However, 

streams, lakes, wetlands and meadows may decrease in condition and function where impacted 

by land uses; especially recreation, roads, and trails; impacts would be more than Alternative A. 

Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, montane 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-12 ■ Executive Summary

chaparral and cave and cliff habitat have potential for continued stability with potential for 

positive trend where vegetation treatments improve stand resiliency, habitat heterogeneity, and 

stand structural diversity; where forest type conversion and structure restoration create/maintain 

habitat because of protection of cave and cave-surrogate habitat as well as cliff habitat for 

multiple sensitive species. 

Willow flycatcher, bald eagle, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox have the 

potential for productivity to increase because of habitat restoration efforts and species refuge 

areas. Townsend’s big-eared bat productivity would be expected to increase because of 

restoration of foraging habitat and protection of cave and cave-surrogate habitat. Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout and Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog species distribution would be expected 

to increase as recovery/restoration strategies progress though they may face increased threats 

with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction as well as 

potential for increased AIS in occupied habitat at levels comparable to Alternative A and more 

than Alternative B. Tui Chub and Rams-horn species distribution would be expected to stay at 

baseline conditions or increase with continued emphasis on AIS prevention, control and 

eradication with impacts more than Alternative A. Active management along with the most 

recreation development of all alternative would lead to stable or decreasing habitat condition for 

Tahoe Yellow Cress and Whitebark pine. 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

Alternative C would allow for the greatest progress towards restoring forest structure and 

composition over the life of the plan. Tree removal would be greatest in this alternative through 

group selections with reserves, which could furnish a greater amount of early-seral habitat while 

enhancing or prolonging the existing and future late seral habitat. Overall, Alternative C will 

provide the most acres of modified fire behavior and estimates more acres in FRID reduction. 

But, it also includes less area allowable for managed wildfire than Alternative B. 

Recreation 

This alternative would continue to provide the current mix of setting and activities as Alternative 

A but would allow for additional development up to 15% in support of recreation opportunities. 

This percentage corresponds to the following measurement indicators: permitted acres, overnight 

accommodation units, and day use parking spaces. Unlike Alternative A, however, Alternative C 

removes the land management prescription of “Alpine Skiing” to NFS lands adjacent to 

permitted and private ski areas. Rather, additional infrastructure development within existing ski 

area permit boundaries would be authorized up to 15%. Alternative C would not result in any 

changes to existing OSV designations. 

Access and Travel Management 

Alternative C would increase passenger car road access, develop the highest degree of transit 

facilities, provide the most developed trail system, and have the greatest cost. Trails would be 

affected by increasing mechanized trails and reducing non-mechanized trails. The most 

managed parking would be added in the shortest time frames in this alternative. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-13 

Alternative D 

Physical Resources 

Effects to water quality and watershed condition would be the same as the other alternatives for 

10-15 years. After that time there would be a greater risk of potential to maintain or improve 

watershed condition and achievement of long term (greater than 15 years) TMDL milestones 

could potentially be delayed. Improvement in soil quality would be slightly greater than in 

Alternative B. 

Biological Resources 

Habitats such as wet meadows, montane riparian, lakeside marsh and shore, and aspen would 

have a positive trend in condition because of restoration and enhancement of habitat and 

reduction in roads, trails, and recreation infrastructure. Decreasing trend expected where 

restoration no longer implemented, inadequate vegetation treatments, shifting recreation use 

because of inability to meet demand, and increased OHV trails. However, streams, lakes, 

wetlands and meadows would both improve as a result of restoration and enhancement and 

decline where legacy impacts are allowed to persist. Impacts would be less than A but potentially 

more than B (due to AIS threats). Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, 

subalpine conifer, montane chaparral and cave and cliff habitat would have potential for 

continued stability with potential for decreasing trend where vegetation management is limited in 

ability to improve stand resiliency, reduce potential for stand-replacing fire, and reduce 

continued homogenization of the landscape; where vegetation treatments aren’t targeting 

creation/maintenance and habitat is becoming converted to forest; and lack of protection 

measures for caves and for cliffs if not occupied by nesting peregrine falcons. 

Willow flycatcher, bald eagle, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox have the 

potential for continued stability or productivity to increase from restoration and enhancement and 

reduction in roads, trails, and recreation infrastructure. Townsend’s big-eared bat productivity 

would be expected to remain stable with potential to increase where currently planned restoration 

improves foraging habitat; potential to decrease where restoration not implemented and without 

cave and cave-surrogate protection measures. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Sierra Nevada 

Yellow Legged Frog species distribution would be expected to increase as recovery/restoration 

strategies progress and a reduction in recreation infrastructure occurs. Tui Chub and Rams-horn 

species distribution is expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued 

emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication with impacts less than Alternatives A and 

C. No active management would lead to stable or decreasing habitat condition for Tahoe Yellow 

Cress and Whitebark pine. 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

In this alternative restoration of forest structure, resiliency or abundance would not be likely 

given the 12 inch diameter limit and current high stand densities. Alternative D relies heavily on 

hand thinning and prescribed fire to meet objects and does not provide the flexibility to meet 

objectives when fire is not available to manager. This alternative estimates more potential acres 

of FRID reduction, but is much more dependent on conditions outside the Forest Service’s 

control. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-14 ■ Executive Summary

Recreation 

This alternative would continue to provide the current mix of setting and activities as Alternative 

A but would allow for a potential reduction in development up to 15% due to ecosystem 

restoration activities. This percentage corresponds to the following measurement indicators: 

permitted acres, overnight accommodation units, and day use parking spaces. Unlike Alternative 

A, however, Alternative D removes the land management prescription of “Alpine Skiing” to 

NFS lands adjacent to permitted and private ski areas. Rather, potential reduction of 

infrastructure development within existing ski area permit boundaries would occur up to 15%. 

Alternative D would result in a reduction of areas open to OSV if proposed wilderness areas are 

designated by Congress. 

Access and Travel Management 

This alternative would restrict passenger car vehicles the most, however, OHV opportunities on 

roads would increase. Mechanized trail use would decrease the most while non-mechanized 

trails would increase the most. Roadside parking would be decrease over time and not 

necessarily replaced. 

Alternative E (FEIS Preferred Alternative) 

Physical Resources 

Surface and groundwater resources would continue to be protected and enhanced at a level equal 

to that in Alternatives A and B. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) milestones would be 

achieved and no water bodies would be added to the impaired (303d) list. Improvements in 

stream channel geomorphic stability and floodplain connectivity would be similar to Alternatives 

A and B. Watershed condition class would be maintained and improved as in Alternatives A and 

B. Soil quality would be slightly improved over Alternative A and the same as Alternative B. 

Biological Resources 

Habitats such as wet meadows, montane riparian, lakeside marsh and shore, and aspen would 

have a positive trend in condition because of restoration and enhancement as well as vegetation 

treatments that may more rapidly achieve improved condition more than other alternatives. 

However, streams, lakes, wetlands and meadows may decrease in condition and function where 

impacted by land uses; especially recreation, roads, and trails; though impacts would be less than 

Alternative A. Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, 

montane chaparral and cave and cliff habitat have potential for continued stability with potential 

for positive trend where vegetation treatments improve stand resiliency, habitat heterogeneity, 

and stand structural diversity; where forest type conversion and structure restoration 

create/maintain habitat because of protection of cave and cave-surrogate habitat as well as cliff 

habitat for multiple sensitive species. 

Willow flycatcher, bald eagle, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, great gray owl, 

American marten, Pacific fisher, California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox would have the 

potential for productivity to increase because of habitat restoration efforts, species refuge areas 

that include critical habitat elements, and vegetation treatments that may more rapidly achieve 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ■ ES-15 

improved condition than other alternatives. Townsend’s big-eared bat productivity would be 

expected to increase because of restoration of foraging habitat and protection of cave and cavesurrogate habitat. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog species 

distribution would be expected to increase as recovery/restoration strategies progress though they 

may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human 

interaction on occupied habitat at levels less than Alternative A. Tui Chub and Rams-horn 

species distribution would be expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued 

emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication with impacts less than Alternative A. 

Active management of Tahoe Yellow Cress and Whitebark pine and sensitive species would lead 

to stable or increasing habitat condition with less recreation development than Alternative C. 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

Exceptions to exceed diameter and canopy limits for the purpose of enhancing old growth & 

increasing resiliency to fire and beetles are more clearly explained and would result in near 

achievement of desired conditions for white fir and Jeffrey pine. Exceptions to exceed diameter 

and canopy limits would make Alternative E slightly better but about the same as Alternatives A 

and B in reducing fire behavior. Alternative E, the same as Alternative B, would provide the 

greatest probability of success in reducing FRID. 

Recreation 

This alternative would provide a mix of setting and activities between Alternatives A and B, with 

specific limits on recreation expansion. This percentage corresponds to the following 

measurement indicators: permitted acres, overnight accommodation units, and day use parking 

spaces. The same as Alternative B, Alternative E removes the land management prescription of 

“Alpine Skiing” to NFS lands adjacent to permitted and private ski areas. Additional 

infrastructure development within existing ski area permit boundaries would be authorized up to 

the specific limits. Alternative E would not result in any changes to existing OSV designations. 

Access and Travel Management 

Similar to Alternative A this alternative would continue along existing trends with minor 

changes to the road system and an increase in mechanized trail access. This alternative balances 

public access needs with economic impacts and resource goals. Alternative E would encourage 

the adoption of unmanaged parking areas for management which will require additional funding 

and will provide an opportunity for interpretation and education. 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ES-16 ■ Executive Summary

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-1 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for 

the Revised Forest Plan 

1.1 Introduction 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzes the consequences of five 

alternatives for revising the 1988 LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended), 

commonly referred to as the Forest Plan. The FEIS’s primary purpose is to consider a range of 

alternatives and document the environmental consequences associated with those alternatives. 

Plan revision provides an updated Forest Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

(LTBMU) that would guide management of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin for approximately the next 15 years by providing: 

 A framework to manage for ecological sustainability and contribute to social and 

economic sustainability, with resilient ecosystems and watersheds, diverse plant and 

animal communities, and the capacity to provide people and communities with a range of 

social, economic, and ecological benefits for present and future generations. 

 Strategic direction to guide site-specific project decisions in the context of broader social 

and ecological considerations. 

 Guidance that is flexible enough to remain effective in the face of changing conditions 

and policies and enable the Forest Supervisor to work with the public to make the best 

possible decisions in the future. 

The Forest Plan – not the EIS -- is the guiding document for determining Forest commitments, 

intentions, etc., and to the extent to two documents are inconsistent on what the Plan may 

require, the Plan language governs. 

Chapter 1 describes the Plan area and sets forth the purpose and need for plan revision and also 

describes what changed between DEIS and FEIS. The decision to be made and how Forest Plan 

decisions fit into a broader planning framework are described, along with the Forest Plan 

management direction and its application. Public involvement in the planning process is 

summarized; the major plan revision themes are introduced, accompanied by brief descriptions 

of the issues around which alternatives were developed. Chapter 1 concludes with a list of 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders. 

Chapter 2 describes the five alternatives considered in detail along with the alternatives 

considered but not analyzed in detail. The process for developing a range of reasonable 

alternatives is described, and the elements that do not vary by alternative are listed. The five 

alternatives are characterized in terms of their key strategies, how they address the relevant 

issues, and how the Plan management direction would vary. Chapter 2 concludes with several 

tables that compare the alternatives in different ways. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-2 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Chapter 3 includes the description of the affected environment and the analysis of the 

environmental consequences of implementing each of the four alternatives. This chapter 

includes an affected environment description and effects analysis specific to each of the 

resources with the potential to be affected. Cumulative effects are analyzed in a single section 

for all resources. Also included are findings about environmental justice, the relationship of 

short term uses and long term productivity, unavoidable adverse impacts, and irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources. 

The current Forest Plan was approved in 1988, and has been amended several times. The 

proposed plan revision addresses four key themes: forest health and fuels reduction, watershed 

restoration, recreation, and access. These four themes are driven by several factors. Past historic 

uses and fire suppression have impacted Lake Tahoe’s forests and watersheds, reducing 

resiliency and threatening the safety of communities. One of the highest concentrations of 

National Forest visitor use in the country presents management challenges that include 

improving the infrastructure to support increasing visitor use while protecting natural and 

cultural resources along with the scenic qualities that draw visitors and residents. 

1.2 Changes between DEIS and FEIS 

Major changes included the following: 

 Added Alternative E, which is the Preferred Alternative for the FEIS, and is described in 

detail in Chapter 2. 

 Revised, clarified, and expanded the effects analysis in Chapter 3 in response to public 

comments. Changes included expanding analysis of effects to resources from OSV use, 

adding an effects analysis for the Range resource, and consideration of additional 

references provided in comments. 

 Revised, clarified, and expanded Forest Plan components in response to public and 

internal concerns. Changes are described in Chapter 2, Section 2.6.1. 

 Analysis and maps include one additional California spotted owl PAC and 3 additional 

northern goshawk PACs. 

 The FEIS analysis and Revised Plan include the newly revised Region 5 Sensitive 

Species list, shown in Appendix E. 

 Wolverine has been added to the list of species proposed for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

 Taxonomy of marten and wolverine are updated based on current scientific 

understanding. 

 Terrestrial wildlife analysis has been updated to include 2012 survey data. A mapping 

error in the DEIS has been corrected such that all Inventoried Roadless Areas are now 

included on the maps, and the total acres have also been adjusted to correct this error. 

 The existing inventory of developed recreation sites was found to be inaccurate and was 

revised. The revised inventory is described below (Table 1-1) and is also reflected in 

Chapter 2 Table 2-1. The effects analysis in Chapter 3 was updated for all resources to 

reflect these new numbers. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-3 

Table 1-1. Changes to developed recreation baseline between DEIS and FEIS. 

Unit of Measure DEIS Existing 

Conditions 

Permitted Acres 1,300 

Overnight Accommodation Units 1,072 

Day Use Parking Spaces 2,260 

Ski Areas (Operational Footprint Acres) 3,491 

Unit of Measure FEIS Existing 

Conditions 

Recreation Site Acres 1,163 

Overnight Accommodation Units 1,192 

Day Use Parking Spaces 2,875 

Ski Areas and Slopes 3,997 (Operational Footprint Acres) 

 Changes based on the Science Review include: 

o Added additional references to support analysis in fire and fuels, vegetation, air 

quality, soils, recreation, terrestrial wildlife resource sections. 

o Updated description of how the Spectrum model was used. 

1.3 Plan Area 

The LTBMU was established in 1973, to facilitate unified management of NFS lands within the 

Lake Tahoe Basin watershed. These lands were previously managed by three separate national 

forests: the Tahoe, the Eldorado, and the Humboldt-Toiyabe. The LTBMU encompasses nearly 

155,000 acres (600 km2) of NFS lands (78% of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin), and ranges in 

altitude from approximately 6,225 feet at lake level to 10,881 feet at Freel Peak. 

Projects and programs include habitat management, fire management, and urban forest parcel 

management. Additionally, the LTBMU provides and maintains high quality recreational 

opportunities for millions of visitors and residents annually. Many common forest activities such 

as mining or grazing are either not a part of LTBMU management or play a very small role. 

The LTBMU manages NFS lands within a mix of forest and urban communities that surround 

Lake Tahoe. The work of the Forest Service supports (and is supported by) many partners. 

Other federal, state and local agencies are working together with the LTBMU to conserve and 

restore natural and cultural resources, and enhance the recreational values of the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-4 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

While the Forest Plan applies only to NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin, the environmental 

analysis considers a broader area. Wildlife species ranges often extend beyond the 

administrative boundaries. Similarly, coordination with neighboring Forests and other 

jurisdictions is important for vegetation management, wildfire suppression, and fuel reduction. 

Analysis of cumulative effects considers lands and other plans outside the administrative 

boundary. 

 

 

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map of National Forest System Lands on the LTBMU
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-5 

1.4 Applicable Planning Regulations 

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). 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). 

1.5 Purpose and Need for Forest Plan Revision 

The NFMA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219), require Forest Plan revision: 

 At least every 15 years 

 When conditions or demands in the area covered by the Plan have changed significantly 

 When changes in agency policies, goals, or objectives would have a significant effect on 

forest level programs 

 When monitoring and evaluation indicated that a revision is necessary 

Based on these parameters, there is a need to revise the LTBMU Forest Plan: 

 It has been more than 15 years since the Regional Forester approved the 1988 Plan. 

 Agency goals and objectives, along with other national policies and programs (such as 

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), have changed. 

New issues, trends, and management concerns have been identified that could change the 

management goals, suitable uses of land allocations, standards and guidelines, and the 

monitoring and evaluation program in the 1988 Plan. These include the following: 

 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. 

There is a need to update the Plan to reflect these changes. 

 There is a need to update management direction for water quality protection and 

enhancement to meet the Lake Tahoe TMDL milestones and comply with other tributary 

watershed TMDLs. 

 Aquatic invasives are a new management concern not addressed in the current Forest 

Plan. There is a need for management direction to control and eradicate these species. 

 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). 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. There is a need to update 

the Plan to reflect this new science. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-6 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

 There is a need to provide management direction to perpetuate habitats which support old 

growth-dependent species. The management direction provided by the SNFPA (2004) 

largely still applies, but minor changes have been identified to improve the perpetuation 

and health of this habitat type. 

 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 and snowboarding. There is a need to provide for changing demands 

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

economy. 

 There is a need to update the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to enable 

evaluation of the success of the Forest Plan in moving the Forest Plan area toward the 

new desired conditions. 

These issues, trends, and management concerns are described in more detail in section 1.7, and 

have been documented in several publications: 

 Pathway 2007 Draft Evaluation Report v1.0 

(TRPA, USDA Forest Service LTBMU, LWRQCB and NDEP 2005) 

 Pathway 2007 Draft Technical Supplement (Unpublished, Project Record PR#1) 

 Pathway 2007 Public Lands and Waterways Vision Summary 2006 (TRPA 2006b) 

 Pathway 2007 Regional Vision Summary July 2007 (TRPA 2007c) 

 Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) (USDA Forest Service LTBMU 2006) 

 LTBMU Climate Change Trend Assessment (Appendix D). 

 Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (Unpublished, Project Record PR#2) 

1.6 Decision Framework 

Levels of Planning 

Planning occurs at three levels—national strategic planning, NFS unit planning, and project or 

activity planning. 

The national strategic plan establishes goals, objectives, performance measures, and strategies 

for management of the NFS, as well as the other Forest Service mission areas: Research and 

Development, State and Private Forestry, and International Programs. The Chief of the Forest 

Service is responsible for national planning, including preparation of the Forest Service strategic 

plan. The national strategic plan is required under the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306; 31 U.S.C. 1115–1119; 31 U.S.C. 9703–9704), which is integrated with 

the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended by the NFMA. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-7 

At the second level of planning, land and resource management plans (LRMPs, forest plans) are 

established for administrative units of the NFS (typically an individual forest, grassland, or 

prairie although in some instances, a plan will cover more than one forest or grassland). Forest 

plans establish requirements and constraints for on-the-ground management decisions; they do 

not authorize projects or activities and do not commit the Forest Service to take any action. 

These strategic plans do not: 

 create, authorize, or execute any ground-disturbing activity; 

 grant, withhold, or modify any permit or other legal instrument; 

 subject anyone to civil or criminal liability; or 

 create legal rights. 

The Regional Forester is the Responsible Official for the LTBMU Forest Plan Revision, and will 

sign the Record of Decision, which describes the strategic direction and management intent for 

the LTBMU over the next 15 years, the decisions made, and the rationale for the decisions. 

The third level of planning includes development of on-the-ground projects and activities, which 

are designed to achieve the goals, desired conditions, and objectives of the Forest Plan. Projects 

and activities must be consistent with the Plan as described in the Introduction section of the 

Revised Forest Plan. The LTBMU Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for decisions 

about projects and activities on NFS lands managed by the LTBMU. 

The environmental effects of decisions made at the unit and project levels are analyzed in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and there are opportunities for 

public involvement at both levels. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-8 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Decision to Be Made 

The decision to be made by the Regional Forester is whether to: 

 Revise the current Forest Plan incorporating one of the action alternatives; 

 Revise the current Forest Plan by combining measures from two or more alternatives; or 

 Take no action at this time and continue to manage under the current Forest Plan, as 

amended. 

Six Plan Decisions 

The adoption of the revised land management plan would include six decisions for the long-term 

management of the LTBMU. These decisions are: 

1. Adoption of multiple-use goals and objectives, including a description of the desired 

condition of the LTBMU (36 CFR 219.11(b) 1982). The desired conditions are 

described in Part 1: Vision of the Draft Forest Plan. Objectives are described in Part 2: 

Strategies of the Draft Forest Plan, and objectives associated with other action 

alternatives are found in Appendix I. 

2. Adoption of Forest-wide standards and guidelines (36 CFR 219.11(c) and 36 CFR 

219.13 through 219.27 1982). Forest-wide standards and guidelines are in Part 3: 

Design Criteria of the Draft Forest Plan along with the other guidance that will be 

referenced during project implementation. 

3. The identification of the suitable uses for each management area in order (36 CFR 

219.11(c) 1982). Suitable uses are shown in the management area table and 

accompanying descriptions, and the accompanying maps and appendices in Part 2 of the 

Draft Forest Plan. 

4. The establishment of the monitoring and evaluation requirements for 

implementation of the forest plans (36 CFR 219.11(d) 1982). The Monitoring and 

Evaluation Plan is found in Appendix A. 

5. Recommendations to Congress of areas eligible for wilderness designation (36 CFR 

219.17(a) 1982) and rivers recommended for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River 

System (16 USC 1271-1287 and 36 CFR 297). Recommendations to Congress for 

establishing wilderness and other special designations will be made in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the FEIS for the Plan and are described in the alternatives. 

6. Determination of suitability and potential capability of lands for resource 

production, (36 CFR 219.14 through 36 CFR 219.26 1982). The timber suitability 

analysis is found in Appendix G. 

Transition to the Revised Plan 

The decision to adopt a revised Plan for the LTBMU would involve a determination of which 

projects would continue to be implemented under the 1988 LRMP and which projects would be 

implemented under the revised Plan. This determination will be documented in the final ROD. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-9 

1.7 Plan Content 

One of the goals of this revision process is to create a strategic plan that is in step with 

contemporary planning theories and practices while adhering to the provisions of the 1982 

planning regulations. 

The revised plan has a different organization than the 1988 Forest Plan for the LTBMU. This 

organization is the result of extensive work done at the national level to improve the land 

management planning process for the Forest Service. 

The Revised Forest Plan includes management direction (CFR 219.3 1982), and explanatory 

material. The management direction is also referred to as the Plan components. Management 

direction in the Draft Forest Plan includes: 

 Desired Conditions 

 Objectives 

 Management Area and Suitability of Areas direction 

 Designated and Recommended Special Area guidance 

 Standards and guidelines 

The explanatory material is included to clarify the use of the management direction and includes 

introductory text, definitions (glossary), and other material. It also includes the Program 

Strategies, which describe the preferred means of accomplishing work to move the Plan area 

toward the desired conditions. 

The Revised Forest Plan is organized in three parts, described below, and in the Introduction 

section of the Revised Forest Plan. 

Part 1: Vision 

The Desired Conditions comprise the overall vision for the LTBMU (CFR 219.11 (b) 1982). 

Desired conditions are long term aspirations that describe the specific ecological, social, and/or 

economic attributes toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. 

The outcome of land management activities over time should be to move the Plan area toward 

achievement of the desired conditions. 

Desired conditions are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be 

determined, but their attainment is likely to vary in time and space. Some may be attained 

relatively quickly throughout the entire LTBMU, while others may only be attained in a few 

areas over many decades. The collaboratively developed desired conditions from the Pathway 

process (shown in italics in the Revised Forest Plan) express a shared vision for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-10 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Part 2: Strategy 

The Strategy section describes how the Forest intends to move the Plan area toward the desired 

conditions. This part of the Plan includes the Program Strategies and Objectives, the 

Management Emphasis Areas and Suitable Uses, and descriptions of the Designated and 

Recommended Special Areas on the LTBMU. 

Program Strategies describe the principal management approaches the responsible official is 

inclined to use in implementing the Plan. 

The Objectives are specific goals to be accomplished in a specified time period (CFR 219.11 (b) 

1982). Objectives represent milestones on the path to achievement of the desired conditions. 

The Management Areas and Suitability of Areas sections provide broad guidance about the 

kinds of activities and uses that are appropriate in a given area. Resource overlays, such as the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) or the Protected Activity Centers (PACs) for goshawks and 

California Spotted Owls focus the scope of appropriate activities and uses, while Standards and 

Guidelines provide more specific boundaries and constraints on activities and uses. This body of 

prescriptive direction (CFR 219.11c1982) guides management towards attainment of objectives 

and desired conditions. 

Designated and Recommended Special Areas are lands within the NFS that receive special 

management consideration because of their unique or special characteristics, for example, 

wilderness, research natural areas, or national scenic trails. 

Part 3: Design Criteria 

Standards and guidelines (CFR 219.11c 1982) establish constraints and boundaries for 

management activities. 

A Standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision-making, established to 

help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable 

effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. 

A Guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure 

from its terms, so long as the intent of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help 

achieve a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet 

applicable legal requirements. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-11 

1.8 How the Management Direction Is Applied 

All proposed projects and activities are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the Forest 

Plan. When a project or activity is proposed, the first step is to determine whether it is consistent 

with the management area direction for the project location. This includes the Suitable Uses, any 

applicable management area Standards and Guidelines, and relevant law, regulation, and policy. 

Suitable Uses are also prescribed for Designated Special Areas. This management direction is 

found in Part 2: Strategies of the Draft Forest Plan. 

In some cases a use or activity is clearly suitable or not suitable in a given area, but in many 

cases, it is necessary to check for any resource overlays in the project area which may constrain 

activities and uses. Resource overlays are described in Part 2: Strategy of the Revised Forest 

Plan and are displayed on the maps contained at the end of the Revised Forest Plan, Volume II of 

this FEIS (e.g, Plan Map 4: Fire Management Units; Plan Map 9: Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum, etc). They show the approximate location and extent of information including Stream 

Environment Zones, California Spotted Owl nest sites, historic sites, designated special areas, 

utilities, and other resources that require special consideration. Many of the resource overlays 

are associated with specific Standards and Guidelines, found in Part 3: Design Criteria of the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

Finally, a proposed project is checked for consistency with the applicable forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines, as required by the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)). The process for determining 

consistency with this management direction is described in the introductory material at the 

beginning of the Forest Plan. Achieving consistency with the Forest Plan often requires 

application of project-specific direction, sometimes referred to as Resource Protection Measures 

or Project Design Features, which are included in the Proposed Action for the project.

While most projects are proposed with the intent of furthering attainment of one or more desired 

conditions and objectives, some projects, such as location of new cell phone towers, are not 

intended to meet desired conditions. These types of projects are not prohibited, but must still be 

located, designed, and managed in accordance with the Plan management direction and 

applicable law, regulation, and policy. 

1.9 The Role of Science in Environmental Analysis 

This FEIS has been prepared to ensure that the responsible official has access to the best 

available scientific information in order to make informed decisions in revising the LTBMU 

Forest Plan. It is important to take into account the best available scientific information to 

increase the understanding of risks and uncertainties and improve assumptions made in the 

course of decision making. 

Science is an important source of information for decision making. The best available scientific 

information is used to inform decisions. However, science is just one source of information for 

the responsible official and only one aspect of decision making. Land management planning is 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-12 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

complex and decision makers must consider such things as balancing competing values or 

competing ecological concerns. There may also be competing scientific perspectives or 

uncertainty in the science. 

The Pacific Southwest Research Station conducted a formal science review of the DEIS and 

Draft Forest Plan in June-July 2013. A panel of nine subject matter experts evaluated the 

following major subject areas: 

 Habitat and species management 

 Vegetation management 

 Fuels management 

 Climate change 

 Effects of recreation activities 

 Watershed 

 Air quality 

 Social and human dimensions 

The review evaluated the FEIS analysis in the context of four questions: 

 Is the relevant scientific information considered? 

 Is the scientific information reasonably interpreted and accurately presented? 

 Are the uncertainties associated with the scientific information 

acknowledged and documented? 

 Are the relevant management consequences identified, including associated 

risks and uncertainties? 

The FEIS has been adjusted in response to this review. The Science Consistency Review Report 

is available in the Project Record along with the Interdisciplinary Team’s responses to the 

individual reviewer’s comments. 

1.10 Summary of Public Involvement, Scoping, 

& Collaboration 

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 Draft Forest Plan. The Pathway desired conditions 

which are included in the Vision section of the Draft Forest Plan are directly linked to the 

environmental carrying capacity thresholds for the Lake Tahoe Basin (Public Law 96-551; 

TRPA, USDA Forest Service LTBMU, LWRQCB and NDEP 2005). These thresholds are 

environmental goals that apply to the entire Lake Tahoe Basin. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-13 

The LTBMU held additional Forest Service focused workshops in the fall of 2008. Two initial 

workshops were held to discuss the Forest Plan development approach and gauge further public 

interest in planning topics. Based on this input, three additional workshops were held. Topics 

discussed in detail were forest health, wildlife habitat and fuels reduction, fuels reduction and 

water quality, and recreation opportunities. 

Public involvement up until the summer of 2009 resulted in a Proposed Land Management Plan 

developed through a collaborative, iterative process. A Notice of Intent to prepare a Forest Plan 

and EIS was published on March 19, 2010. 

Two public meetings were held in the spring of 2010 to provide an update on the revision 

process and seek public input on development of alternatives for the Forest Plan EIS. Written 

comments and letters were received from interested parties during this scoping period. 

Beginning in the winter of 2008 and continuing through 2013, direct meetings were held with 

interested agencies and interest groups to discuss plan content. 

The DEIS was available for comment from June 1through August 30, 2012. Four public 

informational meetings were held, two on July 17, 2012 at the Forest Supervisors Office in South 

Lake Tahoe, CA and two on July 18, 2012 at the North Tahoe Conference Center in Kings 

Beach, CA. Over 250 individuals attended these meetings. In addition, on July 19, 2012 a 

webinar was hosted online by the LTBMU Forest Plan Revision IDT with approximately 20 

attendees. 

During the comment period the LTBMU received over 18,500 emails and letters commenting on 

the DEIS and supporting documents. All comments from these letters were sorted, grouped by 

subject and analyzed. The Response to Comment document can be found in Appendix N of 

Volume III of this document package. 

A detailed description of the public participation process for Forest Plan revision can be found in 

the LTBMU Forest Plan Collaboration and Public Participation Process report in the Project 

Record. 

1.11 Plan Revision Issues 

The issues and concerns expressed during public scoping and collaboration have been used to 

develop the alternatives considered in this analysis. The issues that emerged during the public 

involvement process have been grouped into four major issue areas: 

 Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems 

 Recreation 

 Access and Travel Management 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-14 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Each issue area is described in more detail below. 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems Issues 

Degraded Watersheds 

While there is nearly universal agreement that some watershed systems in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

are out of balance, there is some disagreement about solutions. Some believe that major 

geomorphic stream channel restoration projects are needed to restore watershed health and 

aquatic habitats, reverse the trend of declining clarity in Lake Tahoe. 

Others believe that the preferred course of action is to simply remove the major stressors to 

watershed health (e.g. grazing, barriers to stream flow) and allow natural processes to return 

systems to equilibrium over time. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

The action alternatives include both approaches. All alternatives would complete currently 

funded watershed restoration projects. After completion, Alternatives A, B, C and E continue 

watershed restoration programs as funding permits. Alternative D employs a more passive 

approach in which nature would be allowed to take its course. 

Public Use Impacts to Aquatic Habitats 

Some people would like to see development removed from sensitive aquatic habitat and riparian 

areas, and see the areas restored to more natural conditions. Others enjoy the public amenities in 

these areas and would like to see them remain, or be expanded. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Removal of development from SEZs is an option in all the action alternatives, but is emphasized 

more in Alternative D. Implementation of BMPs and other improvements to mitigate potential 

habitat impacts are included in all alternatives. 

Vegetation Management Impacts to Stream Environment Zones 

Some people believe that active management of SEZs is the best course of action to reduce fuel 

loads and restore native vegetation communities and habitats. Others believe that management 

activities should be minimized because they pose unacceptable risks to water quality, soil 

productivity, and habitats. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Alternatives A, B, C and E emphasize active SEZ management while Alternative D emphasizes 

passive SEZ management. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

There is general agreement about the removal of certain aquatic invasive species, such as Asian 

clams and Quagga mussels. However, while some people favor the eradication of all invasive 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-15 

aquatic species as part of aquatic habitat restoration, others would prefer to retain warm-water 

sport fishes that are considered aquatic invasives. While LTBMU is an active partner in AIS 

management, our role is limited by the fact that the Forest Service does not manage Lake Tahoe, 

but rather manages much of the surrounding lands and adjacent waters. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Alternative A only includes strategies for management of terrestrial invasive plant species. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E include strategies to prevent new infestations and collaborative 

strategies to control or eradicate known populations. Alternatives B, C and E include strategies 

to control or eradicate all species, including warm-water sport fishes. Alternative D includes 

strategies that limit management of AIS to high priority species and would not control or 

eradicate warm-water sport fishes. 

Climate Change 

There is a growing recognition that climate change is likely to result in hydrologic changes such 

as earlier snowmelt and higher peak flows in Lake Tahoe Basin streams. 

Some people believe that manipulating stream channel systems to restore natural stream and 

watershed processes will result in increased watershed resilience that will promote maintenance 

of watershed function in changing climatic conditions. 

Others believe that any climate change is best addressed by allowing natural processes to control 

the rate of recovery. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

After completion, Alternatives A, B, C and E continue to implement watershed restoration 

projects to increase resilience as funding permits, while Alternative D takes a more passive 

approach in which nature would be allowed to take its course. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems Issues 

Forest Health, Hazardous Fuels, and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

There is broad agreement that dangerous levels of hazardous fuels are present throughout many 

parts of the Lake Tahoe Basin and that the natural fire regime has been severely altered in many 

areas. There is also agreement that the mix of vegetation species and seral stages of vegetation 

communities are out of balance. There is disagreement on the best way to bring health and 

balance to our forests while sustaining wildlife. 

Some groups believe that the pace and scale of current restoration efforts is insufficient to keep 

up with the current pace of degradation, the effects of altered fire regimes, and the changing 

climate. Although restoration of natural process is the ultimate goal, under current conditions, 

allowing natural process to operate might have catastrophic consequences, including devastation 

to human communities and habitat for special status species. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-16 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Others believe that in most areas, protection and preservation are preferred over active 

management. Thinning treatments that attempt to mimic natural processes will have harmful 

impacts to soil and water as well as reducing wildlife habitat quality. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

The alternatives range from proposing more aggressive fuels treatments than those currently 

planned (Alternative C) to using mechanized thinning treatments only in the WUI defense zone 

(Alternative D). 

The acres of mechanized treatments (emphasized the most in Alternative C), diameter of trees to 

be removed (most restrictive in Alternative D and least restrictive in Alternatives B and C), the 

use of prescribed fire (emphasized the most in Alternative D), and the areas suitable for use of 

natural ignitions to accomplish restoration (emphasized the most in Alternatives B and D) would 

vary by alternative. 

The approach to sustaining and enhancing old growth forest would vary by alternative, with 

Alternatives A and D emphasizing the most passive approach. 

Full protections required by law to maintain habitat for special status species would be provided 

in all alternatives, but Alternatives B and C would also include habitat restoration for special 

status species. 

Climate Change 

Given current conditions and projections, some people believe that aggressive management is 

necessary to create conditions that are resilient to climate change. Others believe that allowing 

natural processes to operate as freely as possible will provide the mechanisms for restoration and 

produce the resilience needed to adapt to climate change. Terrestrial refuge areas to promote 

plant and animal species survival under changing climatic conditions would be provided under 

all alternatives. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Alternatives A, B, and C emphasize active management to promote resilience in vegetation 

communities while Alternative D emphasizes a passive approach in which nature provides most 

of the change. 

Recreation Issues 

Balance of recreation opportunities 

Public opinions varied from those preferring urbanized settings with many social encounters and 

service amenities such as those opportunities offered at Forest Service resorts, to those seeking 

more primitive opportunities such as those offered in backcountry settings or remote beaches. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-17 

Alternative A would provide the most opportunities in developed settings while Alternative D 

would provide the most opportunities in primitive settings. 

Recreation development and economic opportunities 

Some people believe that recreation development should be expanded and/or re-built to keep 

pace with demographic changes and user preferences as well as providing economic 

opportunities through year round use. Opinions were expressed that expansion should be allowed 

outside the currently developed areas, such as providing more parking to accommodate peak 

demands at popular sites. Other interests suggested that the Forest Service should provide more 

opportunities for private concessions and outfitter guides. 

On the other side were those wanting to limit recreation development because it is at or 

exceeding the capacity for which it was originally intended. This group also expressed a desire 

for more opportunities that provide a greater degree of solitude than is normally found at 

developed sites, opposes construction of new developed recreation sites, and favors further 

restrictions to minimize use conflicts and resource impacts. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Opportunities for expansion of developed recreation would be greatest with Alternative C, while 

Alternative D would not allow expansion. 

Climate Change 

There is a concern that climate change may limit some recreation opportunities, such as alpine 

skiing. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

To compensate for opportunities that may be lost, additional kinds of recreation opportunities 

may be provided in other seasons, to enhance recreation sustainability and contributions to social 

and economic sustainability. 

Wilderness 

Some groups felt that certain areas of NFS lands exhibit strong wilderness characteristics and 

should be evaluated and recommended for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. Others felt that the current amount of wilderness is adequate. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

Alternatives A, B, and E retain the currently designated wildernesses, while Alternative C 

recommends one additional wilderness area and Alternative D recommends two additional 

wilderness areas. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-18 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Access and Travel Management Issues 

Access to National Forests via facilities, roads and trails 

Some people would like LTBMU to increase the inventory of facilities, trails and roads to 

improve access to public lands, while others would prefer that LTBMU decrease the inventory of 

facilities, trails and roads to minimize impacts to public lands. 

There is general agreement about the need to plan and manage appropriately sized parking areas 

at popular destinations that reduce or avoid environmental impacts, but there is disagreement 

about how much parking should be provided. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

The service level of trails and roads varies by alternative. The amount of managed parking also 

varies by alternative. 

Multi-Modal Transit 

Some people believe that there is a need to lessen the dependence on the automobile for site 

access to alleviate pollution and crowding. They would like the Forest Service to encourage 

alternative transportation options including public transit, boat ferries, pedestrian, equestrian, and 

bike trails to NFS lands. Some would also like the Forest Service to support water trails and take 

a more active role in partnering to develop bike path systems that will serve as alternative 

transportation to the private automobile. 

Others prefer to access National Forest lands by private automobile and would like to retain and 

expand parking facilities. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

All alternatives would provide for the use of transit. Alternative D would provide the least 

amount of managed parking while Alternative C would provide the most, with Alternatives A B, 

and E in between. The alternatives provide a range of solutions, including strategies to encourage 

use of alternative transportation and provision of additional parking in some areas. 

Use Conflicts 

Some people prefer that mechanized use (mountain bikes) be separated from non-mechanized 

uses in time and/or space, while others prefer trails open to shared use. Some people would like 

to see more areas closed to motorized winter use, while others would like to see more areas open 

to motorized winter use, and some approve of the current balance of open and closed areas. 

How the alternatives address the issues: 

All alternatives include a strategy for managing use conflicts. Alternative D provides the 

greatest amount of wilderness and backcountry as compared to Alternatives A, B, C and E which 

offer differing levels of mechanized non-mechanized opportunities. Designation of uses on 

specific trails is most appropriately addressed at the project level. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-19 

The current balance of motorized and non-motorized winter use would be retained in 

Alternatives A, B, C and E. Alternative D would decrease the area open to motorized winter use. 

1.12 Laws, Regulations and Policies 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the 

fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently 

with and integrated with ... other environmental review laws and executive orders.” NFS lands 

managed by the LTBMU will be guided by applicable laws, regulations, policies. The LTBMU 

Forest Plan supplements, but does not replace, the direction from those sources. This section lists 

these other laws, regulations and policies. Laws passed by Congress such as the NEPA, the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 

1964 (MUSYA), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), provide direction for certain 

aspects of management. At the national level, the Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) 

program gives broad direction and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1966 (APA) (P.L. 79-

404) governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government may propose 

and establish regulations. 

Applicable laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders, as well as Forest Service 

memoranda of understanding, conservation strategies, and programmatic agreements, are listed 

here. The relevant documents are available on the Forest Service website 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/) and from Forest Service offices. The list included here is 

not all inclusive. 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 Clean Water Act (CWA) 

 Lahontan Region Basin Plan 

 Nevada State Environmental Commission Rules 

 Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa subumbellata). Pavlik, B. et al. 

2002. 

 The Healthy Forest Restoration Act, August 2002 

 Clean Air Act 

 National Fire Plan 2002; including the following: 

o Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A Report 

to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, September 2000 

o Protecting People and Natural Resources- A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy, 

February 2006 

o A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy - 3/17/2011 

o A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 

Environment- 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan, December 2006. 

 Federal Wildland Fire Policy, December 12, 1995 

 Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-20 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Feb. 13, 

2009). 

 Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 

 Organic Act of 1897 (Title 16, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 473-478, 479-482, 

551) 

 Forest and Range Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the NFMA. 

 Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act of 1971 (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.) 

 Rescissions Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19) 

 Public Rangelends Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 (43 U.S.C. §§1901 et seq.) 

 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §§1010 et seq.) 

 Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431) 

 Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461) 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and its 

implementing regulation 36 CFR 800 

 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) (16 U.S.C. 469) 

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 

47Oaa et seq.), as implemented by 36 CFR part 296 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), as 

amended (25 U.S.C. 3001), as implemented by 43 CFR Part 10, Subpart B – Human 

Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural Patrimony From 

Federal or Tribal Lands 

 Curation of Federally-owned and Administered Archaeological Collections, 36 CFR part 

79 

 National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA), Public Law 101-630, 

November 28, 1990 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (Public Law 103-344, October 6, 

1994) 

 Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-278, July 22, 2004) 

 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued 

May 13, 1971 

 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, issued May 24, 1996 

 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

issued November 6, 2000 

 Executive Order 13287, Preserve America, issued March 3, 2003 

 The First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National 

Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (2001) 

 The Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 

Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for 

Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest 

Region (2013) 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 ■ 1-21 

 The Term Permit Act of 1915 (38 Stat. 1101, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 497) 

 The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) 

 The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, Title VIII, Div. J., of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for 2005, Pub. L. 108-447 

 The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) 

 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Sections 504 and 508 (29 U.S.C. 794 and 

794d) 

 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) 

 Section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 490, 504, 504a, 528, 555, 557, 

571c, 572, 579a, 580c-5801,581i-1) 

 The National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 532-38) 

 The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b) 

 Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 

 The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6201-6213) 

 Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guide 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 USC 703-712) 

 Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act of 1940 

 California Water Code, Porter-Cologne Act 

 Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management 

Practices Handbook 

 Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, Chapter 5 

 Lake Tahoe Basin 208 Plan, TRPA 

 The Act of March 4, 1915, as amended in 1956 (16 U.S.C. 497) 

 The Transfer Act of 1905 (16 U.S.C. 472, 554) 

 Forest and Range Renewable Resource Planning Act 

 The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, 486) 

 Act of July 3, 1943 (7 U.S.C. 2253) (Land Adjustments) 

 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601) 

 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) 

 The Santini/Burton Act, Public Law 96-586, Dec23, 1980 

 Small Tracts Act, Act of January 12, 1983 (16 U.S.C. 521c-521i) 

 The Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 (43 U.S.C. 1716, 751) 

 Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263) 

 The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-248) 

 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( Public Law 109-58) August 8, 2005 

 Mining Law of 1872 (36 CFR 228, Subpart A) 

 Mineral Resources on Weeks Land, 1917 

 Multiple Use Mining Act, 1955 

 Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act, 1955 

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 1976 

 Mineral Leasing Act, 1920 

 Mineral Leasing for Acquired Land, 1947 

 Geothermal Steam Act, 1970 

 Materials Act, 1947 (36 CFR 228, Subpart C) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

1-22 ■ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

 National Trails System Act 

 Executive Order 13195, Trails for America in the 21st Century, issued January 18, 2001 

 Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 

 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-1 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including 

the Proposed Action 

This chapter describes and compares the five alternatives considered in detail in this analysis, as 

well as those eliminated from detailed study. 

Section 2.1 briefly describes the process used to develop a range of alternatives. 

Section 2.2 lists the elements that will not vary by alternative. 

Section 2.3 describes the key strategic differences among the alternatives, and is organized 

according to the four issue areas presented in Chapter 1: 

 Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems 

 Recreation 

 Access and Travel Management 

Section 2.4 describes how the alternatives differ in their response to the relevant issues raised 

during scoping. Alternative E was developed in response to public comment received on the 

DEIS. 

Section 2.5 describes how the management direction in the Plan would differ by alternative, and 

is organized according to the six plan decisions described in Chapter 1. This section also 

includes several tables that compare the alternatives in different ways. 

Section 2.6 briefly describes the alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, and the 

rationale for excluding each from detailed analysis. 

Chapter 2 concludes with a table summarizing the consequences of the alternatives. 

2.1. Development of Alternatives 

Alternative A, the No Action alternative, is the 1988 LTBMU Land and Resources Management 

Plan, as amended. The plan was amended multiple times since its inception, including the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, and the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management 

Indicator Species Amendment, both of which amended 10 Sierra Nevada Forest Plans including 

the LTBMU. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-2 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Development of a Draft Forest Plan (Alternative B) was initiated with the adoption of the 

Pathway vision statements and broad desired conditions for ten resource areas. Additional 

detailed desired conditions were then developed internally for these resource areas and other 

resources not included in Pathway, but important to the Forest Service mission, such as Heritage 

and Cultural Resources, and Interpretive Services. This expanded set of desired conditions 

formed the basis for a Proposed Plan, which was also informed by input from the public 

workshops held in 2008 and 2009. 

When the requirement for a plan revision EIS was reinstated, additional public meetings were 

held to solicit concepts we could use to construct additional alternatives. Alternatives were then 

developed in response to public issues, management concerns, and resource use and development 

opportunities. Public comments received during the scoping phase of the process were 

summarized to define the relevant issues, and the issues were integrated with the revision themes 

(described in Chapter 1) and used as the basis for the development of four different alternatives. 

The range of alternatives was designed to reflect the range of public opinions expressed during 

scoping. Similar concepts were packaged together in alternatives where possible, but more 

importantly we attempted to incorporate all of the views expressed in at least one alternative. 

The range of alternatives was also designed to meet the requirements of the 1982 planning 

regulations. The procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule require analysis of a range of reasonable 

alternatives, as follows: 

 Distributed between the minimum and maximum resource potential 

 Reflect the full range of commodity and environmental resource uses and values 

 Reflect a range of outputs and expenditure levels; 

 Facilitate analysis of opportunity costs and tradeoffs between benchmarks and 

alternatives 

 Facilitate evaluation of effects of present net value, benefits and costs of nonmonetary 

values 

 Provide different ways to address and respond to major issues, management concerns and 

resource opportunities 

The 1982 Planning Rule also requires that “at least one alternative shall be developed which 

responds to and incorporates the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 (RPA) Program tentative resource objectives for each forest displayed in the regional 

guide.” Additionally the 1982 Rule requires that each alternative state “the relationship of 

expected outputs to the RPA Program tentative resource objectives for the forest displayed in the 

current regional guide” (Sec 219.12 (f)). 

Changes in law and policy have rendered this language obsolete. The regional guide has been 

withdrawn. Additionally, in lieu of an RPA Program, a Forest Service Strategic Plan was 

completed in 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2007d) in accordance with the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and language in the Department of Interior and 

Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-321). 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-3 

RPA Assessments and interim updates are being completed as scheduled. Neither the RPA 

Assessment nor the Forest Service Strategic Plan contains recommended output targets 

applicable to individual National Forests. The Assessment contains national and regional level 

analysis of the renewable resource situation, including long-run projections of supply and 

demand for the various renewable resources. The Strategic Plan contains goals, outcomes, 

performance measures, and strategies that apply to all Agency programs, including management 

of National Forest System lands, but the Strategic Plan does not establish output targets. All 

alternatives are consistent with the relevant goals in the Strategic Plan. 

Alternative E, the new Preferred Alternative, was developed in response to public input received 

on the DEIS, and includes the resulting changes to the proposed Plan. Changes included 

additional Desired Conditions, Strategies, and Standards and Guidelines. Other changes were 

made to clarify the intent of Plan component language. The monitoring plan was also revised 

based on public comment. 

2.2. Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Forest Plans do not create, authorize, or execute any site-specific ground-disturbing activities. 

Each alternative would provide a framework to guide project selection, project design, and 

project implementation to meet or maintain the desired conditions. While the alternatives would 

differ in the means and timeframes for achieving the desired conditions, management of specific 

resources and programs would not vary by alternative in several important respects. This section 

describes the set of management considerations that would be the same under all alternatives. 

All alternatives are based on the concepts of multiple-use and ecosystem management, are 

designed to protect national forest resources, and comply with applicable laws, regulation, and 

policy. In addition, the following elements are common to all alternatives: 

 Fire suppression practices would be the same for all alternatives. The acres available for 

managing wildfires for multiple objectives would vary by alternative. 

 Existing recreation special use permits would remain in effect until their expiration date. 

Renewal would be governed by law and policy. Project implementation within permit 

areas would be required to be consistent with either the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan or the 

revised Forest Plan, as specified in the transition language referenced in Section 1.3. 

 Existing special use permits for communication sites, utility corridors, transportation 

corridors and other special uses designated in the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan would 

remain in effect until their expiration date. Renewal would be governed by law and 

policy. 

 BMP upgrades to enhance water quality and Universal Accessibility upgrades would 

continue at recreation sites. 

 The current Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and Over Snow Vehicle Use Map 

(Snowmobile Guide) would remain in effect in all alternatives unless wilderness 

designation is proposed and adopted by Congress. 

 No programmatic expansion of the road system is proposed. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-4 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

 Where opportunities are present, transit use would be promoted by development of multimodal transit stops that would provide convenient access among various transit modes 

such as busses, bicycles, walking, and boats. 

 Grazing management would not vary by alternative. 

 Minerals management would not vary by alternative. 

 Current designations of wilderness areas, national scenic and recreational trails, and 

scenic byways would not be reduced or eliminated. 

 Current designations of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) would not be reduced or 

eliminated unless wilderness designation of an IRA, or portion of an IRA, is proposed 

and adopted by Congress. 

 The current recommendation to add a segment of the Upper Truckee to the Wild and 

Scenic River System (USDA Forest Service Tahoe National NF and LTBMU 1999) is 

retained, and the area would be managed to maintain or enhance the free-flowing status 

and Outstanding Remarkable Values listed for this river. No other segments or rivers are 

recommended. 

 All currently designated special areas and the Grass Lake RNA would be retained and 

their management would not vary by alternative. Special areas are listed in Part 2: 

Strategies of the Draft Forest Plan. 

 Management and use of Santini-Burton parcels would be consistent with the provisions 

of the Act for all alternatives. 

 Selection and monitoring of Management Indicator Species (MIS) are described 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. 

 Decisions listed in Appendix K would remain in place. 

2.3. Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Five alternatives are analyzed in detail. Alternatives B, C, D and E provide choices for 

revising the existing Plan: 

Alternative A is the no action alternative; if this alternative were selected, management 

would continue as described in the 1988 LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan, 

as amended. 

Alternative B does not significantly change the overall goals and management course set 

by the existing LRMP as currently implemented. It does, however, respond to present 

natural resource management concerns such as climate change, provides management 

direction that reflects current science, and provides direction that will better respond to 

contemporary recreation demands. Management Areas are reduced from 21 to 4, 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-5 

providing more uniform direction. Developed recreation emphasizes retirement of 

deferred maintenance and allows for a small increase in capacity. 

Alternative C proposes a more aggressive approach that would achieve fuels and forest 

health desired conditions more rapidly than other alternatives. This alternative allows for 

a modest expansion of developed recreation facilities, more than other alternatives. The 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area for Wilderness designation. No major changes 

are proposed to the road and trail inventory, but a greater percentage of roads and trails 

would provide easier access for all vehicles and people. 

Alternative D is characterized by a passive management approach to watershed 

restoration and forest health, relying primarily on natural processes rather than active 

management to achieve the desired conditions. This alternative emphasizes dispersed 

recreation opportunities, limits expansion of developed facilities, and recommends both 

the Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried Roadless Areas for Wilderness designation and 

additional Backcountry Management Areas primarily adjacent to the Freel IRA and 

Granite Chief Wilderness. No major changes are proposed to the road and trail 

inventory, but they would be managed to emphasize more primitive routes with more 

challenge. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) is similar to Alternative B in that it does not 

significantly change the overall goals and management course set by the existing LRMP 

as currently implemented. However, in response to comments, about 3,800 acres are 

added as the Stanford Rock Backcountry Management Area, recreation expansion is at a 

level between alternatives A and B, would provide the opportunity for more campsites 

than Alternative B. Additional clarifications to the management direction found in the 

Forest Plan have been made. 

Of the alternatives under consideration at this stage, Alternative E is preferred by the 

responsible official. The detailed management direction associated with Alternative E is 

presented in the Draft Plan (Volume II), a companion document to this FEIS. Desired 

Conditions remain the same for Alternatives B, C and D, while a few additional Desired 

Conditions were added to Alternative E. Management Strategies and Objectives differ 

among the action alternatives and are presented in Appendices H and I. Standards and 

Guidelines that differ by alternative are discussed in this Chapter, in the section titled 

“How Plan Decisions Change By Alternative.” 

2.3.1. Alternative A: No Action (1988 Plan, as amended) 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Alternative A emphasizes water quality and SEZ protection. This alternative would continue the 

current program of watershed restoration to promote healthy watersheds, stable stream channels, 

and the biological and physical health and function of Stream Environmental Zones (SEZs). 

Prevention of sediment delivery to stream channels would continue to be a priority for 

management activities adjacent to SEZs. The primary goal of stream and watershed process 

restoration of streams and related watershed processes would be the decrease or elimination of 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-6 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

sediment sources (stream banks, roads, and other infrastructure) and other non-point pollution 

sources. 

Improvement of aquatic habitat conditions would be a secondary goal. Alternative A does not 

provide well-organized planning direction that addresses the complex linkages between species 

and habitat in aquatic ecosystems. While adequate measures are provided for habitat protection, 

there is no strong direction for active restoration of impacted habitats. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Alternative A continues current vegetation management using direction from the 1988 LTBMU 

Forest Plan as amended. A Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) fuels treatment strategy is defined, 

and WUI fuels treatments are the first priority for vegetation management. Community wildfire 

safety concerns are also addressed by an aggressive fire suppression strategy. 

Removal and sale of trees following disturbances (fire, insects, disease, and wind) is actively 

promoted to recover commercial value. Although wildland fire is recognized as an essential 

ecosystem process, wildland fire management for resource objectives is allowed only in the 

Desolation Wilderness. 

The forest health strategy emphasizes early and late seral forest stand structure and late seral 

dependent wildlife species habitat, including a series of land allocations (e.g, Protected Activity 

Centers [PACs], Home Range Core Areas [HRCAs], and Old Forest Emphasis Areas [OFEAs]) 

restricting vegetation management in old forest ecosystems. Forest-wide canopy closure 

requirements are included, and removal of trees greater than 30 inches DBH is prohibited except 

for removal of hazard trees and to enable equipment operation. 

Standards for managing terrestrial invasive plant species are included. 

Recreation 

Alternative A includes future expansion of recreation infrastructure, and development of new 

sites by up to 10% is described in the 1988 Plan. This alternative responds to future recreation 

demands through PAOT (persons at one time) allocation. A gradual increase in developed 

recreation opportunities would be accommodated by encouraging development over time to meet 

predicted future demands by allowing for the creation and expansion of developed recreation 

sites, alpine skiing facilities, and improvements to existing sites. 

This alternative would provide a balanced mix of recreation settings as defined by ROS and 

would conform to a Lake Tahoe Basin strategy based on the “Fair Share Concept” for publicly 

provided developed recreation facilities. 

Management of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless areas would continue in accordance 

with current plans and policy direction. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-7 

Access and Travel Management 

Current management direction allows expansion of the non-motorized trail system and 

construction of trailhead parking facilities. Existing trails and trailhead facilities would be 

maintained and reconstructed as needed to comply with health and environmental standards. 

Areas open to motorized access to NFS lands are shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) for the summer season and on the published Snowmobile Guide map for the winter 

season. 

The road and OHV trail system would be maintained and managed to meet current standards 

with available funding and the MVUM would be updated as needed. Current non-motorized 

trails would be maintained and managed to meet standards with available funding. 

Approximately 30 miles of hiking/equestrian trails and approximately 10 miles of mechanized 

trails would be added to the trail system. Of this, approximately 30 of those miles would come 

from currently unauthorized trails that would be upgraded and added to the system. No 

additional miles of OHV trails would be added. 

Use of transit is promoted where possible. 

Projects are prioritized based upon public safety first, resource impacts second and public access 

third. 

2.3.2. Alternative B: DEIS Preferred Alternative 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Alternative B proposes a coherent, updated set of desired conditions and strategies to maintain, 

protect, and restore overall watershed health. This alternative would continue the emphasis on 

water quality and SEZ protection, while adding increased emphasis on integrated SEZ 

restoration, and retaining most of the Riparian Conservation Strategy elements from the SNFPA 

ROD (2004). Additional desired conditions and strategies increase emphasis on aquatic habitat 

improvement such that this alternative provides equal emphasis on the stream process, water 

quality, and aquatic habitat components of watershed restoration. 

This alternative recognizes the need for building resilience into watershed systems and 

associated habitats to better enable them to adapt to changing climate conditions. Restoration 

goals include creating conditions that will enable stream systems and associated habitats to adapt 

to altered flow regimes and disturbances that may result from a changing climate. 

Species Refuge Areas (SRAs) are included in Alternative B and defined as areas of quality 

habitat for Federal Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Candidate (C), and Proposed (P) species 

(FSH 1909.12, Ch. 40, Sec. 43.22a). These areas either currently provide habitat for Federal 

TEPC species or may provide habitat needed for future recovery. Species included are Lahontan 

cutthroat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog, whitebark pine, and Tahoe yellow cress. This 

list is subject to change when species are added or removed. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-8 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Alternative B provides mitigation and restoration strategies to ensure sufficient quality habitat is 

available for special status species populations. 

Alternative B includes a proactive approach to the prevention and eradication of unwanted 

species, such as Quagga mussel, and the active treatment (control and or eradication) of the full 

spectrum of aquatic invasive species (AIS) populations. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

This alternative addresses safety concerns of communities by focusing fuels treatments in the 

WUI while emphasizing an active ecological restoration approach that restores and protects 

natural resources inside the WUI as well as throughout the broader landscape. This alternative 

includes management direction specifically intended to promote resilience to fire, changing 

climate, disease, and insect outbreaks. 

The Old Forest Emphasis Area land allocation is eliminated; instead, the old growth condition is 

preserved and perpetuated wherever it occurs, and selected mid-seral forest is promoted for 

future late-seral conditions. Additional treatments would emphasize regeneration of early seral 

stage in the major mid seral forested vegetation types; this would be achieved by creating 

openings. The majority of openings would be less than 5 acres and would range in size from less 

than one acre to ten acres. In Jeffrey pine, treatments would also focus on reducing mid-seral 

closed canopy stands to proportions closer to reference conditions; this would mean thinning to 

create mid-seral open canopy stands and facilitating their succession to late seral. 

The desired conditions include a range of forest stand density conditions. Thinning treatments 

under this alternative would vary within the range of desired tree stocking densities. The low end 

of the range (less dense stands) provides greater resiliency to insect outbreaks, especially during 

drought; however, density would vary because other objectives would be considered. For 

example, where forest health and nesting habitat desired conditions are considered in the same 

area, a higher density would likely be prescribed. 

The above two paragraphs describe the structural heterogeneity which is the desired condition, 

and which is prescribed to create resilience by mimicking the landscape patterns created by 

natural disturbance regimes. This degree of heterogeneity is not consistent with the absolute 

canopy closure limits in Alternative A, so these limits have been abandoned in Alternative B, 

except within PACs and HRCAs. Trees greater than 30 inches DBH may be removed under 

certain specified conditions described in the Standards and Guidelines of the Draft Plan 

published with the DEIS. 

The SRAs would include Whitebark Pine, a recently listed Candidate species. PAC/HRCA 

management direction is included in this alternative to protect and restore habitat for northern 

goshawk and California spotted owls. PAC management direction allows PAC restoration 

activities in this alternative. 

Wildland fire is recognized as an essential ecosystem process in need of restoration and this 

alternative utilizes planned and unplanned ignitions to meet the need. Wildland fire management 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-9 

for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management Units except the WUI Defense Zone. 

After wildfires and other disturbances, sale of dead and dying trees would be considered once 

concerns for safety, habitat, soils, and water resources are met, to offset the costs of restoration 

and to meet restoration goals. 

Recreation 

The mix of recreation settings as defined by ROS is similar to Alternative A (see ROS Map 9 in 

the Revised Forest Plan). 

Management of developed recreation sites would focus on deferred maintenance (i.e., a need to 

address deferred maintenance has been recognized but funds are not yet available to perform the 

maintenance) and/or modification of existing facilities to achieve ecological, social, and 

economic sustainability of the recreation setting before constructing new facilities to maintain 

existing opportunities. 

Small increases in the number of overnight accommodation units (e.g., campsites and cabins), 

parking spaces at day use sites and trailheads, and developed acres would be allowed over the 

life of the plan and new sites could be developed. Recreation infrastructure could increase by 

5%. Recreation infrastructure modified or displaced by ecological restoration, financial 

constraints, or conflicts with other resources would be replaced. The 5% future expansion does 

not include parking that is relocated from unmanaged parking to managed parking. 

Management of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless areas would continue in accordance 

with current plans and policy direction. 

Access and Travel Management 

Management of the road and trail system would remain largely unchanged in this alternative, 

except as described below. 

The access and travel management (ATM) planning process would be formalized/acknowledged 

in the Plan. ATM planning is used to identify needed routes, crossing upgrade and BMP needs, 

and restoration and reroute opportunities that will protect and enhance natural resources. 

Roadside parking would be relocated to managed parking areas, and could include fee parking. 

Use of transit would be encouraged. 

Approximately 30 miles of hiking/equestrian trails and approximately 10 miles of mechanized 

trails would be added to the trail system. Of this, approximately 30 of those miles would come 

from currently unauthorized trails that would be upgraded and added to the system and some 

would be new trail. No additional miles of OHV trails would be added. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-10 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

2.3.3. Alternative C 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Alternative B and C do not differ. Management direction for watershed and aquatic habitat and 

species diversity is the same for both alternatives. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

This alternative is similar to Alternative B, with the exceptions that follow. 

Vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce the number of entries needed to meet desired 

conditions by thinning to the lower range of desired tree stocking levels. The reduction in stand 

densities would be greatest in this alternative. 

Wildland fire management for resource objectives is allowed all in all Fire Management Units 

except WUI Defense and Threat Zones. Wildland fire is recognized as an essential ecosystem 

process in need of restoration and this alternative utilizes planned and unplanned ignitions to 

meet the need. Removal and sale of trees following disturbances (fire, insects, disease, wind) is 

actively promoted to recover commercial value. 

Recreation 

This alternative would allow the greatest number of overnight accommodation units (e.g., 

campsites and cabins), the greatest number of day use parking spaces, and the greatest number of 

developed acres. Future expansion of recreation infrastructure would be allowed up to 15%. The 

15% future expansion does not include relocating parking from unmanaged to managed sites. 

The mix of recreation settings as defined by ROS is similar to that in Alternatives A and B. 

Dardanelles Roadless Area is recommended for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

Access and Travel Management 

Alternative C would be the same as alternative B in almost all respects, except more intensive 

management is proposed as it relates to expanding and enhancing recreational access. 

Vehicle access to the forest and developed parking would increase. In addition to the ATM 

goals in Alternative B, reroutes to provide for greater access by reducing grade and increasing 

road and trail widths would also be included. A greater percentage of roads and trails would be 

maintained to a higher access standard, enabling more access for passenger vehicles. 

Challenging trails and roads would be retained in the system, but the percentage of those routes 

would decrease. 

Managed parking, which could include fee parking, and reduction of roadside parking would 

encourage use of transit. Alternative C would provide for the most managed parking of all the 

alternatives. Parking capacity could be increased when converting unmanaged parking to 

managed parking, as described above in Recreation. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-11 

Approximately 23 miles of hiking/equestrian trails, approximately 1 mile of mechanized trail and 

5 miles of OHV trails would be added to the trail system. Of these, some miles would come 

from currently unauthorized trails that would be upgraded and added to the system, and some 

would be new trails. 

2.3.4. Alternative D 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

A passive management strategy for watershed and aquatic habitat management characterizes this 

alternative. This strategy would take effect after currently planned restoration projects are 

completed. Watershed restoration goals would be met by allowing natural processes to control 

the rate of recovery; restoration actions would be limited to removal of stressors. Terrestrial and 

aquatic species habitat objectives would be met by allowing natural processes to control the rate 

of recovery; restoration would be limited to actions required by law or removal of high priority 

invasive species. 

Watershed condition and aquatic species sustainability would be addressed primarily by reducing 

and preventing causes of degradation where identified, (i.e. BMP upgrades or decommissioning 

of facilities, roads and trails, aquatic invasive species prevention, etc.), rather than by active 

restoration. 

No active management beyond currently planned projects would be implemented to stabilize or 

restore stream channels and associated riparian areas that are out of equilibrium or degraded due 

to past land use or climate change. Natural processes would be allowed to set the pace to 

achieve equilibrium with the changing climate and other existing and future stressors. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Management of natural ignitions and under-burning would be the preferred tools for vegetation 

and fuels management. There would be a decreased emphasis on mechanical thinning as a 

surrogate for the natural processes outside the defense zone. Vegetation management outside the 

WUI would be limited, and natural processes would be allowed to operate within natural range 

of variability to restore ecosystems and promote resilience. This strategy would take effect after 

projects identified in the Multi-Jurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy 

have been completed. 

This alternative emphasizes late seral forest stand structure and late seral dependent wildlife 

species habitat protection. Removal of trees greater than 30 inches DBH is prohibited with the 

exception of hazard trees and to enable equipment operability. Once the Multi-Jurisdictional 

Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy is complete, the WUI would not include a 

threat zone, and the diameter limit for tree removal outside the defense zone would be 12 inches. 

Canopy closure restrictions would be retained. PAC management standards are the same as in 

Alternative A, and do not allow for restoration activities in PACs. Old Forest Emphasis Areas 

are retained. Creation of early seral and mid-seral open conditions would depend on high and 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-12 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

mixed-severity fire or other mortality agents; this alternative would not include cutting trees to 

manipulate stand structure for forest health objectives. 

Wildland fire is recognized as an essential ecosystem process in need of restoration and this 

alternative utilizes planned and unplanned ignitions to meet the need. Wildland fire management 

for resource objectives is allowed all in all Fire Management Units except WUI Defense Zone. 

After wildfires and other disturbances, sale of dead and dying trees would not be allowed. 

Recreation 

Recreation infrastructure lost due to ecological restoration, financial constraints or conflicts with 

other resources would not be replaced. This would account for a reduction of up to 15% of 

recreation infrastructure. Recreation facilities and developed acres would not be expanded to 

accommodate increased demand. Permit boundaries may be decreased where development has 

not yet occurred. 

This alternative includes recommendation of the Dardanelles and Freel Roadless Areas for 

Wilderness designation. Designation of the Freel Roadless Area would alter the mix of 

recreation opportunities as defined by the ROS. 

In addition to the wilderness recommendations, this alternative also shifts roughly 12,000 acres 

from the General Conservation to the Backcountry Management Emphasis Area. These acres are 

primarily adjacent to the Freel IRA and Granite Chief Wilderness. 

Access and Travel Management 

Transportation infrastructure would be considered for decommissioning based upon ecological 

restoration goals and financial constraints. Maintenance level of roads and trails would be 

reduced compared to the current maintenance levels. Non-motorized access to the forest would 

increase. Parking and road access would decrease over time. 

A spectrum of opportunities for recreation would be maintained so that challenging trails and 

roads would be kept in the system, and the percentage of primitive and challenging routes would 

increase. 

Fee parking and reduction of roadside parking would encourage use of transit. Emphasis in this 

alternative includes a reduction of roadside parking while providing the least amount of managed 

parking of all the alternatives. 

Approximately 30 miles of hiking/equestrian trails would be added to the trail system. Most of 

these miles would come from currently unauthorized trails that would be upgraded and added to 

the system. If Freel and Dardanelles IRAs were designated as Wilderness, approximately 17 

miles of mechanized trails and 5 miles of OHV trails would be closed to those uses and 

converted to other allowable uses. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-13 

2.3.5. Alternative E: FEIS Preferred Alternative 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative B, but differs in these respects: 

 Adds approximately 3,600 acres to the Backcountry Management Area. This area is 

called “Stanford Rock” and is located between Ward and Blackwood Creeks (Maps 15 

and 16). It is similar to part of the Backcountry proposed in Alt D, but the boundaries 

were drawn to exclude lands within the WUI. OSV use is currently allowed in this area 

and would continue to be allowed. A number of factors, other than solely recreation use, 

are considered when designating lands as Backcountry. This area was proposed because 

it only has one road, the need for more roads is not expected at this time for future 

management, it contains PACs, boundaries were drawn to exclude the WUI, and it is 

immediately adjacent to wilderness and roadless areas. 

 Plan components (Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines) were 

adjusted in response to the comments received on the DEIS. Additional adjustments 

were made based on internal review. 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative B except more detailed direction was added to address 

aquatic invasives. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative B. Fire and fuel treatments remain the same, however, 

standards and guidelines to protect late seral forest habitats were further clarified, guidance for 

forest openings was clarified, how to apply the exceptions to the 30 inch diameter limit on tree 

cutting was clarified, and guidelines for the treatment of post fire habitat were added. 

Recreation 

Alternative E prescribes limits for developed recreation expansion that are between the limits in 

Alternatives A and B. 

 Developed site acres - approximately 5% increase 

 Overnight accommodation units - approximately 10% increase 

 Day use parking – approximately 5% increase 

 Ski Areas footprint acres – approximately 5% increase 

 Developed recreation expansion is defined in the Recreation Program Strategy section of 

the Revised Forest Plan, and would be tracked through the forest plan consistency 

process as projects are approved. Expansion limits are defined specifically in a Forest 

Plan Standard; these are hard numbers and constitute a “bank” of potential recreation 

development. If we reach the allowed limit, a forest plan amendment would be required 

to exceed numbers. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-14 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Access and Travel Management 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative B. 

2.4. How the Alternatives Address Relevant Issues 

2.4.1. Watershed Health and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Degraded Watersheds 

Under Alternative A, the primary goal for watershed restoration projects is sediment reduction, 

with habitat restoration as a secondary goal. Under Alternatives B, C and E, sediment reduction 

and habitat restoration goals would be given more equal weight overall, though on an individual 

project, one might be given more weight than the other based on site needs. Under Alternative 

D, habitat restoration objectives would be met by allowing natural processes to control the rate of 

recovery; restoration would be limited to actions required by law or removal of high priority 

invasive species. 

Under Alternatives A, B, C and E, new funding would be sought for additional projects after 

completion of currently planned projects. Under Alternative D, new watershed restoration 

projects would be limited to removal of stressors, and the rate of watershed recovery would be 

governed by natural processes. Watershed restoration projects for which planning and 

implementation funding has been secured would continue under all alternatives. 

Public Use Impacts to Aquatic Habitats 

Alternative A allows outdoor recreation facilities in SEZs under limited circumstances, including 

where the nature of the activity is dependent on the location, where there is no feasible 

alternative, and where it is fully mitigated. Under Alternative B, C and E, facilities removed 

from SEZs would be replaced elsewhere, while in Alternative D, facilities may be removed 

without replacement. 

Vegetation Management Impacts to Stream Environment Zones 

Fuels treatments in SEZs would be similar under Alternatives A, B, C and E. LTBMU would 

continue on the current course with treatments that reduce the hazard of catastrophic wildfire 

while protecting natural resource values in SEZs. 

Under Alternative D, SEZ fuels reduction treatments outside the WUI defense zone would limit 

tree removal to trees 12 inches in diameter or less after hazardous fuels treatments identified in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy are 

completed. In addition, under Alternative D, the treatment tools in order of preference would be 

(1) management of natural ignitions (2) prescribed fire (3) hand thinning (4) mechanical 

thinning. This strategy would limit mechanical treatments in SEZs under Alternative D. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-15 

Vegetation management undertaken purely for ecosystem restoration objectives would involve 

more intensive treatments under alternatives A, B, C and E, than under Alternative D. Fuels 

reduction and vegetation restoration treatments for which planning and implementation funding 

has been secured would continue under all alternatives. 

Special Status Aquatic Species 

Protection and conservation measures for threatened and endangered species, and Region 5 

sensitive species, would meet all requirements of law and Forest Service policy in all 

alternatives. Recovery actions mandated by law would be implemented in all alternatives. 

Alternatives B, C and E would promote species recovery through active management, while 

Alternative D would allow natural processes to control the rate of recovery. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Alternative A allows for management of AIS, but provides little specific direction. Alternatives 

B, C and E add an aquatic invasive species management strategy. Alternative D would limit AIS 

management to actions required by law or removal of high priority invasive species. 

Climate Change 

Alternative A allows for watershed and aquatic habitat management actions to increase resiliency 

to changing climate conditions, but does not provide any specific guidance. Alternatives B, C, 

and E include strategies aimed at increasing resiliency, while Alternative D employs a strategy of 

relying on natural processes to achieve equilibrium with a changing climate. 

2.4.2. Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Forest Health, Hazardous Fuels, and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

Forest health management in Alternative A is primarily focused on early and late seral, and does 

not differentiate between vegetation types, an approach not supported by current science. While 

this alternative does not prohibit management for other seral types and specific vegetation types, 

it fails to provide guidance. Alternatives B, C, D and E, provide detailed desired conditions 

designed to shift the LTBMU forests onto a sustainable trajectory. The desired conditions are 

supported by strategies and standards and guidelines which provide guidance to achieve 

heterogeneity and associated benefits. 

While Alternatives A, B, C, and E are similar in many respects, they differ in several important 

areas. Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B, C, and E recognize that different vegetation types 

should have different distributions of seral stages, and provide management direction specific to 

four different forest types. Alternatives B, C, and E prescribe management for old growth 

conditions wherever they occur on the landscape, as opposed to the site-specific Old Forest 

Emphasis Areas in Alternative A. Alternative B includes six exceptions to the 30 inch diameter 

limit, to achieve forest health, restoration and safety goals and Alternative E further clarifies how 

those exceptions would be applied. Canopy closure limits are retained only for PACs and 

HRCAs in Alternative B. Alternative E adds guidance for retaining habitat connectivity between 

PACs, and includes canopy removal restrictions for late seral closed canopy stands. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-16 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

While in Alternative A, only the LTBMU portion of the Desolation Wilderness is available for 

managing wildfire for multiple objectives, in Alternatives B, D, and E, the only area not 

available is the defense zone. Alternative C excludes the WUI threat and defense zones. 

Alternative C prescribes thinning to the lower range of desired tree stocking levels, reducing 

stand densities more than in Alternatives B and E. Old growth conditions would be managed as 

in Alternative B and exceptions to the 30 inch diameter limit and canopy closure limits are the 

same as in Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, the WUI would not include a threat zone. A 12 inch diameter limit outside 

the defense zone would be employed. Prescribed fire would be used to restore ecological 

processes and create resilience. Vegetation management outside the WUI would be limited, and 

natural processes would be allowed to operate within the natural range of variability to restore 

ecosystems and promote resilience. Management of wildfire for multiple objectives would be the 

same as in Alternative B. 

Under Alternatives A and D, California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk PACs would be 

managed as currently described in the 2004 SNFPA Record of Decision. Under Alternatives B 

C, and E, PAC management standards would be expanded to allow PAC restoration activities to 

enhance habitat while meeting hazardous fuels reduction objectives. 

Climate Change 

Alternative A does not address climate change. Alternatives B and C use a suite of silvicultural 

tools to manipulate stand structure and stand density with the goal of making stands more 

resilient to wildfire, drought, insect outbreaks and other disturbances that may accompany a 

changing climate. Alternatives B and C also provide the heterogeneity needed for habitat 

diversity which would better enable wildlife species to adapt to change. Alternative D uses a 

more passive approach, in which nature is allowed to provide most of the needed change. 

Manipulation of stand structure and density would primarily be used to protect communities 

from wildfire in Alternative D. Alternative E further recognizes climate change by providing 

desired conditions and strategies in the forest plan. 

2.4.3. Recreation 

Balance of Recreation Opportunities 

Alternatives A, and B continue the current mix of settings and activities with approximately 45% 

of the NFS lands providing a relatively primitive environment (Backcountry and Wilderness 

Management Areas) and 46% providing a more developed environment (General Conservation). 

Alternative C maintains this balance while shifting 9% of the Backcountry acres to 

Recommended Wilderness. Alternative D includes 52% of NFS lands in Wilderness, 

Recommended Wilderness and Backcountry; this alternative both adds Backcountry acres and 

shifts existing Backcountry actress to Recommended Wilderness. Alternative E would slightly 

shift the current mix towards more primitive opportunities through the addition of the Stanford 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-17 

Rock Backcountry MA (approximately 3,600 acres) for a total of 43% General Conservation and 

46% in Wilderness and Backcountry (see Figure 2-1). 

Management of a range of opportunities is emphasized in all alternatives. While management 

for shared use is a current emphasis, and would be continued under all alternatives, a strategy for 

management of user interactions is specifically described in Alternative E. 

OSV use would not vary by alternative. Approximately 52% of LTBMU lands would remain 

open to OSV use and 48% would remain closed to OSV use. Non-motorized winter recreation 

would continue to be allowed on 100% of LTBMU lands. 

Recreation Development and Economic Opportunities 

Alternatives B and E would provide fewer opportunities for expansion and new development of 

recreation infrastructure than Alternative A. Alternative C would provide the most opportunities. 

Alternative D would provide the fewest opportunities for development and expansion. Under 

Alternative D, recreational infrastructure lost due to ecological restoration, financial constraints, 

or where conflicts exist with other resources would not be replaced. 

Alternative A prescribes development or expansion of specific sites and allows for development 

and expansion elsewhere. Alternatives B, C, D, and E do not prescribe any site-specific 

development or expansion. Alternatives B and E focus on maintaining existing sites while 

allowing for expansion and development to maintain capacity and in some cases, to respond to 

future trends in recreation demand. 

Wilderness 

Alternatives A, B, and E retain current designated Wilderness areas. Alternative C recommends 

the Dardanelles IRA for wilderness designation, and Alternative D recommends both the 

Dardanelles and Freel IRAs for wilderness designation. 

2.4.4. Access and Travel Management 

Access to National Forests via Facilities, Roads and Trails 

The maintenance level (use type) of roads and trails changes by alternative Implementation of 

these changes would be dependent on funding availability, and opportunities to coordinate with 

other transportation agencies. 

Roads and trails may be added to the managed system by the adoption of unauthorized routes, 

and/or the construction of new roads and trails (on a project-specific basis), but no programmatic 

expansion of the road system is proposed in any of the alternatives. 

Alternatives B and E would provide a slight increase in the total miles of road open to passenger 

vehicles by opening currently closed routes. Alternative C would provide the greatest increase in 

mile of road open to passenger vehicles, and Alternative D would provide a decrease through 

closing additional routes currently open. 

Under Alternative D, the miles of road available for OHV use would increase. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-18 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Miles of trails open to motorized use would be the same under Alternatives A, B, and E, would 

increase slightly under Alternative C, and would decrease slightly under Alternative D. 

Miles of trails open to mechanized (mountain bike) use would be the same under Alternatives A, 

B, and E, would decrease slightly under Alternative C, and would decrease the most under 

Alternative D, largely due to wilderness recommendation. 

Miles of trails open to non-motorized, non-mechanized use would remain the same under 

Alternatives A, B, D, and E, and would decrease slightly under Alternative C. 

Parking and Multi-Modal Transit 

Differences among alternatives are primarily differences in strategy; implementation would be 

dependent on funding availability and opportunities to coordinate with other transportation 

agencies. 

Current parking capacity (outside of day use and trailhead parking) would be maintained in 

Alternatives B and E by adoption of unmanaged sites (hardening, BMPS), and eliminating 

unmanaged roadside parking. Parking capacity would be increased in Alternative C while 

converting unmanaged parking to managed parking. Alternative D would decrease total parking 

capacity as compared to Alternative A. Fewer unmanaged sites would be adopted than in 

Alternatives B and C and E, and unmanaged roadside parking not converted would be 

eliminated. 

Parking for dispersed winter recreation would increase under Alternatives B, C and E and would 

remain the same in Alternatives A and D. 

All alternatives include strategies to promote transit use, such as linking bicycle trails to bus 

stops. 

Use Conflicts 

While Alternatives A, B, C, and D would continue on current trends of managing use conflict by 

promoting shared use of the trail system and designing the trail system to minimize use conflict 

and include education, layout, and maintenance, a strategy for management of use conflict is 

specifically described only in Alternative E. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-19 

2.5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study 

2.5.1. Conduct Revision as Part of a Sierra Nevada 

Ecoregion Plan 

In response to the NOI, some members of the public suggested that the LTBMU plan revision 

should be accomplished as part of a broader Sierra Nevada-wide planning effort, similar to the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). This approach was considered and rejected by 

the Regional Forester, because the LTBMU plan revision was already well underway. 

Revision started with the Pathway process in 2004. The Pathway agencies (LTBMU, TRPA, 

Lahontan and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) developed a set of common vision 

and desired condition statements through an extensive public collaboration process which are 

included in all the action alternatives. Continuing the revision process will enable LTBMU to 

incorporate the shared vision for the Lake Tahoe Basin in our revised Plan. If the LTBMU Forest 

Plan were revised as part of a broader planning effort, local issues might receive a lesser degree 

of consideration. 

2.5.2. Recommend Additional Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

The Record of Decision for the Eight Eastside Rivers EIS (USDA Forest Service Tahoe National 

NF and LTBMU 1999) made a preliminary recommendation to designate a segment of the Upper 

Truckee as Wild under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287, Public law 90-542 

October 2, 1968). The Regional Forester approved the decision but no further action was taken 

to designate this segment. The management plan for the segment remains in effect, to ensure 

eligibility is maintained. 

Prior to publication of the DEIS, a coalition of conservation groups requested that additional 

stream segments in the Lake Tahoe basin be recommended for designation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The Forest Service reviewed the Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic 

River Study, and the interdisciplinary team found no changed circumstances that would render 

additional rivers eligible for designation (Appendix B - Wild and Scenic River Evaluation). 

Numerous comments on the DEIS requested recommendation of additional stream segments, 

particularly all 32 miles of the Upper Truckee River and its tributaries and the 24 miles of the 

Truckee River below Lake Tahoe. 

In response to these comments, the interdisciplinary team conducted an additional review of the 

Upper Truckee tributaries identified on a map accompanying one of the comment letters. Based 

on this second review, 9 of the 11 identified tributaries were found potentially eligible by the 

team. Potential outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) included Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-20 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

habitat and populations, scenery, wildlife habitat and populations, historic and cultural resources, 

and botanical resources. 

While the area includes recreation opportunities such as the Tahoe Rim Trail and Pacific Crest 

Trail, these are not strictly river-related values, and so were not considered ORVs. Given that 

three of the tributaries have small dams associated with lakes, these tributaries might not be 

eligible for a Wild designation, but would likely be eligible for a Scenic designation. 

These findings were presented to the Forest Leadership Team to consider in making a suitability 

finding. The Forest Supervisor and the Leadership Team found that while the area does 

potentially possess ORVs that should be protected, additional protection is not needed due to the 

area’s current Inventoried Roadless Area status. In addition, the area would continue to be 

protected under the Backcountry Management Area direction even if the roadless designation is 

removed at a future time. 

The Forest Supervisor and Leadership Team also found that the Endangered Species Act 

provides greater protection for Lahontan cutthroat trout than would be provided under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, and the proposed Revised Forest Plan would continue to provide 

adequate protection for other identified ORVs. 

Given that additional protection is not needed, this recommendation might not be consistent with 

the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. An additional consideration was opposition expressed at 

the county level.

In summary, no alternatives proposing additional Wild and Scenic River recommendations have 

been added or changed. Although a revised analysis found additional tributaries to the Upper 

Truckee eligible, they were not found suitable, and the original proposal to recommend a 7 mile 

segment of the mainstem of the Upper Truckee remains as stated in the DEIS. 

The eligibility and suitability findings for the Truckee River below Lake Tahoe did not change 

between the Draft and Final EIS, and remain as stated in Appendix B. This FEIS does not 

propose to recommend the Truckee River below Lake Tahoe for protection under the Wild and 

Scenic River Act. 

 

2.5.3. Revise the Over-Snow Vehicle Use 

Designations 

Some members of the public requested additional snowmobile closure areas to prohibit 

snowmobile use in specific areas with known use conflicts and in sensitive areas. Separating 

snowmobile use from other winter recreation was also advocated. 

Other members of the public requested designation of additional areas for snowmobile access, 

and yet others think the current over-snow vehicle policy is acceptable. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-21 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys provide our major source of recreation 

monitoring. These surveys found that overall visitor satisfaction with recreation opportunities on 

the LTBMU is very high. Uses surveyed in NVUM include both motorized and non-motorized 

winter activities. Less than 10% of visitors surveyed identified either cross-country skiing or 

snowmobiling as their main activity, while 62% of visitors identified downhill skiing as their 

main activity. 

While both OSV users and non-motorized users expressed discontent with the size and location 

of areas designated for their preferred activities, we received few specific suggestions for 

changes, and none that we thought would be acceptable to all parties. Thus, at this time we have 

no proposal for an alternate designation of areas that would reduce the perceived use conflict, 

and have not analyzed any other alternatives that would propose changes to designations of areas 

open or closed to OSV use. 

All user groups expressed discontent with the available amount of winter parking; some stated 

that this lack effectively eliminated access to some of the lands open to them. While we 

recognize that providing more parking could increase satisfaction with the current mix of 

designated areas, site-specific decisions are outside the scope of this FEIS. Site-specific 

proposals for additional winter parking may be considered in the future as funding and/or 

partnership opportunities become available. Increasing winter parking is included as a strategy 

in Alternative E. 

Although concerns about OSV effects on natural resources such as air, water, and wildlife were 

expressed, our analysis did not reveal any significant impacts resulting from the current mix of 

motorized and non-motorized winter recreation use that would drive a change in use. 

To minimize conflict, separation of uses is in effect on the 48% of LTBMU lands closed to OSV. 

This provides the non-motorized users with the relative solitude and quiet recreation experience 

they value. On the remaining 52% of LTBMU lands, there is an expectation that motorized and 

non-motorized users will share the land in a safe and courteous manner. This expectation is 

consistent with the LTBMU policy for summer uses: most trails are mixed use. It is also worth 

noting that a small but growing number of people use snowmobiles to access back-country ski 

areas, so the issue is not as polarized between user groups as it has been in the past. 

The 1982 planning regulations at 36 CFR Part 219.21g require planning for off-road vehicle use, 

which includes OSV use. These requirements were met in the 1988 Land and Resource 

Management Plan, which describes open and closed areas in each Management Area. We 

propose to carry forward the current designations as shown on the published LTBMU 

Snowmobile Guide map and Map 18 in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service LTBMU 

2010c). The current map, plus the current published Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) show 

the classification of “areas and trails of National Forest System lands as to whether or not offroad vehicle use may be permitted.” 

Given that no significant impacts that would drive a change in designations were revealed in the 

analysis, and no alternate proposals surfaced that would reduce perceived user conflicts, this 

FEIS has not analyzed any additional alternatives designating areas for OSV. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-22 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Future changes to open and closed areas will be accomplished in accordance with Forest Service 

Travel Management regulation and policy (36 CFR Part 261, FSM 7700, and FSH 7709.55 

Chapter 10). 

Summary: 

 Cross-country skiers and snowshoers want more areas closed to snowmobile use. 

 Snowmobilers want more areas open to snowmobile use. 

 Current designations allow snowmobiles on 52% of LTBMU lands and provide for 

exclusively non-motorized winter use on 48% of LTBMU lands. Non-motorized winter 

use is allowed on 100% of LTBMU lands. 

 These areas were designated in the 1988 Forest Plan. 

 No significant impacts resulting from the current mix of uses were revealed in the 

analysis. 

 No solutions came to light during Forest Plan revision that would reduce the perceived 

use conflict. Neither the public nor the interdisciplinary team proposed an alternate mix 

of uses that would be acceptable to all parties. 

 No additional alternatives designating OSV use have been analyzed. 

 This FEIS proposes to carry forward the current designations as shown on Map 18 of the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

2.5.4. Increase the Pace and Scale of Ecosystem 

Restoration 

The following is excerpted from a regional policy document, Ecological Restoration: Engaging 

Partners in an All Lands Approach (USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (R5) 2010), 

published in January 2010: 

“While sound restoration work is being conducted throughout the Region to 

increase forest and watershed resilience, important indicators suggest that 

disturbance impacts already outpace the benefits of this work, and that we will 

fall further behind over time......To counter these trends, forest managers will 

need to significantly increase the pace and scale of the Region's restoration work. 

Only an environmental restoration program of unprecedented scale can alter the 

direction of current trends.” 

In accordance with this policy, the feasibility of increasing the pace and scale of vegetation 

treatments and watershed restoration projects was analyzed. We concluded that LTBMU is 

currently operating at capacity in restoring watersheds and vegetation. Over much of the past 

decade, funding obtained through the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA) and the Southern 

Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) has provided the LTBMU with annual 

budgets far in excess of typical federal budget allocations, which has enabled us to accomplish 

more vegetation and watershed restoration work than most other forests. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-23 

The major watershed restoration needs have been identified, proposals have been funded, and 

some projects have been completed or are in progress. For stream channel projects, 

implementation is restricted to a relatively short period each year when stream flows are low 

enough to permit in-channel work without undue water quality impacts. Additionally, some 

projects must be staged (e.g. Blackwood Creek) to allow the stream channel time to stabilize 

before additional work is done. Thus, it is not possible to increase the pace of restoration. 

Similarly, hazardous fuels reduction needs in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) have been 

identified in the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention 

Strategy, funding has been secured, and planning and implementation are underway. Increasing 

the scale of these treatments does not make sense, given the relatively small size of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. Initial fuels treatments in the WUI are projected to be complete during the 

upcoming plan period. 

2.5.5. Citizen’s Inventoried Roadless Areas 

A number of areas were identified by members of the public as currently unroaded and relatively 

undisturbed and were shown on a map as Citizen’s Inventoried Roadless Areas (CIRAs). The 

respondents proposed designating these as roadless areas. Some of these areas had been 

mislabeled in the DEIS maps and are actually IRAs; this mistake has been corrected in the FEIS 

maps. The remaining CIRAs were analyzed in Alternative D. Approximately 3,600 acres of one 

of the CIRAs is included in Alternative E as the Stanford Rock Backcountry Management area; 

these lands would receive a level of protection similar to IRAs. 

2.5.6. No Grazing Alternative 

Respondents requested an analysis of the consequences of grazing and analysis of a No Grazing 

Alternative. Effects from grazing were analyzed in section 3.4.27 of the FEIS. The changes 

from the 1988 Forest Plan were analyzed and any new acquisitions in those allotments were 

identified. A brief analysis of the effects of the alternatives on range resources is included. 

Consequences of grazing on other resources were not analyzed because all allotments are 

currently vacant and no applications are pending. As all three of our current allotments are 

vacant, there are not currently any new or ongoing consequences from grazing. Areas grazed in 

the past are recovering and some have undergone restoration; these trends would continue in the 

absence of future grazing. 

Consequences of a no grazing alternative would be similar to the current condition and trends 

described for all potentially affected resources in the FEIS and when conducting allotmentspecific NEPA, a no grazing alternative will be analyzed. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-24 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

2.5.7. 2001 SNFPA Alternative 

Respondents requested analysis of an alternative that corresponds to the 2001 Framework 

decision, which 

 generally allows substantial forest thinning of trees up to 20” dbh, 

 institutes an active management approach that would result in more active management 

than Alternatives B and C (and A) 

 focuses on actively managing forests, including mature trees, to accomplish ecological 

goals, but by actively creating habitat structures without commercial logging. 

With the alternatives presented we have analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. The 

alternative requested falls between Alternatives B and D, and thus the range of effects are 

substantially the same as the requested alternative. In addition, the 2001 framework decision was 

found to not be responsive enough to the resilience and sustainability of forests in the long-term 

and was supplemented by the 2004 SNFPA decision. 

While it is generally not necessary to remove trees greater than 20 inches diameter to reduce fire 

hazard, the Declaration of Carl Skinner (Skinner, No. CIV-S-05-0205 MCE/GGH) provides an 

example of conditions where it may be necessary to remove trees greater than 20 inches in 

diameter for fire hazard purposes: 

“An example of conditions where it may be necessary to remove trees greater 

than 20 inches in diameter for fire hazard purposes would be where a stand of 

relatively dense, young trees has entered, or is entering, a self-thinning or stem 

exclusion stage (Oliver and Larson 1990; Smith and other 1997), and many of the 

trees are greater than 20 inches in diameter..... Stands in this condition will likely 

support crown fires if the fire is crowning when it reaches the stand (Keyes and 

O’Hara 2002). Additionally, the density and size of the trees on the site cause 

sufficient competition with each other, leading to the death of the weaker trees, 

often from bark beetles (Oliver and Uzoh 1997). The dead trees will then 

accumulate as fuel when they fall, and contribute to high-intensity fire when 

burned. In cases like this, thinning trees larger than 20 inches in diameter and 

treating residual surface fuels are necessary to help reduce the fire hazard and 

improve the fire resilience of such a stand.” 

This situation is found on the LTBMU and in the South Shore project. While there are some 

stands in that project where the desired stocking level of 80 to 150 sq ft basal area per acre might 

be reached by only removing trees up to 20” there are many stands where a 20” diameter limit 

would leave too many trees and the stand would be over stocked, unhealthy and vulnerable to 

wildfire, drought stress, and insect attack (LTBMU, 2011). 

This is supported by the declaration of Christopher J. Fettig (Case No.: CIV-S-05-0205 

MCE/GGH) 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-25 

” ...Trees 20”-30” dbh, which appear to be an important difference between the 

2001 and 2004 Framework decisions, are often prime targets for bark beetles .... 

California is the highest ranked among all U.S. states for risk of bark beetlecaused tree mortality (Krist et al. 2007, p. 55; Fig. 1), the majority of which is 

concentrated in the Sierra Nevada.” 

Similarly, the declaration of Joseph Sherlock (Case No.: CIV-S-05-0205 MCE/GGH)includes 

the following: 

“The ability to remove competing trees that can range up to 30” in diameter 

allows thinning to have significant biological advantages over the common 12” 

or 20” limits that are common in the 2001 Framework. These 2001 Framework 

limitations often prevent the removal of sufficient trees to provide for a real 

advantage to the remaining trees since the density of the medium-sized trees 

remains too high. The current conditions of so many forested acres in the Sierra 

Nevada are such that merely removing only the smallest trees would not be 

enough to allow the remaining trees to thrive, especially as they face warmer 

temperatures and longer summers, as predicted under current climate change 

models.” 

The declaration of Nancy Grulke (Case No.: CIV-S-05-0205 MCE/GGH) reiterates these 

concepts and adds wildlife habitat considerations: 

 “In some dense stands with a current canopy cover of 90%, almost all trees are 

larger than 20” in diameter. For example, 9 such stands on the east side of the 

Sierra Nevada are the focus of currently funded research I am conducting. 

Depending on the microenvironment and the density of the stand, it may be 

appropriate to harvest trees over 20” and/or reduce canopy cover less than 50% 

to allow the removal of a sufficient number of trees to reduce competition, 

promote tree health, reduce the level of drought stress experienced, and reduce 

tree mortality from both drought stress and bark beetle outbreaks. In the absence 

of thinning in areas where excessive tree mortality occurs due to drought and/or 

successful beetle attack, habitat for wildlife that depends on live trees will be lost, 

whether it is by drought stress, beetle outbreaks, or fire.” 

In order to maintain the roadless character of IRAs, tree removal is generally limited to a 20” 

limit. Treatments in IRAs are generally hand treatments due to lack of road access and most 

hand crews are unable to cut trees greater than 20” diameter. Thus a 20” limit is effectively 

being utilized on about 1/3 of the LTBMU. No treatments are implemented in Wilderness, so 

when Wilderness lands are also considered, the 20” limit is effectively utilized on about 1⁄2 of 

LTBMU lands. Other treatment limitations such as slope are discussed in Section 3.4.11-Forest 

Vegetation, and further decrease the area where trees greater than 20” would be removed. 

However, under certain conditions it is necessary to remove larger diameter trees (>30”). These 

conditions are described in S&G 33, and include forest and stand health, safety, and operational 

constraints. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-26 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

The Forest Service is reducing higher than natural fuel loads, which means that some fuels must 

be removed while others may be altered in place or burned. We do utilize such materials for dust 

abatement, mulch, slope stabilization, and control of regeneration. Although some wood is 

removed in the form of a sale, these treatments are generally not a commercial operation. We 

agree that some trees can be girdled or otherwise killed in place for use as snags by wildlife. 

This has been added to forest vegetation S&Gs in the Revised Forest Plan. 

Re-introducing the role of fire that has been absent from many forest stands is a primary goal as 

well. Part of the rationale for the 2004 Framework decision was that the Forest Service found 

that it was not feasible to implement the amount of prescribed fire use in the 2001 Framework 

decision: 

“The 2001 Plan prescribed technical solutions that do not produce needed 

results, or offered methods we often dare not attempt in the current Sierra 

Nevada. In particular, the directive of using fire itself to thin the forest is too risky 

to attempt many cases. The thinning guidelines were too meager. Forest 

protection against devastating fires in the time frame needed would not and could 

not occur” (USDA Forest Service 2004b).” 

In this respect again, the 2001 Framework decision was similar to Alternative D in its reliance on 

prescribed fire to achieve forest health objectives. This is discussed further in Section 3.4.10 – 

Fire and Fuels of the FEIS. 

One of the main reasons for the 2004 SNFPA decision was that the influence of drought and 

climatic variances throughout the range of the Sierra Nevada was overlooked. These conditions 

influence the resilience and sustainability of forests in the long-term, especially in forests that are 

overstocked with too many trees. Over the last 300 years, the climatic condition in California has 

been one of an extended period of moisture surplus, punctuated by drought periods. The moisture 

surplus combined with fire suppression and selective logging practices in the late 1800s and 

early 1900s increased forest density and changed species composition. Increasingly, the land 

cannot supply enough moisture during drought conditions to supply all of the trees growing on it. 

This makes forests more susceptible to drought, insects, diseases, air pollution and, of course, 

catastrophic wildfire. Mortality from bark beetles is increasing exponentially in the state. The 

current situation in Southern California shows the type of catastrophic impact that drought and 

bark beetles can have on forest vegetation. Sierra Nevada forests are unhealthy today and 

susceptible to the same widespread dieback that is occurring in Southern California. 

We believe that the respondent is equating active management with wildlife habitat management. 

Alternatives B, C and E prescribe active approaches for management of wildlife habitat, while 

Alternative A is mostly silent on active management and Alternative D incorporates a passive 

approach. This allows us to describe the consequences from a range of passive and active 

approaches to management and is a reasonable range of alternatives. 

This Forest Plan would further improve our ability to respond to deteriorating forest health by 

allowing more latitude in the amount and type of vegetation that can be removed within treated 

areas. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-27 

2.5.8. Consider the Document “National Forests in 

the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy” As an 

Alternative. 

A group of respondents submitted a Conservation Strategy for National Forests in the Sierra 

Nevada with the request that it be analyzed as an alternative in detail. We appreciate the 

extensive work and research that went into this document and support many of the concepts and 

strategies proposed. The respondents will find some of these concepts are already in place under 

our current Plan (e.g. community fire planning through the 2007 Lake Tahoe Basin MultiJurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy, which involved 17 agencies; 

completion of Travel Analysis and decommissioning of over 100 miles of roads as described in 

Section 3.4.1), some have been incorporated into our planning process and documents (e.g. 

science review), and others are largely consistent with our Revised Plan (e.g. managing 

Inventoried Roadless Areas as a Backcountry Management Area to maintain their roadless 

character in the future). In most instances where the Preferred Alternative is not in agreement 

with the Conservation Strategy, concepts and direction similar to those in the Conservation 

Strategy are included as part of an alternative that was analyzed in detail. For these and other 

reasons, described below, we concluded that a detailed analysis of the Conservation Strategy was 

not needed. 

Recreation – The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (PL 86-517) states “it is the policy of the 

Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” The Conservation Strategy 

does not meet the requirements for multiple use management because consideration of recreation 

is almost exclusively limited to management of the negative impacts of recreation on natural 

resources. The LTBMU receives over 5.7 million visitors per year and has been found by 

Congress to be “one of the outstanding recreational resources of the United States, offering 

skiing, water sports, biking, camping, and hiking to millions of visitors each year, and 

contributing significantly to the economies of California, Nevada, and the United States” (Lake 

Tahoe Restoration Act, PL 106-506). The LTBMU requires a Plan that considers recreation as a 

resource and takes a more positive, pro-active approach than is offered in the Conservation 

Strategy. 

Scale – the Conservation Strategy is regional in scale and is not site-specific enough to serve as a 

Forest Plan for the LTBMU. It includes direction for ecotypes and species not found in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin (e.g. oak woodlands, great gray owl) and does not adequately consider the unique 

properties of the area. For example, approximately 75% of LTBMU lands are defined as WUI 

through mapping done in conjunction with the 2007 Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel 

Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. The 17 agencies who developed this strategy did 

not consider a 1⁄4 mile Community Zone as proposed by the Conservation Strategy to be adequate 

community protection given the current state of the forests. In addition to the 1⁄4 mile Defense 

Zone around communities, implementation of hazardous fuel treatments in an additional 1⁄2 mile 

Threat Zone beyond the Defense Zone was proposed. This strategy has been adopted in 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E (Preferred Alternative) and is shown on Map 4. Alternative D 

proposes completion of the treatments proposed in the 2007 Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-28 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy in both the Threat and Defense 

zones; but eliminates the Threat Zone after initial treatments are completed (Map 5); in this 

respect, Alternative D is similar to the 1⁄4 mile Community Zone proposed in the Conservation 

Strategy and so this element of the Conservation Strategy was in fact analyzed in detail. 

Given the relatively small size of the LTBMU (about 155,000 acres), relatively high population, 

and extremely high visitor use, a Forest Plan is needed that provides robust consideration of 

human presence and needs, including the local recreation-based economy. With its strong focus 

on habitat management, the Conservation Strategy would be more appropriate for management 

of more remote lands. 

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives 

2.6.1. How Plan Decisions Change by Alternative 

This section describes how the management direction in the revised Plan would vary by 

alternative. The section is organized according to the six plan decisions to be made in this FEIS, 

as described in the Decision Framework section of Chapter 1. 

Multiple Use Goals and Objectives 

Multiple Use Goals in Alternative A include the Forest Goals and Predicted Future Conditions in 

the 1988 LRMP (p. IV-1-11) and the Goals, Desired Conditions, and Objectives in the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (ROD, Appendix A) that pertain to the LTBMU. 

In Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the Multiple Use Goals are the Desired Conditions in the Vision 

section of the Revised Plan. These have been updated to reflect best available science and the 

collaborative public vision expressed in the Pathway documents and public comment. Desired 

conditions remain constant among alternatives B, C, and D. A few desired conditions were added 

or clarified in Alternative E. 

Alternative A includes objectives in the 1988 LRMP, which are expressed as resource outputs (p. 

IV-11-13), plus a set of objectives in the SNFPA (ROD, Appendix A, p 32-33 and 42-48) which 

clarify goals and management intent. Objectives in Alternatives B, C, D, and E vary according 

to the alternative strategies, and are expressed as time-specific, measurable management 

accomplishments which represent milestones designed to narrow the gap between existing and 

desired conditions. For example, ecosystem restoration objectives are similar in Alternatives B, 

C, and E, but smaller areas and fewer kinds of activities are proposed in Alternative D, which 

emphasizes allowing natural processes to dictate the pace and nature of restoration. Appendices 

H and I in the Revised Plan provide specific detail about how strategies and objectives vary 

among the action alternatives. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-29 

Standards and Guidelines 

Most of the geographic-based Management Area standards in the 1988 LRMP were eliminated 

in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Geographic-based management areas were replaced by broad 

Management Emphasis Areas (see Suitability of Areas discussion, below). While Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E include a few Management Area standards and guidelines, the vast majority of 

standards and guidelines apply forest-wide. 

 Standards and guidelines that prescribed additional assessments or monitoring were 

removed in Alternatives B, C, D, and E because these are no longer considered 

appropriate content for standards and guidelines. 

 Alternative E includes expanded terrestrial and aquatic invasive species standards and 

guidelines. 

 Most standards for habitat management for species not present on LTBMU were 

removed. 

 Canopy closure limits in Alternative A were eliminated in Alternatives B, C, and E, and 

retained in Alternative D. 

 The 30-inch diameter limit for tree removal (other than hazard trees and to enable 

equipment operability) was removed as an absolute limit with seven exceptions in B and 

C, but retained in Alternative D. This standard was included and clarified in Alternative 

E. Alternative D would also impose a 12 inch diameter limit for tree removal outside 

defense zone. 

 Guidelines were added in Alternative E to clarify the procedure for identifying proposed 

forest openings on the landscape to ensure an interdisciplinary approach. 

 In response to comments, the standard for retaining burned forest habitat after wildfires 

was changed in Alternative E from a quantitative standard to a process-based standard to 

ensure greater consideration of wildlife habitat needs. 

 PAC standards were revised for Alternatives B, C, and E to allow restoration of PACs; 

Alternative D retains the standards in Alternative A. Alternative E also includes a 

guideline to maintain connectivity between PACs, and limits canopy removal in late seral 

closed canopy stands. 

 Alternative E expands guidance for management of nationally designated trails such as 

the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and the Tahoe Rim Trail. 

 Recreation expansion (defined in the strategies section) is limited by a standard in 

Alternative E. A Forest Plan amendment would be required to exceed the standard. 

Numerous standards and guidelines were added to the action alternatives to address current 

management concerns. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-30 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

The Identification of the Suitable Uses for Each Management Area 

Alternative A 

Management areas and their suitable uses in Alternative A are defined by a set of discrete 

geographic Management Areas (e.g. Emerald Bay Management Area) with associated 

prescriptions, practices, and standards in the 1988 LRMP. Urban Lots are also a management 

area. In Alternative A, the allocations and delineations from the SNFPA ROD are then overlain 

on the Management Areas. The result is a set of relatively complex Forest Plan direction. 

In the 1988 LRMP, each management area has a set of prescriptions which in turn are composed 

of a set of practices. Each practice has forest-wide standards associated with it. In addition, each 

management area has specific standards. 

The SNFPA land allocations and delineations are overlain on top of the management areas; these 

allocations are: 

 California spotted owl and northern goshawk PACs 

 Home Range Core Areas 

 WUI Defense Zones 

 WUI Threat Zones 

 Old Forest Emphasis Areas 

 General Forest 

Additional delineations include Riparian Conservation Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges. 

Specific standards are applied to each land allocation and delineation. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E 

Alternatives B, C, D and E do not include the geographic-based Management Areas in the 1988 

LRMP. Alternatives B, C, D, and E include four Management Areas:

 Wilderness (congressionally designated) 

 Backcountry (includes but is not limited to Inventoried Roadless Areas) 

 General Conservation 

 Urban Forest Parcels/Santini-Burton Lands 

Within each of these management emphasis areas, activities are described as generally suitable 

or not suitable (Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 2.3 Management Areas and Suitable Uses; Revised 

Forest Plan, Table 5). 

Suitable uses in Backcountry management areas recommended for Wilderness designation would 

not change until the area is designated by Congress. 

While suitability in Wilderness is defined by the Wilderness Act and the Desolation Wilderness 

Management Plan, the suitability of many activities and uses in General Conservation lands is 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-31 

dependent on the desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines that apply to a 

specific project location. These are often tied to the resource overlays: 

 WUI Defense Zone 

 WUI Threat Zone 

 PACs and HRCAs 

 Species Refuge Areas (SRAs) 

 Stream Environment Zones 

 Geologic Hazards 

 Fire Management Units 

 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

 Snowmobile Area Map 

 Minimum Scenic Integrity 

 Minimum Scenic Stability 

 Communications Sites 

 Recreation Special Use Permit Areas 

 Lands Special Use (Non-recreation) Easements 

In addition to management direction associated with the resource overlays, projects would need 

to be consistent with specific management direction for designated Special Areas (e.g. historic 

sites, scenic byways). A list of designated Special Areas is found in Part 2 of the Revised Forest 

Plan. 

The proposal to change from 21 geographic-based management areas to the system described 

above is more consistent with our current approach to project planning. Much of the 

geographically specific management area guidance has become irrelevant or is better described 

on the resource overlay maps, which can be updated as needed. At the start of project planning, 

we would look first at the management area(s) in the proposed project area and the table of 

suitable uses to determine initial suitability for the project or activity. If it appears suitable, we 

would then use the resource overlays to gain an understanding of potential constraints (desired 

conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines). Locations of any identified resource concerns 

would later need to be field-verified. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E vary in the way the SNFPA land allocations and delineations are 

retained: 

 CAR boundaries were revised and expanded to include habitat for terrestrial and aquatic 

threatened, endangered, and proposed and candidate species and were renamed as 

Species Refuge Areas. Alternatives B, C, D, and E add Species Refuge Areas for 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (threatened), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (proposed 

endangered), whitebark pine (candidate), and Tahoe yellow cress (candidate). The 

delineations would be revised as the species list changes. 

 PACs and HRCAs are retained in alternatives B, C, D, and E but the standards and 

guidelines are revised in Alternatives B, C, and E, as described above. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-32 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Revised Forest Plan 

 The RCA delineation is replaced by site-specific project-level SEZ delineation with most 

of the standards retained and applied to SEZs in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

 WUI (Defense and Threat Zones) is now a resource overlay, not a land allocation. 

Alternatives B, C, and E retain the WUI as in Alternative A, but Alternative D omits the 

Threat Zone. 

 Similarly, Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) are dropped in Alternatives B, C, and E, 

and replaced by desired conditions and objectives for seral stages. OFEAs are retained in 

Alternative D. 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, the Backcountry Management Area includes all current Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. Alternative D proposes the addition of roughly 12,000 acres to the Backcountry 

Management Area; Alternative D includes the least number of Backcountry acres (due to 

Wilderness recommendations). Alternative E would add the Stanford Rock Backcountry MA 

(approximately 3,600 acres). 

Alternative A includes several management prescriptions for developed recreation that describe 

the kinds of activities allowed within the prescription area boundaries; developed recreation is 

limited outside these boundaries. For Alternatives B, C, D, and E, developed recreation is 

governed by the proposed system of Management Areas, resource overlays, and Standards and 

Guidelines. 

The Establishment of the Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements 

Alternative A includes the monitoring plan in the 1988 LRMP and Appendix E of the SNFPA 

(USDA Forest Service 2004a), which was designed to provide comprehensive information on 

status and trends, ecosystem condition, and the effectiveness of management activities at the 

Sierra Nevada-wide scale. The Forest monitoring plan is supplemented by additional regional 

and other broad-scale monitoring. 

The revised monitoring plan (Appendix A – Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan) is the 

same for all action alternatives. The monitoring plan has been updated in the FEIS to reflect 

current needs and budget constraints. This plan is based on needs for resource status and trend 

information to support future management decisions that will maintain or contribute to achieving 

the desired conditions. It will continue to be supplemented by regional and other broad-scale 

monitoring. 

Recommendations to Congress of areas eligible for wilderness 

designation (as required by 36 CFR 219.17(a) and rivers recommended for 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System)

The existing recommendation to add a segment of the Upper Truckee to the Wild and Scenic 

River System (USDA Forest Service 1998) is retained in all alternatives. 

Alternatives A, B, and E would retain current Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Area 

designations. Alternative C recommends the Dardanelles Roadless Area for addition to the 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 ■ 2-33 

Wilderness System. Alternative D recommends the Dardanelles and Freel Roadless Areas for 

wilderness designation. 

Determination of suitability and potential capability of lands for 

resource production 

This determination is found in the timber suitability analysis (Appendix G). 

2.6.2. Comparison Tables 

Table 2-1 displays the key differences between the alternatives. Those plan components related 

to Strategies (Land Allocation, designation of special areas, acres available for certain activities) 

are shown in this table as opposed to desired conditions or standards and guidelines. Many 

programs strategies will stay the same between the alternatives such as the amount of 

congressionally designated wilderness or fire suppression policies. Those strategies that do not 

vary between alternatives are not shown in this table. The numbers associated with the units of 

measure fall into three categories explained below: 

1) Numbers represent anticipated or estimated annual accomplishments as a strategic 

difference between alternatives. 

2) Numbers represent upper and lower limits to resources as strategic difference between 

alternatives. 

Numbers represent land allocation acreage differences between alternatives.
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-34 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Table 2-1 Summary of Key Strategic Differences among Alternatives 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

Access and Travel Management (ATM) 

Roads and Trails Strategy 

Continue to implement current management objectives. 

Management objectives closely reflect current management. 

Allow increased access for passenger vehicles for recreation and administrative use by improving road surfaces and opening some currently closed routes. 

Decrease afor passengrecreation administratvehicles thmanagemeobjectives tfavor highclearance vehicles. 

Roads open to passenger vehicles (miles) Existing – 84 miles 

84 89 106 

Roads open to highclearance vehicles and OHV (miles) 1

Existing – 115 miles 

115 115 115 

Trails open to OHV motorized use (miles) Existing –15 miles 

15 15 20 

Trails open for hiking and equestrian use (miles) Existing – 337miles 

367 367 360 

Trails open to mechanized use (miles) Existing – 217 miles 

227 227 218 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-1 

■ 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

ATM, Cont. Transit Opportunities 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate with Tahoe Basin transportation partners to identify opportunities for additional transit infrastructure. 

Collaborate Tahoe Bastransportatpartners to identify opportunitieadditional tinfrastructu

Transit 

Promote transit by providing infrastructure to promote convenient alternatives to the private automobile that connect with bike paths. Informational signs would inform users of alternatives to private automobiles. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

Parking Management 

Provide the same amount of parking as current condition. 

Provide the same amount of parking as current condition. 

Provide an overall increase in parking. 

Reducing oparking. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-36 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

ATM, Cont. 

Transit, Parking management (summer) Vehicle parking & managed parking volume 

implement BMPs in current parking areas. Apply BMPs to adopted parking areas 

This alternative would promote transit opportunities where feasible while moving Move unmanaged parking to managed parking with no increase in the amount of parking for private automobiles. 

This alternative would promote transit opportunities where feasible and Add additional parking while converting unmanaged parking to managed parking. Eliminate roadside parking and increase parking capacity and amenities where feasible. Apply BMPs to all adopted parking areas. 

This alternawould promtransit opportunitiewhere feaswould Convless unmanparking to managed pand eliminaunmanageparking thaconverted. Eliminate roadside paadopt some managed pwith overalreduction in parking. ABMPs to aladopted paareas. Notewhere parkwould be reother accesmodes, suctransit or traccess, woconsidered
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-1 

■ 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

Dispersed winter parking Same Increase Increase Sam

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Management 

Strategy

Current level Increase from 

current level and incorporate AIS 

Increase from Current Level and incorporate AIS 

Focus on HPriority Spe

Aquatic Invasives 

No direction in 

current 1988 

Forest Plan. 

Added direction to 

monitor, prevent 

and eradicate. 

Added direction to 

monitor, prevent 

and eradicate. 

Added dire

monitor 

preve

Eradication 

only occ

high pri

specie

Terrestrial Invasives 

Continue to follow 

current direction 

in 1988 Forest 

Plan. 

Similar to current 

direction in 1988 

Forest Plan. 

Similar to current 

direction in 1988 

Forest Plan. 

Eradication 

only occur 

priority sp

Managed Wildfire 

Strategy Current direction 

Greatest 

expansion of 

allowable area 

Expands 

allowable area 

Greate

expansio

allowable 

Allowable area for wildfire managed for multiple objectives 

Desolation 

Wilderness only 

All NFS lands 

except Defense 

Zone 

All NFS lands 

except WUI 

(Defense and 

Threat Zones) 

All NFS 

except De

Zone 

Forest Vegetation Management:  Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

Strategy (Acres are estimated initial treatment acres) 

Collaborative 

Fuels Strategy 

per 2004 SNFPA 

ROD 

Collaborative 

Fuels Strategy w/ 

exceptions to 

diameter limits 

and canopy cover 

requirements 

Collaborative 

Fuels Strategy w/ 

exceptions to 

diameter limits 

and canopy cover 

requirements 

Collabor

Fuels Str

per 2004 S

ROD 

Thinning & Fuel Reduction(Acres/year) 

Mech. 500

Hand 1,500

Total 2,000

Mech. 500 

Hand 1,500 

Total 2,000

Mech. 500

Hand 1,500

Total 2,000

Me

Han

Tota

Prescribed Burning(Acres/year in the WUI)

Underburn 300

Pile burn 1,500

Total 1,800

Underburn 300 

Pile burn 1,500 

Total 1,800

Underburn 600

Pile burn 1,500

Total 2,100

Underb

Pile bur

Tota
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-38 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

Forest Vegetation Management: General Conservation, Santini-Burton, & Backcountry

Strategy 

Treatments as 

currently planned 

under SNFPA

Treatments as 

proposed w/ 

exceptions to 

diameter limits 

and canopy cover 

requirements 

Similar to Alt. B 

with more acres 

treated at greater 

reduction in stand 

density

Similar t

with emph

us

(presc

unpl

Forest Structure Restoration (acres/year) establish new age classes in the form of openings from 1-10 acres w/in existing mid-seral forest stands (estimates are based on current capacity and funding) 

Mech. 75

Hand 25

Total 100

Mech. 75 

Hand 25 

Total 100

Mech. 175

Hand 25

Total 100

Hand & 

To

Forest Type Conversion(acres/year) Generally, converting white Fir to Jeffrey pine or Mixed Conifer in the form of openings in mid-seral stages, also results in forest structure change 

 Mech. 40 

Hand 10 

Total 50

Mech. 40 

Hand 10 

Total 50 

Mech. 75 

Hand 25 

Total 100

Hand & 

To

Forest Stand Resiliency(acres/year) Generally thinning w/in existing forest type 

 Mech. 100

Hand 400

Total 500

Mech. 100 

Hand 400 

Total 500 

Mech. 200

Hand 800

Total 1,000

Hand & 

Prescribed Burning(Acres/year) in addition to WUI 

100 acres/year 100 acres/year 200 acres/year Acres incl

the 

trea
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-1 

■ 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

Developed Recreation Developed Rec, Cont.

Strategy

Maintains existing & allows expansion up to PAOT capacity as described in the developed recreation prescriptions (estimated 10% expansion above current). 

Maintains existing & allows expansion of existing facilities in recreation sites before building new ones in General Conservation MA (estimated 5% above of current) on higher capability lands. 

Maintains existing & allows expanding existing facilities in existing permit areas and in General Conservation MA (estimated 15% above current) on higher capability lands. 

Maintains e& allows reand relocatfacilities (estimated of current) permit areaplan amendrequired in expansion general conservatioareas. 

Recreation Sites such as resorts, campgrounds, beaches (acres) Existing acres 1,163

Potential Increase 

116

Up to 1,279

Potential Increase 

58 

Up to 1,221 

Potential Increase 

174

Up to 1,337

P

Decrea

Down 

Overnight Accommodation Units (lodging and campsites) Existing units 1,192

Potential Increase 

119

Up to 1,311

Potential Increase 

60 

Up to 1,252 

Potential 

Increase178

Up to 1,370

P

decrea

Down t

Day Use (day use site and trailhead parking spaces) Existing spaces 2,875

Potential Increase 

288

Up to 3,163

Potential Increase 

144 

Up to 3,019 

Potential Increase 

431

Up to 3,306

P

decrea

Down t

Ski Areas and Slopes (operational footprint acres) Existing acres 3,997 Potential Increase 

4,064

Up to 8,061

Potential Increase 

200 

Up to 4,197 

Potential Increase 

597

Up to 4,600

P

Decrea

Down t

Recreation Setting Strategy 

(acres by ROS class) 

Mix of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Proposed updates to reflect current conditions and 

Proposed updates to reflect current conditions & 

Proposed uto reflect cuconditions 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-40 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

Rec Setting, Cont. 

Classes, based on 1982 land status (138,700 acres) 

land acquisitions (154,784 acres) 

additional SPNM for proposed wilderness 

additional Sfor proposewilderness backcountradditions 

Urban 0 0 0 Rural 11,900 16,081 16,081 Roaded Natural 55,700 39,812 39,812 Semi-Primitive Motorized 17,600 20,370 20,370 Semi-Primitive NonMotorized 53,500 78,521 78,521 

Species Refuge Areas

Strategy Active restoration Increased active restoration Increased active restoration Manage e

populat

Populations or subpopulations maintained or restored  Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (number) Sierra Nevada YellowLegged Frog (number) Tahoe Yellow Cress (stem counts) 

Maintain 2 LCT 

subpopulations, 

restore 2 subpopulations.

Maintain 1 SNYLF 

sub-population, 

restore 4

Maintain 3 TYC 

core, 3 high 

priority, 2 medium 

populations

Maintain 2 LCT 

subpopulations, 

restore 2 subpopulations. 

Maintain 1 SNYLF 

sub-population, 

restore 4 

Maintain 3 TYC 

core, 3 high 

priority 

populations, 2 

medium priority. 

Restore/enhance 

2 

Maintain 2 LCT 

subpopulations, 

restore 2 subpopulations.

Maintain 1 SNYLF 

sub-population, 

restore4

Maintain 3 TYC 

core, 3 high 

priority 

populations, 2 

medium priority.

Restore/enhance 

2

Maintain 

subpopu

restore 

popu

Maintain 1 

sub-pop

re

Maintain 

core

priority, 2 m

pop

California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk 

Strategy

Management 

direction per 2004 

SNFPA ROD 

Active 

management in 

PACs and HRCAs 

Active 

management in 

PACs and HRCAs

Manage

direction pe

SNFPA 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-1 

■ 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

PACs and HRCAs PACs and HRCAs, Cont.

Protected PACs & HRCAs (acres; includes acreage of entire PAC, even on adjacent Forests) Owl PACs Goshawk PACs Owl HRCAs Total acres (sum is not additive because of overlap on the landscape) Restored PACs (acres) 

24,000

6,7638,110

21,36825,590

0

24,000 

6,763 8,110 

21,368 25,590 

6 owl PACs, 7 

Goshawk PACs 

24,000

6,7638,110

21,36825,590

6 owl PACs, 7 

Goshawk PACs

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Strategy Continued active 

restoration of 

currently planned 

projects plus 

additional 

potential 

Continued active 

restoration of 

currently planned 

project plus 

additional 

potential 

Continued active 

restoration of 

currently planned 

projects plus 

additional 

potential 

After cur

planned p

complete

on natu

processe

recovery

active rest

Stream restored (miles) SEZ restored (acres) 

82

3,338

82 

3,338 

82

3,338

Management Areas

Backcountry Management Area

Strategy Retain Current 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

(IRA) in 

Backcountry 

Retain Current 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas in 

Backcountry 

Retain Current 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas in 

Backcountry 

minus 

Dardanelles 

Retain C

Invento

Roadless A

Backcou

minu

Dardanelle

Freel P

Recomm
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-42 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Program Strategy Strategy 

(& Unit of Measure) 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B: 

DEIS Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative C Alternat

additional 

to Backco

(motorized 

on existing 

and trails 

(acres) 45,372 45,372 31,294 

Recommended Wilderness Area

Strategy No new 

Recommendations 

No new 

Recommendations Recommend Dardanelles IRA Recomm

Dardanell

& Freel 

(recommended acres) 0 0 14,229 

1 Miles of roads open to passenger vehicles and open to high clearance vehicles and OHV do not reflect the total road system, 

public. 

Table 2-2 displays the number of acres in each Management Area for each of the alternatives. Alternative A has 

plus multiple SNFPA land allocations that function as management areas. In order to compare Alternative A witalternatives, we applied the four proposed management areas; Alternatives A and B have the same distribution of 

management areas. Figure 2-1 presents the proportion of lands in each management area as a pie chart for all fou
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-1 

■ 

Table 2-2 Comparison of Alternatives by Management Area 

Management Areas 

Alternatives 

A* B C D E 

GC General Conservation 70,727 70,727 70,727 60,026 67,078SB Santini-Burton/Urban Forest Parcels 13,935 13,935 13,935 13,935 13,935BC Backcountry 45,523 45,523 31,294 26,643 49,172W Wilderness 24,665 24,665 24,665 24,665 24,665RW Recommended Wilderness 0 0 14,229 29,581 0

NFS Lands Total Acres 154,850 154,850 154,850 154,850 154,850

*These are equivalents representing how the geographic management areas in the 1988 Plan would be divided into these MA categories. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-44 ▪ Purpose and Need for the Figure 2-1. Proportion of Lands in each Management Area, Alternatives B, C, D, and E 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Detailed analysis for each resource follows in Chapter 3.

Table 2-3 Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Consequences on Resources

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Access & Travel Management (ATM) 

Parking Managed 

parking (winter) 

Current (few managed) 

Comparable to current availability but managed 

Greater than current but managed 

Less than current but managed 

SaAlt

Managed parking (summer) 

Current (few managed) 

Comparable to current availability but managed 

Greater than current but managed 

Less than current but managed 

SaAlt

Trails Miles open to 

mechanized use 

217 - Provides for the most mechanized use trails. Includes 10 miles of unauthorized trails that are suitable for adoption. 

217 - Same as Alternative A. 

207 - Less than 

Alternative A, and more than Alternative D. Note trails would be shared with motorized and non-motorized uses outside of wilderness areas and include developed bike paths 

207 - Least 

amount of mechanized trails. 

Sa

Alt
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-46 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

ATM, Cont. 

Miles of hiking trails 

388 - Provides for the most hiking trails. This includes an additional 30 miles of unauthorized trails that are eligible for adoption 

378 - Same as Alternative A. 

370 - Less hiking trails would be available due to use-specific trails such as mountain bike or motorcycle trails. 

388 - Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt

RoadsMaintenance Level 

Miles Unclassified Special Uses 

Overall increase in total mileage of roads due to utility corridors and permittee access. 

0 - Same as Alternative A. 

Increase in Maintenance Level 3’s 4’s & 5’s. Greater access to passenger vehicles. 

Increase in Maintenance Level 1’s & 2’s. Greater access to high clearance vehicles. 

SaAlt

Decommissioned miles TBD 10 - Increase in 

decommissioned miles. 

More decommissioned miles than Alternative B. 

20 - Same as Alternative C. 

SaAlt

Maintenance Level (ML) 1 –closed 

miles 30 – Fewest 

miles of ML 1 roads. 

More ML 1 roads than Alternative A. 

30 - Same as Alternative A. 

50 - Most miles of ML 1 roads. 

SaAlt
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

ATM, Cont. 

ML2 – high clearance vehicles 

miles 148 - Maintain 

existing level of ML 2 roads. 

150 - Increase in ML 2 roads. 

138 - Decrease in ML 2 roads. 

148 - Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt

ML3 – passenger car 

miles 64 - Maintain 

existing level of ML 3 roads. 

69 - Increase in level of ML 3 roads. 

76 - Greatest increase in ML 3 roads. 

64 - Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt

ML4 – moderate degree of user comfort 

miles 20 - Maintain 

existing level of ML 4 roads. 

20 - Same as Alternative A. 

30 - Increase in ML 4 roads. 

10 - Decrease in ML 4 roads. 

SaAlt

ML5- high degree of user comfort 

miles 0 - None on 

LTBMU. 

0 - Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt

Total miles 294 294 294 294 294 

OHV and OSV 

Miles of Roads 

open to OHV and High Clearance Vehicles 

miles 115 - Maintain 

exiting level of roads open to OHV. 

115 - Same as Alternative A. 

110 - Less than Alternative A. 

130 - Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-48 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Miles of Trails open to OHV 

miles 15 - Maintain 

existing level of trails open to OHV. 

15 - Same as Alternative A. 

20 - More than Alternative A. 

10 - Less than Alternative A. 

SaAlt

OSV Open to OSV 

acres Current Open 

Areas 

No Change No Change Open Areas in 

Freel Peak Roadless Closed 

SaAlt

Air Quality Human Health Wildfire 

emissions 

Pollution emissions would be similar to recent years and produce negligible short term impacts; long term impacts would be moderate because the potential for large and intense wildland fire events would continue to increase. 

Negligible short term impacts due to decreased acres burned; long term moderate beneficial impacts due to higher probability of maintaining carbon in forest biomass. 

Negligible short term impacts due to increased ability to control fire emission timing and quantity; long term beneficial impacts. 

Minor short term and long term adverse impacts due to increased emissions from increased use of prescribed fire. 

Sim

Forest Health Forest 

resilience 

Anthropogenic emission sources would be the primary air pollutant stressor to forest Health. 

Negligible long term beneficial impacts by promoting forest resiliency to fire. 

Minor adverse impacts from increased tree removal. 

Moderate beneficial impacts from increased use of prescribed fire. 

Sim
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Visibility Wildfire 

emissions 

No short term impacts but moderate long term due to decreased control of emissions during wildfire events. 

Both short and long term minor beneficial impacts due to increased ability to control fire emissions. 

Both short and long term minor beneficial impacts due to increased ability to control fire emissions. 

Both short and long term minor beneficial impacts due to increased ability to control fire emissions. 

Bolonbeduabfire 

Climate Change Strategies to 

reduce GHGs and sequester carbon 

Lack of management strategies to respond to a changing climate, reducing GHGs and enhancing carbon sequestration lead to moderate long term impacts. 

Includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and would have minor beneficial impacts. 

Includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and would have minor beneficial impacts. 

Includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and would have minor beneficial impacts. 

Incmastradchawobeimp
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-50 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Aquatic Habitat & Species 

Streams, Lakes, Wetlands and Meadows 

Trend in habitat condition 

Condition and function a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement, b) stays at baseline in roadless, wilderness and other areas where grazing has been removed, or c) decreases where impacted by land uses, especially where expansion of recreation increases potential for AIS transference. 

Condition and function a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement, b) stays at baseline in backcountry, wilderness and other areas where grazing has been removed, or c) decreases where impacted by land uses, especially recreation, roads and trails and permitted livestock grazing. Impacts on aquatic habitat are less than Alt. A. 

Condition and function a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement, b) stays at baseline in backcountry, wilderness and other areas where grazing has been removed, or c) decreases where impacted by land uses, especially recreation, roads and trails and permitted livestock grazing. Impacts on aquatic habitat are the more than Alt. A . 

Condition and function will both improve as a result of restoration and enhancement and is expected to decline where legacy impacts are allowed to persist. Effects are compounded where impacted by land uses, especially recreation, roads and trails and permitted livestock grazing. Impacts on aquatic habitat are less than A but potentially more than B (due to AIS threats). 

Incoveacccouto of AincmadirmitlesC, 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

Trend in abundance Trend in habitat condition 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery/restoration strategies progress. LCT may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction on occupied habitat. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. LCT may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction on occupied habitat at levels less than Alt. A. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. LCT may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction on occupied habitat at levels comparable to Alt. A and more than Alt. B. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. LCT may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction on occupied habitat at levels less than Alts A, and C. 

Thdisexpincrecstrpromaincwitrecfacanhuon halesan
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-52 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog 

Trend in abundance Trend in habitat condition 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery/restoration strategies progress. SNYLF may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and human interaction and potential for increase AIS in subsequent human interaction in occupied habitat. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. SNYLF may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction and potential for increase AIS in occupied habitat at levels less than Alt. A. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. SNYLF may face increased threats with expansion of recreation facilities, trails and subsequent human interaction and potential for increase AIS in occupied habitat at levels less than Alt. A. 

The species distribution is expected to increase as recovery strategies progress. SNYLF may face less threat than in Alt.’s A, B and C with a decrease of recreation facilities and trails. AIS in occupied habitat at levels comparable to Alt. A and more than Alt. B. 

Thdisexpincrecstrpromaincwitrecfacanhuanan AIS inteoccincpotlescomA aB. 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Tui Chub and Rams-horn 

Trend in abundance Trend in habitat condition 

The species distribution is expected to stay at baseline conditions or decrease with a potential increased distribution of existing and new AIS. Otherwise, the species will be susceptible to potential impacts on sensitive shore zone and lake-stream interface habitats. 

The species distribution is expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication. Potential impacts to sensitive habitat are expected to be less than Alt. A. 

The species distribution is expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication. Potential impacts to sensitive habitat are expected to be more than Alt. A. 

The species distribution is expected to stay at baseline conditions or increase with continued emphasis on AIS prevention, control and eradication. Potential impacts to sensitive habitat are expected to be less than Alt.’s A and C. 

Thdisexpat conincconempreconerareseneffimpsenare be A aB. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-54 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Botanical Resources 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Trend in abundance (TYC only) Trend in habitat condition 

Stable or increasing abundance and stable or improving habitat condition due to active management of occurrences and habitat (restoration, invasive plant treatment). 

Potentially greater abundance and better habitat condition due to less recreation development than A. 

Stable or decreasing due to the most amount of recreation development of all alternatives. Stable or decreasing abundance and similar or decreasing habitat condition due to the most amount of recreation development of all alternatives (higher risk of trampling and/or, habitat degradation; increased vectors for invasive plants). 

Stable or decreasing abundance and stable or decreasing habitat condition due to no active habitat restoration and less invasive plant treatment. 

SimAlt
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Sensitive Species 

Trend in abundance 

Stable to increasing due to active management of occurrences and habitat (restoration, invasive plant treatment). 

Stable or Increasing due to active habitat restoration and less recreation development than Alternative C. Similar to Alternative A. Compared to Alternative C, potentially greater abundance due to less recreation development. 

Stable or decreasing due to the most amount of recreation development of all alternatives (higher risk of trampling and/or, habitat degradation; increased vectors for invasive plants). 

Stable or decreasing due to no active habitat restoration and less invasive plant treatment. 

Sim

Terrestrial Invasives 

Trend in abundance Risk of establishment and spread 

Reduced risk due to active prevention. Reduced abundance due to active invasive plant treatment. 

Similar to A, but risk may be greater due to more recreation development (more habitat alteration, more vectors) or lower due to less mechanical fuels treatment (less habitat alteration). 

Increasing abundance and slightly more risk than Alternative A (though still moderate) due to more mechanical fuels treatment (more habitat alteration) and more recreation development (more habitat alteration, more vectors for spread). 

Increased abundance due to less invasive plant treatment than other alternatives. Slightly less risk than other alternatives due to less mechanical treatment (less habitat alteration). 

Simrisk gremodev(maltevec
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-56 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Built Environment 

Amount of Built Environment 

Trend in deferred maintenance and building 

Trending towards meeting desired conditions. 

Would meet the desired conditions in a relatively short time frame. 

Would meet the desired conditions for the built environment the quickest.. 

Would meet desired conditions but would result in the least amount of built environment. 

Wodeconreltim

Climate Change 

Ability to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies 

 Allows for 

addressing adaptation and mitigation strategies for climate change but not as well as C, B, and E. 

Alternatives C, B, and E are best prepared to address adaptation and mitigation strategies in response to climate change. 

Alternatives C, B, and E are best prepared to address adaptation and mitigation strategies in response to climate change. 

Reliance on natural processes does not allow managers flexibility to implement strategies in addressing climate change. 

Altanpreadadmitstrresclim
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Carbon Storage Strategies to 

reduce GHGs and sequester carbon 

While there are not specific management strategies for GHG and carbon storage, management actions focused on carbon storage in the WUI. 

While there are not specific management strategies for GHG and carbon storage, alternatives B, C and E will retain the highest level of forest carbon over the coming century due to a reduction in stand replacing fires. 

While there are not specific management strategies for GHG and carbon storage, alternatives B, C and E will retain the highest level of forest carbon over the coming century due to a reduction in stand replacing fires. In addition, this Alt will further reduce GHG emissions during project implementation due to reduced project entries. 

Retains greatest amount of carbon short term, however no management strategies to sequester carbon during large wildfire. Management strategies will slow carbon accumulation following large disturbance events. 

Whnot mastrGHstoalteanthe of fovecenredrep
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-58 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Cultural Resources

Sites protected and maintained 

sites Fuels reduction 

treatments could have impacts on cultural sites. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Less sites protected and maintained than A and B because historic structures in recommended wilderness may not be maintained. Less entries required for fuels treatments would reduce the risk of impacts. 

Less sites protected and maintained than A and B because historic structures in recommended wilderness may not be maintained. Underburning and the management of natural ignitions would have the most risk of impacting cultural sites. 

SaAltB. 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Fire & Fuels Fire behavior Acres All five 

alternatives meet fuels reduction objectives as proposed in the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Non-WUI treatments also contribute, but likely will not be implemented until completion of the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy (about 10 years). 

All five alternatives meet fuels reduction objectives as proposed in the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Non-WUI treatments very similar to Alt. A, but with more flexibility to meet objectives. 

All five alternatives meet fuels reduction objectives as proposed in the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Treats more acres outside the WUI than the other alternatives, with same flexibility as Alt. B. Thinning is to lower residual densities so treatment longevity is greatest in this alternative. 

All five alternatives meet fuels reduction objectives as proposed in the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Once the MultiJurisdictional Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy is completed (about 10 years), the Threat Zone is removed from the WUI. A 12’ diameter limit goes into effect outside the Defense Zone. Probability of success depends heavily on uncertain factors such as future weather. 

Sa
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-60 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Reducing Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) 

Acres Prescribed 

burning at current levels (~1,900 acres/year). Managed wildfire allowed only in Desolation Wilderness. Estimated (modeled) maximum managed wildfire potential ~290 acres/year 

Prescribed burning same as Alt. A. Managed wildfire allowed all areas except WUI Defense Zone. Estimated (modeled) maximum managed wildfire potential ~1,100 acres/year 

Prescribed burning at greater levels that Alts. A and B (~2,300 acres/year). Managed wildfire allowed all areas except WUI (Threat and Defense Zones). Estimated (modeled) maximum managed wildfire potential ~720 acres/year 

Prescribed burning at current levels (~1,900 acres/year). Managed wildfire area allowed and maximum potential same as Alt. B but with reduced probability of success. 

Sa

Forest Vegetation 

Forest Structure Ability to 

achieve Desired Conditions 

Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Low Mo

Forest Composition 

Ability to achieve Desired Conditions 

Moderate Moderate High Low Mo
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Forest Resilience 

Ability to achieve Desired Conditions 

Low-Moderate Moderate High Low Mo

Interpretive Education / Partnerships and Volunteers 

 The overall 

program capacity and delivery fluctuates with annual budgets. The program will interpret direction and emphasis reflected in the final Forest Plan, regardless of alternative selection. 

Same for all alternatives. There are no programmatic differences between the alternatives. 

Same for all alternatives. There are no programmatic differences between the alternatives. 

Same for all alternatives. There are no programmatic differences between the alternatives. 

SaalteThprodiffbetalte

Lands Land Acquisition 

and Land Adjustment Program. 

 The objectives 

and accomplishments of the land acquisition and land adjustment program will remain the same under all five alternatives and will not be affected by the alternatives. 

The objectives and accomplishments of the land acquisition and land adjustment program will remain the same under all five alternatives and will not be affected by the alternatives. 

The objectives and accomplishments of the land acquisition and land adjustment program will remain the same under all five alternatives and will not be affected by the alternatives. 

The objectives and accomplishments of the land acquisition and land adjustment program will remain the same under all five alternatives and will not be affected by the alternatives. 

Thanaccof tacqlanproremunaltewilaffalte
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-62 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Land Special Uses Program. 

 There are no 

programmatic differences among the alternatives for the number and type of lands uses authorized. 

There are no programmatic differences among the alternatives for the number and type of lands uses authorized. 

There are no programmatic differences among the alternatives for the number and type of lands uses authorized. 

There are no programmatic differences among the alternatives for the number and type of lands uses authorized. 

Thprodiffamaltethe typuse

Land Boundary and Title Program. 

 Assuming an 

equal level of funding for all alternatives, Alternatives A would result in a similar level of accomplishments in maintaining land boundaries and preventing and resolving encroachments. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Alternative C with a more active forest management approach would result in an increase in accomplishments with the most proactive boundary and title program. 

Alternative D with a lower level of active forest management would result in a lower level of boundary and title accomplishments. 

SaB. 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Land Withdrawals. 

 None of the 

alternatives would affect the goal of retaining existing administrative withdrawals as long as they are needed. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Alternative C could result in additional acres under statutory withdrawal if the recommendation for wilderness designation for the Dardanelles Roadless Area is implemented. 

Alternative D could result in the most acres under statutory withdrawal if the recommendation for wilderness designation for both the Dardanelles and Freel Roadless Areas is implemented. 

SaAlt

Management Indicator Species 

 This alternative 

will not alter the existing bioregional trend in habitats and ecosystem components, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of MIS across the Sierra Nevada Region. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

SaAlt

Natural Hazards 

 No differences 

among the alternatives. 

No differences among the alternatives. 

No differences among the alternatives. 

No differences among the alternatives. 

No amalte
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-64 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Noise With noise 

mitigations, such as allowed uses and time of day there would be no effect from noise. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as A. However, Alternative C would result in the highest overall noise generation because it has the highest amount of mechanical treatment and passenger vehicle access. 

Same as A. However, Alternative D would result in the lowest overall noise generation because it allows the least mechanical treatment and is the most restrictive on motorized use. 

SaAlt
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Range Range resources 

would a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement or areas treated in forest vegetation actions near vacant allotment boundaries or b) decrease where impacted by land uses, especially where expansion of dispersed recreation increases potential user conflicts. 

Range resources would a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement or areas treated in forest vegetation actions near vacant allotment boundaries or b) decrease where impacted by land uses, especially where expansion of dispersed recreation increases potential user conflicts. Impacts on Range resources are same as Alt. A. 

Range resources would a) improve as result of restoration and enhancement or areas treated in forest vegetation actions near vacant allotment boundaries or b) decrease where impacted by land uses, especially where expansion (wilderness) of dispersed recreation increases potential user conflicts. Impacts on Range resources are greater than Alt. A. 

Range resources would: a) improve as a result of currently planned restoration and enhancement b) decrease where restoration (including forest vegetation treatments) or enhancement is needed but not permitted, c) decrease where impacted by land uses, especially where expansion of dispersed recreation (wilderness) increases potential user conflicts. Impacts on Range resources greater than A, B, C, and E 

Rawoas resenareforactvacbodeimpusewhof recincpotconImRaare A. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-66 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Recreation Visitor Demand Ability to meet 

projected demand. 

Some recreation sites full during peak season, some unmet demand. 

Some recreation sites full during peak season, more unmet demand than Alternative A. 

Fewer recreation sites full during peak season, least unmet demand of all alternatives. 

Most recreation sites full in peak season, most unmet demand of all Alternatives. 

WovismoAltlesAltto oveaccun

Developed Recreation Site Acres 

Acres Maintains existing 

acreage and allows expansion up to PAOT capacity as described in the developed recreation prescriptions (estimated 10% increase in acreage). 

Allows up to a 5% increase in acreage to accommodate recreation demand. Recreation sites in sensitive areas may be moved to higher capability lands. 

Allows up to a 10% increase in acreage to accommodate recreation demand. Recreation sites in sensitive areas may be moved to higher capability lands. 

Allows reduction in acreage up to 15%.Recreation sites in sensitive areas may be removed and not replaced. 

SaAlt
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Developed Overnight Accommodation Units 

Accommodation Units Lodging and Campsites 

Maintains existing inventory of overnight units and allows expansion up to PAOT capacity as described in the developed recreation prescriptions (estimated 10% expansion in overnight units). 

Allows up to a 5% increase in overnight units to accommodate recreation demand. 

 Allows up to a 10% increase in overnight units to accommodate recreation demand. 

Allows reduction in overnight units up to 15%. 

Allap10oveaccrecde

Developed Day Use 

Parking Spaces Maintains existing 

parking spaces and allows expansion up to PAOT capacity as described in the developed recreation prescriptions (estimated 10% expansion in day use parking spaces).

Allows up to a 5% increase in parking spaces to accommodate recreation demand.

Allows up to a 10% increase in day use parking spaces to accommodate recreation demand. 

Allows reduction in day use parking spaces up to 15%.

SaAlt

Developed Ski Areas and Slopes 

Operational Footprint Acres 

Would allow for the greatest expansion of Operational footprint acres based on ski area management prescriptions. 

Would allow up to 5% expansion of operational footprint acres.

Would allow up to 15% expansion of operational footprint acres.

Would allow up to a 15% reduction of operational footprint acres. 

Woan opfoothamo
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-68 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Scenic Quality 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective 

Acres Current 

Conditions and Adopted Visual Quality Objectives met or exceeded. Short term decrease in foreground scenic integrity due to management activities. 

Current Conditions and Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective met or exceeded. 24,674 Very High MSIO acres, 104,245 High acres, 25,905 Moderate MSIO acres. Short term decrease in foreground scenic integrity due to management activities. Higher Integrity than A. 

Current Conditions and MSIO met or exceeded. 24,674 Very High MSIO acres, 104,245 High acres, 25,905 Moderate MSIO acres. Short term decrease in foreground scenic integrity due to management activities. Higher Integrity than A or B. 

Current Conditions and MSIO met or exceeded. 24,674 Very High MSIO acres, 104,245 High acres, 25,905 Moderate MSIO acres. Short term decrease in foreground scenic integrity due to management activities. Highest Levels of Integrity expected. 

WofroacrChdisacr24MS104acrMoacrDeareMoHigthales

Minimum Scenic Stability 

Acres Currently 

unstable and loss of key attributes. 

Stability is maintained or improved compared to Alternative A. Key attributes are maintained or restored. 

Same as B, but stability and key attributes improve more rapidly. 

Least amount of stability due to lower overall resilience. Higher susceptibility of valued forest views to insect, disease and fire threats. 

Sa
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Social and Economic 

Labor Income $1,000 $143,722 $149,473 $160,974 $126,471 

Employment # Jobs 3,593 3,755 4,081 3,105 NF Expenditures $1,000 $33,570 $33,570 $33,570 $33,570 Payments to Counties/States 

$1,000 $2,313 $2,313 $2,313 $2,313 

Soil Quality Compaction 

Erosion Soil organic matter and forest floor Severe burning 

Acres Soil quality 

maintained at sustainable level.

Alternatives A , B, and E would have similar risk of impacts due to wildfire 

Soil quality slightly improved over Alternative A. Alternatives A , B, and E would have similar risk of impacts due to wildfire. 

Soil quality slightly decreased as compared to Alternative A, but still at sustainable level. Alternative C would have the least risk of impacts due to wildfire. 

Soil quality slightly increased as compared to Alternatives A and B. Alternative D would have the greatest potential for soil impacts due to wildfire. 

SosligoveA. B, havof wil
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-70 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Terrestrial Habitat & Species 

Wet meadows, Montane riparian, Lakeside marsh and shore habitat, Aspen 

Trend in Condition 

Condition maintained with potential for positive trend from restoration and enhancement; potential risk from developed recreation expansion and limits on diameter of trees that can be removed (e.g., encroaching conifers). 

Condition maintained with potential for positive trend more than Alternatives A and A from restoration and enhancement and vegetation treatments (including prescribed and managed fire) to improve structure and resiliency; potential risk from developed recreation expansion. 

Similar to Alternative B but greater potential risk from recreation expansion and increase access to NFS lands. 

Condition maintained with potential for positive trend from reduced recreation areas and access, and greatest use of fire; potentially greatest risk from wildfire, shifting or continued unmanaged recreation use, increased OHV access, and limits on diameter of trees that can be removed (e.g., encroaching conifers). 

SimAlt

Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, Lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer 

Trend in Condition 

Condition maintained; potential for decreasing trend in condition of mid and late seral stage; greatest potential risk from ski area expansion. 

Condition maintained; potential for positive trend in condition of late seral stage and resiliency to stand-replacing fire and beetles more than Alternatives A and D. 

Similar to Alternative B but potential risk from ski area expansion greater than Alternatives B, D, and E. 

Condition maintained; potential benefit from reduced recreation sites and ski area operational boundaries; potential risk to resiliency from restricted restoration and risk of wildfire. 

SimAltwitpofrorevanlate can
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Montane chaparral 

Trend in Condition 

Potential for decreasing trend in condition where vegetation treatments aren’t targeting creation/maintenance and habitat is becoming converted to forest. 

Potential for increasing trend in condition more than Alternatives A and D where approach may create/maintain habitat. 

Similar to Alternative B. 

Potential for increasing trend in condition more than any other alternative where fire is allowed to burn and create this habitat. 

SimAlt

Cliff and Cave Habitat 

Trend in Condition 

Condition maintained; potential for decreasing trend without protection measures. 

Condition maintained; potential for positive trend from measures to protect and restore one site. 

Similar to Alternative B. 

Similar to Alternative A. 

SimAltwitstaguLTcon
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-72 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

PACs and HRCAs 

Trend in condition 

Condition maintained; potential for decreasing trend in mid and late seral habitat condition and wildfire risk; potential risk from developed recreation expansion and greatest potential risk from ski area expansion. 

Condition maintained; potential for positive trend in late seral habitat condition and resiliency from restoration more than Alternatives A and D; risk from removal of large trees and canopy reduction less than Alternative C and more than Alternatives A and D. 

Similar to Alternative B but greater potential risk from more intense and rapid vegetation management approach, expansion of developed recreation, and increased access to NFS lands. 

Condition maintained; potential benefit from use of prescribed fire, and reduced recreation sites and ski area operational boundaries; potential risk from restricted restoration and risk of wildfire. 

SimAltwitmodeconstagu
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Western bumblebee and willow flycatcher 

Trend in productivity 

Potential for positive trend from meadow restoration; risk from grazing, developed recreation expansion, treatments to treat invasive species, and limits on diameter of trees that can be removed (e.g., encroaching conifers). 

Similar to Alternative A but with less risk from developed recreation expansion (less than A and C); greater benefit from ability to remove larger encroaching conifers, greater use of prescribed fire, and objectives to improve meadow condition. 

Similar to Alternative B but with greater potential risk from developed recreation expansion and more roads/trails; greater benefit from ability to remove larger encroaching conifers, more prescribed and managed wildfire, and objectives to improve meadow condition for willow flycatcher. 

Potential for positive trend from meadow restoration, reduced recreation areas, and greatest use of prescribed and managed wildfire; risk from lack of restoration, greatest risk of wildfire, potential shifting recreation use, grazing, and limits on diameter of trees that can be removed (e.g., encroaching conifers). 

SimAlt
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-74 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Bald eagle Trend in 

Productivity 

Potential for positive trend from habitat restoration and predicted increase in late seral open canopy habitat (5S & 5P) and CWHR type 5D and 5M in white fir/mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine; risk from predicted loss of CWHR type 6 and from developed recreation expansion. 

Similar to Alternative A but risk from developed recreation expansion less than Alternatives A and C and CWHR type 5M is predicted to increase only in Jeffrey pine. 

Similar to Alternative A but with potentially greater risk from developed recreation expansion and CWHR type 5M is predicted to increase only in Jeffrey pine. 

Potential for positive trend from increase in late seral open canopy habitat , and reduced access and developed recreation sites; potential risk from lack of restoration and increased wildfire potential, and potential shifting recreation use from inability to meet demand. 

SimAlt
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

California spotted owl and northern goshawk 

Trend in Productivity 

Potential benefit from predicted increase in late seral closed canopy habitat (5M &5D); risk from predicted decrease in CWHR types 6, 4M and 4D; risk from potential post fire habitat restoration, decreasing trend in condition of PAC habitat (and increased risk of wildfire) due to lack of restoration, and expansion of developed recreation, especially ski area operational boundaries greater than all other Alternatives. 

Potential benefit from restoration of degraded PAC habitat, overall static amount of late seral closed canopy habitat, and predicted increase in CWHR 5D; risk from predicted decrease in CWHR, 6, 4M, &4D, and predicted slight decrease in red fir 5M; risk from lower desired condition canopy cover for PACs and HRCAs, post fire habitat restoration less than A but more than D and E, loss of large trees, reduction in canopy cover, and early seral openings, and expansion of developed recreation less than Alternatives A and C. 

Similar to Alternative B but greater potential risk from predicted slight decrease in late seral closed canopy habitat (especially red fir 5M), accelerated pace of forest vegetation treatments, and expansion of developed recreation (especially ski areas), and access to NFS lands. 

Similar to Alternative A except potential benefit from reduced recreation areas, especially ski resorts and less emphasis on fuel reduction in burned forest habitat; risk from predicted decrease in red fir 5M and greatest risk of wildfire. 

SimAltwitbestrconstagucanlate aneleretbuha
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-76 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Pacific fisher and great gray owl 

Trend in Productivity 

Species not expected to occur 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

Same as Alternative A 

SaAlt

Wolverine Trend in 

Productivity 

If present, potential benefit from predicted increase in late seral closed canopy habitat (5M & 5D); potential risk where habitat deteriorates and is at risk to catastrophic disturbance (e.g.,fire) and expansion of developed recreation, especially ski area operational boundaries greater than all other Alternatives. 

If present, potential benefit from treatments that improve resiliency of habitat and predicted increase in red fir 5D; risk from predicted slight decrease in red fir 5M, and expansion of developed recreation less than Alternatives A and C. 

If present, potential benefit from increase in red fir 5D; risk from predicted decrease in red fir 5M and overall late seral closed canopy habitat, expansion of developed recreation, especially ski area operational boundaries, and access to NFS lands. 

If present, potential benefit from predicted increase in overall late seral closed canopy habitat (5M & 5D) and reduced ski areas; potential risk from moderate decrease in red fir 5M and where habitat deteriorates and is at risk to catastrophic disturbance (e.g.,fire), and increased OHV access. 

SimAltwitbestrstaguprocloha
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Pacific marten Trend in 

Productivity 

Potential benefit from predicted increase in late seral closed canopy habitat (5M &5D); risk from predicted decrease in CWHR types 6, 4M and 4D; risk from potentially diminishing quality of habitat and risk of wildfire (at level less than Alternative D); risk from inapplicability of LOPs at recreation areas, expansion of developed recreation areas, especially ski area operational boundaries greater than all other alternatives. 

Potential benefit from predicted increase in CWHR type 5D; risk from predicted decrease in CWHR types 6, 4M, &4D and predicted slight decrease in 5M in red fir; risk from loss of large trees, early seral openings, and reduction in canopy cover; risk from expansion of developed recreation especially ski areas and no LOP but at level less than Alternatives A and C. 

Similar to Alternative B but greater potential risk from predicted slight decrease in late seral closed canopy habitat (especially red fir 5M), accelerated pace of forest vegetation treatments, greatest expansion of developed recreation (especially ski areas) and access to NFS lands. 

Similar to Alternative A except potential benefit from reduced recreation areas, especially ski areas and less emphasis on fuel reduction in burned forest habitat and predicted increase in late seral closed canopy habitat; risk from predicted decrease in red fir 5M and greatest risk of wildfire. 

SimAltwitbestrconstaguserkey anbuha
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-78 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, Fringed myotis, and pallid bat

Trend in Productivity 

Potential for positive trend where restoration improves foraging habitat and prohibits removal of large trees (potential roosts); risk from predicted decrease in mid seral open and early seral foraging habitat (Pallid), from developed recreation expansion, and from lack of cave and cavesurrogate standards and guidelines. 

Potential for positive trend from restoration and inclusion of cave and cavesurrogate standards and guidelines; potential risk from predicted decrease in early seral foraging habitat (Pallid), ability to remove large trees (potential roosts), and developed recreation but less than Alternatives A and C. 

Similar to Alternative B except potential benefit from predicted increase in mid seral open foraging habitat (Pallid) and increased risk from developed recreation expansion. 

Similar to Alternative A but potential benefit if abandoned recreation structures can be used as roosts; risk from lack of restoration and increased wildfire, and if roosts excluded from decommissioned recreation structures. 

SimAltwitstaguLTcon
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environment

Chapter 2 | Table 2-3

■ 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Water Quality 

TMDL milestones & 303(d) listings 

TMDL milestones are achieved, and no additions to 303(d) list. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Achievement of long term (greater than 15 years) TMDL milestones may be delayed. 

Sa

Water Quantity 

% of water rights verified & maintained, surface and groundwater resources protected & maintained. 

 100% of USFS 

water rights are maintained. Groundwater and surface water resources continue to be protected and enhanced. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Sa
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

2-80 ▪ Purpose and Need for the 

Resource Indicator Unit of Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Watershed Condition 

Watershed Condition Class (HUC 6) 

Watershed Condition Class 

Watersheds in condition class 1 and 2 are maintained. Ward and Upper Truckee watersheds continue to move toward Condition Class 1. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A for 10-15 years. Greater risk of inability to maintain or improve Watershed Condition Class. 

Sa

SEZ & Geomorphic Condition 

Functioning condition 

Miles/acres Measurable 

improvement in geomorphic stability & floodplain connectivity. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Measurable improvement through projects currently planned in geomorphic stability & floodplain connectivity, but less than A, B & C in long term. 

Sa

Wilderness Existing and 

Recommended 

Acres 24,665 24,665, same as 

Alternative A. 

24,665 

+14,229

Total 38,894

24,665 

+29,581 

Total 54,246

2

No change from current 

No change from current 

Would provide an additional 14,229 acres of wilderness experience.

Would provide an additional 29,581 acres of wilderness experience. 

No cu
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Introduction and Organization ■ 3-1 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes current conditions and trends in the Plan area and analyzes the 

environmental consequences expected to result from adopting a plan based on one of the action 

alternatives (Alternative B, C, D, or E), or taking no action (Alternative A). Each of the national 

forest activities and uses likely to have an effect on a given resource is discussed in general 

terms. Together, these descriptions form the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of 

effects table found at the end of Chapter 2. 

It is important to keep in mind that this Environmental Impact Statement is programmatic in 

nature and discusses only the general types of effects that may occur during plan 

implementation. The environmental effects of specific actions or activities are not discussed. 

Future project-specific environmental analysis will disclose the specific effects of each project or 

activity. Analysis of site-specific variables is beyond the scope of this programmatic EIS. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-2 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.2 Organization of the Analysis 

The description of the affected environment and the analysis of direct and indirect effects are 

organized into sections based on the major resource areas contained in the Draft Plan. The 

resource areas included in this analysis are: 

 Access & Travel Management 

 Air Quality 

 Aquatic Wildlife: Habitat and Species 

 Botanical Resources 

 Built Environment 

 Climate Change 

 Economics 

 Fire and Fuels 

 Forest Vegetation 

 Cultural Resources & Tribal Relations 

 Interpretive Services & Conservation Education 

 Lands Special Uses 

 Minerals 

 Natural Hazards 

 Noise 

 Range 

 Recreation 

 Scenic Quality 

 Terrestrial Wildlife: Habitat and Species 

 Water Quality and Soil Erosion 

 Water Quantity 

 Watershed Condition 

 Soil Resources 

 Wilderness, 

This chapter provides a summary analysis for each of these resource areas. In some instances 

there is a specialist report prepared for a resource which includes a complete analysis. Specialist 

reports are available in the project record. Cumulative effects for all resources are discussed in 

Section 3.5 of this chapter. 

 
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Introduction and Organization ■ 3-3 

The analysis for each resource in Section 3.4 includes the following: 

 3.2.1 Introduction and Scope of the Analysis 

The resource is introduced, the temporal and spatial boundaries of the analysis are set, and the 

rationale for choosing the boundaries is presented. For most resources, the time period for the 

analysis is the 10-15 years the Plan is expected to be in effect, but a longer time period is 

considered for some resources. The spatial boundary, or area of consideration, describes the area 

where the effects would occur, and varies with the resource. 

 3.2.2 Methodology 

This section includes the indicators of effect plus brief descriptions of any models or other 

analysis tools that were used. The indicators of effect are the descriptions of the metrics used to 

illustrate the differences between alternatives. They provide the basis for the analysis of 

environmental consequences and for describing the differences between alternatives. They may 

be qualitative, quantitative or a mixture of both, depending on the resource. 

3.2.3 Assumptions 

This section lists assumptions specific to the analysis for each resource. For resources with no 

specific assumptions, this section is omitted. Assumptions common to all resources are listed 

below in Section 3.3. 

3.2.4 Overview of the Affected Environment 

This section provides a summary description of the existing conditions or status of the resource, 

focusing on aspects with the potential to be affected by implementation of the alternatives. 

Current trends are described where applicable. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-4 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences 

The direct and indirect environmental consequences to the resource are analyzed here. Each of 

the general types of national forest activities and uses likely to have an effect on the resource is 

discussed in terms of the indicators identified for that resource (see Chapter 2, Table 2.3 for a list 

of indicators by resource). 

In some sections the environmental consequences are organized by activity area with a 

discussion of all alternatives grouped under the activity area subheading. In other sections the 

environmental consequences are organized by activity area and then further broken down by 

alternative. 

To clarify the differences among alternatives, the consequences of actions are analyzed assuming 

full implementation of each of the alternatives. However, due to budgetary and other constraints 

not known at this time, it is very possible that not all the actions described in a given alternative 

would be implemented. Appendix O describes the limitations inherent at this level of forest 

planning. 

In addition to the actions described in Chapter 2, the analysis of the No Action alternative 

(Alternative A) includes the consequences of ongoing activities and uses, providing a basis for 

comparison with the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E). Ongoing activities and 

uses are the day to day management activities and uses of NFS lands that occur apart from 

specific project work. They include things like the use and maintenance of picnic areas and 

facilities, and are listed in Table 3-1. 

3.2.6 Analytical Conclusions 

This section is included to provide a brief summary of the analysis and to clarify the conclusions 

of the environmental effects analysis for each resource. This section presents whether or not 

there are significant environmental impacts. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmen

Chapter 3 | Introduction and Organization ■ 

Table 3-1. Ongoing Activities and Uses 

Activities & Uses* Potential Actions Unit of Measu

Recreation: Dispersed Recreation (Summer) 

Non-motorized: Picnicking, dispersed camping, mountain biking, cross-country 

hiking, horseback riding, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, wildlife, plant and fish viewing (i.e., bird watching), barbequing, beach play, and water play. Motorized: Pleasure driving, off highway vehicle (OHV) use (e.g., quads, dirt bikes).

acres availab

Dispersed Recreation (Winter) 

Non-motorized: Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, back-country skiing, snow play, 

sledding, snow camping. 

acres availab

Over Snow Vehicle Travel (dispersed in open areas, non-guided)

Snowmobiling acres availab

1 See Snowmobile Guide Developed Recreation: Public and Private Resorts and Lodges Initial Site Construction (Grading of sites for campsites and parking spurs) Clearing 

of vegetation (Tree removal) Asphalt and concrete installation (non-permeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots and structures. Trenching for utilities, site 

maintenance and cleaning of structures and other improvements, Adding additions to the structures. Adding additional structures, roadways, landscaping, water diversions and wells, and septic systems. 

number/acre

Campgrounds Campground expansion: Initial site construction (Grading of sites for roads, 

campsites and parking spurs) Clearing of vegetation (Tree removal) Asphalt and concrete installation (non-permeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and structures. Trenching for utilities, site maintenance and cleaning visitor uses such as: camping, campfires, lights, picnicking, hiking and biking around developed sites, noise, pets, collecting rocks, plants and creatures. 

Campground

Campsites 

Winter – Outfitter Guide 

Snowmobiling, cross country skiing miles of trails (X

miles of trails 

(OSV) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-6 ■ Affected Environment and Environm

Activities & Uses* Potential Actions Unit of Measu

Winter – Ski Areas 

Heavenly Homewood/ partial Diamond Peak/ partial Alpine Meadows/ partial

Maintenance of cleared slopes (annual brushing, mowing, grubbing; removal of hazard trees); Erosion control activities (culverts, culvert maintenance, slope contouring, sediment basin installation/maintenance, water bar maintenance and installation); Snow-blowing (including generator operation); Grooming of snowcovered slopes (including operation of heavy equipment during the day and at night); Snow-making (including development/maintenance of water storage ponds and water diversions); Night lighting of slopes; Summer use activities (hiking, mountain biking events); Operation and maintenance of facilities on site (restaurants, ski lift towers/terminals, administrative offices, radio towers, etc.); back country gates allow access (cc skiing, downhill skiing, snowboarding, etc.) outside 

operational and permit boundaries. 

number of facili

and areas & 

acres 

Winter – Snow Parks 

Snow play, sledding, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, back country skiing, snowmobiling (functions as trailhead for snowmobiles). 

Sites 

Recreation Residences 

Recreation residence tracts generally consist of small privately owned cabins situated on National Forest System lands. They are often situated in or near riparian areas. Use of public land by the cabin owners is authorized by permit for up to 20 years. Cabins are intended for weekend, vacation, or seasonal recreation use but not for full time residency. Activities, other than occupancy, related to the cabin and surrounding lands that can occur include: maintenance of the structures and other improvements, adding additions to the structure, adding additional structures and roadways, landscaping, water diversions and wells, and septic systems. 

number of 

residences 

Organization Camps and Clubs 

Organization camps are both under permit on National Forest System lands and on adjacent private lands. Organization camps and clubs concentrate use and impacts in a small area, similar to campgrounds.. A typical organization camp includes a number of facilities including cabins, platform tents, administrative offices, kitchen/dining building, bathrooms, parking areas, swimming pools, ball fields, buildings for activities (crafts, nature, etc.), stables for horses, a campfire ceremony 

amphitheater, archery/rifle ranges, tennis courts, hiking trails, horseback trails, mountain biking trails, water play areas. Camp capacities range from 70 to 300. Most operate seasonally, generally in summer. Camps and clubs may accommodate conferences and meetings as well as family camping and employ a year-round on-site manager. Outdoor education programs for school groups also use organization camps and clubs on the National Forest for their programs. 

number of campand clubs 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmen

Chapter 3 | Introduction and Organization ■ 

Activities & Uses* Potential Actions Unit of Measu

Outfitting and Guiding Service and Events (Non-winter) 

Outfitting-guiding activities and recreation events are authorized by special use permit. Limitations on activities that potentially damage or disrupt sensitive species and habitat areas are generally included as conditions for permit approval. Many outfitting-guiding and recreation events operate on existing trails or National Forest System roads. Activities involved under this category include running events, walka-thons, ski races, weddings, , horse pack trips (day trips or overnight camping); horseback rides (part or full day), guided fishing and hunting trips, orienteering, and guided mountain bike tours. 

number of permfor outfitter guidnumber of permfor recreation events 

Day Use Sites Activities associated with the use, maintenance or construction of day use and 

other developed recreation sites (i.e., picnic areas, trail heads) includes: initial site construction, clearing of vegetation, grading of sites, asphalt and concrete installation (non-permeable surfaces); site maintenance and cleaning; visitor uses such as camping, BBQ’s , lights, picnicking, fishing, water play, photography, playing of radios/music; pets; hiking and biking in and around the developed site. 

number / acres 

Infrastructure: Administrative Facilities 

Meyers work center, SO, fire stations. Activities: parking/vehicle storage, general facilities maintenance and repairs (tree 

removal, general storage, landscaping), noise. 

number of facilit

Access & Travel Management: (see motor vehicle use guide)Level I Roads Closed Road 

Maintenance activities are generally not required for level 1 road. These are administratively closed roads. 

miles 

Level II Roads High Clearance Vehicle Road 

Maintenance activities would include use of heavy equipment to grade, clean drainages, replace culverts, replace bridges, and could include importing materials.

miles 

Level III Roads Passenger Car Road Low User Comfort

Maintenance activities would include use of heavy equipment to grade, clean drainages, replace culverts, replace bridges, and could include importing materials.

miles 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-8 ■ Affected Environment and Environm

Activities & Uses* Potential Actions Unit of Measu

Level IV Roads Passenger Car Road Moderate User Comfort

Maintenance activities would include use of heavy equipment to grade, clean drainages, replace culverts, replace bridges, and repaving or resurfacing. 

miles 

Level V Roads Passenger Car Road High User Comfort

Maintenance activities would include use of heavy equipment to grade, clean drainages, replace culverts, replace bridges, and repaving or resurfacing. This is the highest maintenance level for NFSR roads. The LTBMU does not have any of this maintenance level on the forest. 

miles 

Motorized Use of Roads 

Open to motor vehicles miles 

Trails Motorized Use of Trails 

Maintenance activities would include primarily be accomplished with hand crews and could include use of motorized borrows, mini excavators or comparable 

equipment. 

miles 

Mechanized Use of Trails 

Maintenance activities would include primarily be accomplished with hand crews and could include use of motorized borrows, mini excavators or comparable 

equipment. 

miles 

Non-motorized, Non-mechanized Trails 

Maintenance activities would include primarily be accomplished with hand crews and could include use of motorized borrows, mini excavators or comparable 

equipment. 

miles 

Permitted Uses – Lands Communication Sites 

Ongoing maintenance with vehicle access, vegetation clearing. Fencing around facilities. 

number of sites 

Utilities Trenches for underground utilities, vegetation clearing for overhead lines, vehicular 

access for maintenance and inspection of overhead lines, digging of wells, diversion of springs, water storage, fencing. 

authorization

Urban Stormwater Treatment 

Soil removal and vegetation clearing for new basins and other structures, alteration of natural water flows, fencing. 

authorization
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmen

Chapter 3 | Introduction and Organization ■ 

Activities & Uses* Potential Actions Unit of Measu

Community Use and Public Information 

Ongoing maintenance with vehicle access, vegetation clearing. Fencing around facilities. 

Authorization

Production Livestock Grazing 

Fence installation, salting, herding, upland water source development, spring 

development, water drafting, hazard tree cutting. 

authorizations 

Research and Monitoring 

Digging of monitoring wells, vehicular access during installation of equipment. authorizations 

Permitted Temporary Activities 

Artificial lighting (temporary during filming), noise from participants and spectators, temporary fencing 

authorizations 

(average per ye

* Definitions of suitable uses and management activities are located in Revised Forest Plan, Part 2. Strategies. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-10 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3 Assumptions Common to All Alternatives 

The relationship between possible future actions and their consequences is not always known or 

quantifiable, especially in a programmatic analysis such as this one. A set of assumptions is used 

to reduce the unknowns in this analysis. Assumptions common to all resources and alternatives 

are listed below; assumptions specific to a given resource are listed in the effects section for the 

resource. 

 Alternatives are implemented in compliance with all 

o Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

o Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

o Policies (Forest Service Handbooks and Manuals, others) 

o Regulations 

o Laws 

 The above will be followed and will be effective. 

 The timeframe for analysis is the next 15 years (planning horizon established by NFMA 

for Forest Plans). Other timeframes may be analyzed depending on the resource; for 

example vegetation modeling, and climate change consider longer time periods. 

 Site specific activities would only be conducted after appropriate project level NEPA 

analysis, as required. 

 Wilderness recommendations in Alternatives C and D are assumed to have been adopted 

by Congress for this analysis. 

 Best available science would be used to inform management decisions. 

 Budget – 

o Appropriated funding will remain constant or decrease, consistent with historic 

trends. 

o Funding from the Sierra Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) will 

decrease rapidly and will likely be fully expended by the end of the planning 

period. 

 Climate Change –Assumptions regarding climate change are described in detail in 

Appendix D – Climate Change. 

 Demographics – 

o Visitation is expected to follow US census population trends. Based on this 

assumption, visitation is expected to grow 1.4% annually or 21% in the next 15 

years. 

 Range Analysis – A brief analysis of the effects of the alternatives on range resources is 

included. Consequences of grazing on other resources were not analyzed because all 

allotments are currently vacant and no applications are pending. A capability and 

suitability analysis as well as NEPA analysis would be required prior to issuing any term-
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Assumptions Common to All Alternatives ■ 3-11 

grazing or special use grazing permits. NEPA analysis would not be required for grazing 

associated with outfitter-guide permits. 

 Recreation Demand - Recreation visitation and resulting demand and use is anticipated to 

increase in all alternatives and none of the alternatives are anticipated to accommodate all 

the projected demand during peak use periods. 

In addition to the above assumptions, this analysis assumes that projects in the planning or 

implementation stage or which have guaranteed funding would be implemented as described in 

the project documentation, regardless of which alternative is chosen. Current projects and 

commitments under the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) would continue until 

completed. Projects for which funding has been approved under SNPLMA would be 

implemented as proposed, and any projects specifically funded by the Lake Tahoe Restoration 

Act (LTRA) would be implemented. 

Projects would be planned and implemented as described, even if some aspects of the project 

conflict with one or more elements of the chosen alternative. All projects proposed after the 

Revised Forest Plan would be designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan unless a site specific 

Forest Plan Amendment is approved. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-12 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1 Recreation Expansion under All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, the LTBMU recreation program will work towards the sustainable 

integration of environmental, social, and economic conditions. This is achieved in part by 

adapting to changing user demands, trends, and preferences, including modifying existing sites 

and infrastructure to improve natural resource conditions and recreation settings. During the 

Forest Plan scoping and public comment process, infrastructure expansion and permanent 

development of general forest areas were identified as an issue of concern. The EIS describes 

this issue as ‘recreation expansion’ and defines it as an increase of infrastructure in support of 

additional recreation opportunities over the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit landscape. 

Each alternative describes a range of recreation expansion by percentage. Alternative A, B, and 

C would allow for expansion up to 10%, 5%, 15% and respectively, whereas Alternative D 

would allow up to a 15% reduction. Alternative E would allow for expansion between 5 and 

10%, as shown in SG 100in the Forest Plan. These percentages correspond to the following 

measurement indicators: recreation site acres, overnight accommodation units, day use parking 

spaces, and ski areas and slopes (operational footprint). 

Using the above measurement indicators, the following management activities considered as 

recreation expansion are described in the Recreation Strategies section of the Forest Plan. 
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences by Resource Area

3.4.1 Access and Travel Management

3.4.1.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences from Alternatives 

A, B, C, D, and E on road and trail access and travel management. The LTBMU transportation 

system consists of a network of 257 miles of roads and 348 miles of trails, and serves the 

following purposes:

• Administration of Forest Service Lands

• Recreational use by visitors to the forest 

• Access to isolated parcels of private land within the LTBMU

• Commercial use which may or may not be subject to cost recovery

The vast majority of use falls in the first two categories. With the exception of trailhead parking, 

recreational use is analyzed in Section 3.4.19 – Recreation.

Methodology

A qualitative analysis is used to compare the primary differences between alternatives that affect 

access and travel management. This is a broad overview of consequences to the Forest 

transportation system and access and travel management, and it is expected that these effects will 

vary with site-specific conditions.

This analysis describes how the various alternatives would affect these uses. The effects of the 

alternatives on road and trail access are evaluated against management activities which have the 

potential to alter these systems of designated routes. Each alternative is ranked with respect to a 

particular effect. A ranking of “more” relates to a relative anticipated increase in access and in 

the road/trail system. A ranking of “less” relates to a relative anticipated decrease in access and 

in the road/trail system. The primary metrics are miles by road maintenance level and miles of 

managed use for trails.

Road Maintenance Levels 

The alternatives vary in the miles of road in each road maintenance level (Table 2-1). Road 

maintenance level is the metric for analysis of roads in this document. All levels of roads have

drainage and erosion protection features that are maintained to protect water quality.

Maintenance levels are defined by the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.62 as the level of 

service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. The maintenance level is

determined by considering the purpose and need for the road, forest plan objectives, funding, and 

many other factors. A road may be constructed to serve at a maintenance level which fulfills an 

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-13
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

immediate need (operational maintenance level), but planned to be modified and converted to 

another maintenance level to fulfill a future need (objective maintenance level).The levels are

summarized as follows:

• ML 1: basic custodial care (closed to motor vehicle traffic). Roads are closed to traffic for 

protection of a resource, maintenance cost, or other reasons and vegetation may be growing 

on the roadway. 

• ML 2: suitable for high clearance vehicles. Roads are primarily one lane, low traffic, low 

speed roads and can range from native surface to pavement depending on resource protection 

needs. 

• ML 3: suitable for passenger cars. Roads support higher traffic volumes and are constructed 

with wider surfaces and longer sight distances for higher speed traffic. 

• ML 4: suitable for passenger cars, moderate degree of user comfort. Roads support higher 

traffic volumes and are constructed with wider surfaces and longer sight distances for higher 

speed traffic. 

• ML 5: suitable for passenger cars, high degree of user comfort. 

There are no ML 5 roads in the LTBMU (Table 3-2). All levels of roads have drainage and erosion 

protection features that are maintained to protect water quality.

Table 3-2. LTBMU Road System Description, by Maintenance Level

Maintenance 

Level User Comfort Lanes Surface Type Miles Percent

ML1

Closed to 

motor vehicle 

access

NA NA 26.6 10.3

ML2

High 

Clearance 

Vehicles

1 Native 143.3 55.7

ML3 Low User 

Comfort 1-2

Chip Seal, 

Aggregate or 

Native

66.8 25.9

ML4

Moderate 

Degree User 

Comfort

1-2 Chip Seal, Paved 

or Aggregate 20.7 8.1

ML5 High Degree 

User Comfort 2 Paved or Chip Seal 0 0

 

Managed Use -Trails 

The alternatives vary in the miles of managed use for trails, shown in Table 2-1. Note that most 

trails are managed for more than one use, so the numbers in Table 2-1 do not add up to the total 

miles of trails on the LTBMU.

Trail Class is a concept similar to road maintenance level. The Trail Class is the prescribed scale of 

development for a trail, representing its intended design and management standards (FSH 2309.18). 

Trail Classes are general categories reflecting trail development scale, arranged along a continuum. 

Trails in all trail classes are designed and maintained to control surface runoff and resulting erosion 

and sedimentation.

3-14 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Trail Class 1: Minimally Developed 

• Trail Class 2: Moderately Developed 

• Trail Class 3: Developed 

• Trail Class 4: Highly Developed 

• Trail Class 5: Fully Developed

Because there is considerable overlap between the trail classes and the uses for which trails are 

managed (FSH 2309.18), miles by managed use is used as the metric for analysis of trails in this 

document (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3. LTBMU Trail System Description by Managed Use

Managed Use 

Type Miles Percent

Hiking and 

equestrian 337 59

Mechanized 

(mountain bike) 217 38

Motorized OHV* 15 26

* An additional 115 miles of roads are also open 

to motorized OHV use.

Background

While the Forest Service manages approximately 78% of the lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin, only 

26% of the roads are NFS roads (Kjar 2011). The interconnected nature of the road system 

requires ongoing cooperation and collaboration among partners.

Table 3-4. Miles of road by jurisdiction in the LTBMU Administrative Boundary

(Kjar 2011).

System Miles of Road

National Forest 257

State 116

County, City 591

Private 40

Total 1,004

Access and Travel Management (ATM) planning is the strategy used for achieving sustainable 

travel routes under all alternatives to identify needed routes, BMP needs, and restoration and 

reroute opportunities that will protect and enhance natural resources. 

ATM planning began for roads in 1998 and for trails in 2001. Road and Trail ATM Plans divide 

the Lake Tahoe Basin into planning areas called transportationsheds (10 for trails and 12 for 

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-15
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

roads). The LTBMU developed a Water Quality Risk Analysis Process in 1998 as part of the 

ATM planning process, and has been continuously evaluating roads for their potential to 

adversely affect water quality. Collaborative processes involved agencies, stakeholders, and the 

public in the development of alternatives. Project-level NEPA for each transportationshed lays 

out detailed proposed actions and analysis of effects. Work is undertaken after project decisions 

are signed.

The first round of ATM projects are complete for all LTBMU roads, and once complete for 

trails, routes will be revisited on a larger scale to determine the effectiveness of their 

implementation and to address new and remaining issues related to fuel treatments, water 

quality, recreation management, and utility and private lands access. A greater emphasis will be 

put on strategic road and trail planning during a second round of ATMs, by analyzing existing 

alignments for impacts to resources and identifying additional reroute opportunities that allow 

for more sustainable operation and management. 

Implementation of the Roads ATM has decreased the LTBMU road system by approximately 

30% and applied BMPs to 70% of the remaining system roads. Approximately, 106 miles of 

roads have been decommissioned, and 12 miles of roads were converted to trails. Of the 

remaining 257 miles of roads in the current system, 180 miles have received BMP upgrades

(Kjar 2011). Some roads have been relocated away from surface water and riparian zones. 

In addition, through monitoring and evaluation, BMPs have been refined to increase maintenance 

frequency and improve effectiveness. By increasing the maintenance frequency the overall road 

system costs less to maintain and receives a water quality benefit from reduced sedimentation 

from reduced disturbance. The BMPs themselves have evolved to create a road system that 

mimics natural hydrology patterns by reducing storm water concentration and maximizing

natural drainage within the landscape. 

Implementation of ATMs has resulted in an overall reduction in impacts to natural and historic 

resources and has resulted in an improvement in the quality of recreation opportunities. In 

addition, road and trail facilities have become more logical and organized and management to 

standards is more attainable.

Regulatory Framework

The Travel Analysis process (36 CFR part 212 subpart A) provides the guiding framework for 

ATM planning for the roads in the National Forest transportation system while the ATM process 

provides site specific analysis for implementation. Travel Analysis utilizes an interdisciplinary 

process of analyzing the risks and benefits of each road in the system. Risks and benefits to the 

various resources and their management are considered. 

LTBMU completed a Travel Analysis Process (TAP) document in 2011. Due to the extensive 

work already accomplished through the ATM process, the TAP concluded that while there will 

still be opportunities to convert roads to trails, future road decommissioning will likely be driven 

more by acquisition of land that includes duplicate or unneeded roads than by elimination of

existing unneeded roads (Kjar 2011).

3-16 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Off–Road Vehicle (ORV) use is regulated by 36 CFR 261 subpart B, which is enforced through 

the LTBMU Motor Vehicle Use Map, 2010 (MVUM).. Subpart B requires the establishment of 

the MVUM which, contrary to the former regulatory framework established a “closed unless 

designated open” rule for motorized use. The updated regulations restrict motorized users to 

designed trails, roads, and open areas, providing protection of resources. 

Use of over-snow vehicles (OSV) on national forests is governed by the travel management 

regulations at 36 CFR 212.80-81, also known as Subpart C. These regulations state “Use by 

over-snow vehicles on National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails and in 

areas on National Forest System lands may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited” (36 CFR 

212.81). Areas open to use by over-snow vehicles on the LTBMU are shown on the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit Snowmobile Guide 2012/2013.

Analysis Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

1. Existing unauthorized roads or trails would be added to the system or closed and restored.

2. Existing unauthorized roads that provide needed access such as utility easements that are 

included under special use permits would be added to the managed road system in the 

future.

3. Opportunities for aquatic organism passage will be prioritized, inventorying all stream 

crossings and identifying the crossings that have the greatest impact for aquatic organism 

passage.

4. Opportunities for water quality protection through implementation of BMPs will be 

identified and prioritized for funding, analysis and implementation.

5. Changes to road maintenance levels would affect surface conditions and BMPs would be 

maintained regardless of changes to maintenance levels.

6. Roads and trails will be relocated out of sensitive areas (Stream Environment Zones, 

habitat Protected Activity Centers, known heritage resource sites, etc.) where possible.

7. Existing parking area capacities are estimated using counts from specific areas and 

projecting the use across the LTBMU.

3.4.1.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Current Conditions and Trends - Roads 

The majority of the managed road system has been improved with additional BMPs through 

implementation of the Road Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) that was completed in 

1999. The Road ATM focused on water quality and the need for roads. A water quality risk 

assessment was completed before and after the road work; results are discussed in the Water 

Quality section of this document. The Road ATM inventoried, assessed, prioritized and 

implemented road projects for capital improvements and maintenance. The LTBMU was 

divided into 12 “Transportationsheds” for NEPA analysis, budgeting, and implementation. 

Beginning in 2001, one or two transportationsheds were analyzed each year until the work 

identified in the Roads ATM was complete. Improvements on roads were designed to meet 

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-17
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Forest Service, state and local standards for the protection of the clarity of Lake Tahoe and other 

forest resources. Actions from the Road ATM include:

• 180 miles of road were retrofitted to meet current BMP standards.

• 106 miles were decommissioned

• 12 miles were converted to trails

While the work identified in the Road ATM plan has been completed, there are issues that are 

unresolved, including utility access and private land access. Utility access is granted through 

easement or special use permits which have been inconsistently documented in the past. As a 

result there are discrepancies between where access is needed and where managed roads are 

located. Private land owners have a right to reasonable property access; however, it must be 

documented with a special use permit. Many of the private properties within the LTBMU do not 

have special use permits and the managed road system does not serve all of the private property 

access needs. In large part, existing roads are suitable; however, documentation of the access 

needs is a cumbersome process often involving legal counsel.

Current Conditions and Trends - Interagency Transit Planning and Opportunities

Public transit was in the early stages of development around the basin in 1988, during the 

previous forest plan. Today much of the basin is serviced by public transit. Demand, political 

willpower and changes in expectations are anticipated to fuel more efficient and higher 

capability public transit in the future. Many planning efforts have taken place that explore the 

potential for public transit development and key infrastructure such as bus turnouts, transit 

shelters, bike lanes, sidewalks, and bike paths are being added to communities to enable 

convenient and safe transit opportunities. The Forest has funded public transit to recreation sites 

around the lake. This has provided the existing public transit agencies the ability to offer this 

much needed service. Increased coordination with TRPA and the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (TMPO) to develop transit and increase non-auto mode share is expected

Current Conditions and Trends – Trails

The amount of overall use has changed substantially since the 1988 Forest Plan. Mountain biking 

has become a very popular form of recreation that has changed management needs. User 

conflicts, trail maintenance, and trail design are key issues. OHV use has experienced 274% 

growth from 1993 to 2003 according to the Off Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United 

States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (Cordell et al 2005). Trail use by hikers is expected to continue to increase. 

Equestrian use in the basin remains relatively constant. Opportunities were identified in the 

1988 Forest Plan to create trail loops and adopt approximately 78 miles of existing unmanaged 

trails into the managed trail system. Approximately 40 miles of trails have been adopted and 

upgraded to meet standards to date.

In 2001 the Trail ATM Planning process was initiated to assess the condition of the existing trail 

system and prioritize upgrades for analysis, budgeting, and implementation. Specifically, the 

ATM process has resulted in many unauthorized trails being obliterated, adopted and/or rerouted

(including the 78 miles identified above). Additionally, system trails are being redesigned to 

meet Forest Service Standards defined by the Trail Management Handbook and Standard 

Specifications for Construction. 

3-18 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Beginning in 2003, trail transportationsheds were analyzed each year through the ATM process. 

Approximately 50% of the trail system has been analyzed and implemented. Improvements on 

trails were designed to meet Forest Service, state and local standards for the protection of the 

clarity of Lake Tahoe and other forest resources while providing for sustainable recreation 

access. 

Actions from the Trail ATM include:

• 190 miles of trails were retrofitted to meet current BMP standards.

• 68 miles were decommissioned

• 12 miles of roads were converted to trails

Completed Trail ATM’s include:

• Freel/Meiss

• High Meadows

• Angora Fire Restoration

• North Shore

• East Shore Beaches 

• Daggett Summit

• Fallen Leaf Lake ATM is in the final stages of analysis and is included in the mileage above

Trail ATM’s to be completed include:

• Desolation Wilderness Trails

• Incline Village Trails

• West Shore Trails

• Genoa Peak Trails

The LTBMU has collaborated with many trail users to establish the current trail system. Among 

those user groups are the Pacific Crest Trail Association, Tahoe Rim Trail Association, Tahoe 

Area Mountain Bike Association, League to Save Lake Tahoe, Tahoe Sierra Club, Back Country 

Horsemen, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. The emergent trail system provides for recreation 

opportunities that reflect the values of the user groups in the Tahoe region.

The public needs of the trail system encompass multiple social and economic aspects. The need 

for forested mountain trails for rejuvenation, adventure, fitness, and health has always been a 

community focus at Lake Tahoe and is a rising national priority. A connected trail system linked 

with transit provides the basis for an outdoor recreation-rooted economy to thrive.

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-19
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Current Conditions and Trends – Trailheads and Parking

The 1988 Forest Plan called for improving trailheads to provide dispersed recreation 

opportunities outside of Desolation Wilderness. Most trails do not currently have planned 

trailheads or parking areas and many have native surface, user created parking. There have been 

strides to improve trailheads and many more opportunities for dispersed use trailheads exist. 

Where roadside parking is allowed there are dispersed use opportunities, however, roadside 

parking causes other problems such as congestion and erosion of road shoulders. Further, 

roadside parking areas tend to grow if barriers are not installed. Lastly, most roadside parking 

opportunities are not available during the winter season for dispersed use. 

The Trail ATM does address summer needs for dispersed trailheads and Best Management 

Practices upgrades. The Trail ATM does not address winter trailhead needs or problems. There 

are many areas that are not accessible even after snow removal has been completed. Many 

county snow removal and winter parking ordinances do not allow for roadside parking when 

snow is present, which has limited many winter dispersed recreation opportunities such as 

backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. 

Current Conditions and Trends - OHV 

OHV routes include both roads (115 miles) and trails (15 miles). OHV use on the LTBMU has 

been restricted to designated routes and areas since the 1976 ORV Plan was completed. The 

LTBMU will continue to manage the OHV system as a designated route system. The current 

designated OHV system is shown on the LTBMU Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

OHV use has increased dramatically since 1988. The overall result is an increased demand on 

forest roads and trails within the basin. As routes become more heavily used, maintenance 

frequency and maintenance standards may also need to increase for protection of forest 

resources. 

Current Conditions and Trends - OSV

OSV use is described and analyzed in Section 3.4.19 – Recreation.

3.4.1.3 Environmental Consequences 

Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration

Access and Travel Management

Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration 

 Least access afforded Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. E Alt. B Alt. A Alt. C

3-20 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stream channel and habitat restoration management activities have the potential to reduce

parking and forest access routes where existing routes or parking areas have adverse impacts that 

do not meet desired conditions. This could involve reduction in parking for access to both 

dispersed and develop recreation opportunities. In addition, restoration could include 

decommissioning of unauthorized routes and reroutes of authorized routes. 

Restoration management activities under Alternative D would result in the most roads and trails 

rerouted or decommissioned. Alternatives A, B, and E would result in less roads and trails 

rerouted or decommissioned than D and more than C. Alternative C would result in the least 

amount of roads and trails rerouted or decommissioned. In Alternative C, roads and trails would 

be upgraded in place except where mitigation does not offset impacts to the degree necessary to 

meet resource protection objectives

Vegetation and Fuels Management

The effects from vegetation and fuels management activities on forest access will be an opening 

of the forest which may increase roadside pullouts as a result of vegetation management and may 

affect the distribution of road maintenance levels across the forest. Vegetation and fuels 

management work access needs have changed. The level of road development or road 

maintenance level may change as a result of access needs for vegetation and fuels management, 

in addition to recreation access needs. . Treated areas will be much more open and “cross 

country” travel through the forest will become easier in areas that are treated. Projects include 

measures to restore areas impacted by equipment and discourage establishment of user-created 

roads and trails. 

Alternatives A, B, and E would have similar effects on road building and road use and would be 

similar to those that are currently occurring for mechanized fuel treatments. 

Alternative C would result in slightly more temporary road building and could result in larger or 

additional landings in order to accomplish greater vegetation management objectives. More 

roads would be operated at higher maintenance levels providing for more road access to licensed 

motor vehicles. In addition, this alternative would require greater road maintenance as a result of 

additional road use (hauling) to support fuels treatments and biomass removal. Temporary roads 

would be restored to pre-project conditions following fuels management activities. Treatments 

will require a variety of methods including the use of skidding, helicopter removal, forwarders, 

yoders and cut to length. All methods have different access needs and would require 

modification of the existing road system or existing landings.

Alternative D would require more access for hand treatments and for pile burning activities than 

other alternatives and would not require the same degree of road or landing construction and 

maintenance. The effect would be less maintenance needs to roads due to less hauling on roads. 

In addition, the road system would be operated to a lower standard and provide less motorized 

access for passenger vehicles and more motorized access for high clearance and unlicensed 

motor vehicles (Off Highway Vehicles, not requiring motor vehicle license).

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-21
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Access and Travel Management

Vegetation and Fuels Management 

 Least access afforded Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. E Alt. B Alt. A Alt. C

Developed Recreation Sites

Access and Travel Management

Developed Recreation Sites 

 Least opportunities for recreation Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. E Alt. C

In general, developed recreation sites would tend to shift towards consolidated access routes and 

parking facilities that would incorporate mode transfer (i.e. bus to bike, shuttle to foot, car to 

foot, etc.) to promote use of transit or bike path systems over the private automobile. In areas 

where roadside parking is reduced or eliminated the parking demand could be absorbed within 

managed recreation sites and creating associated parking facilities and the amount of new 

parking is dependent upon the chosen alternative. All alternatives would result in a reduction in 

overall unmanaged roadside parking and would encourage development in support of transit and 

bike path systems. Alternative C would result in greater opportunities over other alternatives to 

maximize trail access to developed recreation sites by upgrading trails and constructing new 

trails. Developed recreation sites would have similar connections under all alternatives;

however, the level of trail development would be greater under C and provide for the greatest 

trail access. Upgrades could include trail widening, trail surfacing, directional signage, trailhead 

development and other site specific upgrades.

Alternative D would result in a reduction in developed recreation sites which could result in 

reduced parking facilities and vehicle access to sites that are removed. 

Alternative A would maintain existing developed recreation levels and its associated road and 

trail systems. Alternatives B and E would result in slight increases in developed recreation and 

slight increases in their associated road and trail systems. 

3-22 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parking Management

Access and Travel Management

Parking Management 

 Least parking capacity Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. B Alt. A Alt. E Alt. C

Alternative C would accommodate the most managed parking and Alternative D would 

accommodate the least. Parking is expected to continue to shift towards managed parking in 

areas of high use under all of the alternatives. Alternative C would provide for the most 

managed parking and Alternative D would provide the least

Parking capacity in Alternatives B and E would remain the same as Alternative A, however, 

more of that parking would be managed in the future. Parking capacity in Alternative C would 

increase over Alternative A, with a shift to more managed parking in the future. Parking 

capacity in Alternative D would reduce over Alternative A with a shift to more managed parking 

in the future. While more areas could be converted to managed parking or added as managed 

parking to address changes in developed recreation in the future, Alternative D would add the 

least.

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-23
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Dispersed Recreation Management

Access and Travel Management

Dispersed Recreation Management 

 Least opportunities for recreation Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. E Alt. C

Dispersed recreation management is closely tied to the degree of designated backcountry and 

recommended Wilderness. Alternatives C and D increase Wilderness areas and have the greatest 

potential changes to access. Specifically, the changes to access would be a reduction in 

motorized and mechanized trail access (see table 2-3). 

Alternatives A and B would continue the current trend of dispersed recreation management. 

Approximately 40 miles of trails would be adopted for management under this alternative as 

Trail ATMs are completed. Road and Trail ATMs would additionally address parking where 

dispersed parking is causing impacts that do not meet management objectives. Alternative E is 

similar to Alternative B, however more area is designated as backcountry. Construction of new 

road would not occur in backcountry, although trails could be authorized if consistent with area 

ATMs.

Alternative C would provide more access for passenger vehicles by increasing maintenance 

levels of more miles of roads and by providing more managed parking than other alternatives.

Alternative D would provide more mileage of roads open to OHVs and high clearance vehicles,

and decrease access for passenger vehicles by reducing road maintenance levels.

Land Allocation Changes

Access and Travel Management

Land Allocation Changes 

 Least change in use, by miles Greatest 

    

Alt. B Alt. A Alt. C Alt. E Alt. D

3-24 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land allocation changes have the greatest cause and effect relationship with modes of access to 

the National Forest. The cause of designation of additional Wilderness areas would have the 

effect of closing those areas to mechanized and motorized uses thus changing the mode to 

pedestrian and equestrian modes. The effects are not upon the miles of roads and trails, but upon 

the modes allowed. Additional Wilderness designations would eliminate current mechanized 

trail users in Alternatives C and D. Alternative D would also increase miles of roads open to 

high clearance vehicles and OHVs as a result of downgrading road maintenance levels (i.e. 

Maintenance level 2 roads are open to both licensed and unlicensed OHV, maintenance level 3 

and higher roads are open to highway legal vehicles only). Additional backcountry areas in 

Alternatives D and E would reduce the miles of OHV trails open to motorized users and not 

allow for future road building within those areas

Utilities Maintenance and Construction

Access and Travel Management

Utilities Maintenance and Construction 

 Least utility construction activity Greatest 

    

Alt. B Alt. A Alt. E Alt. C Alt. D

The alternatives could affect utilities maintenance and construction depending upon the degree of 

permanent road building needed to support the infrastructure. The alternatives could create 

situations where land that is currently suitable for utility location becomes unavailable due to 

management area designation such as backcountry or Wilderness. Alternative D would be the 

most restrictive for new utilities with Alternatives A and B being the least restrictive. Under 

Alternative D some sites currently suitable for cell tower development may not be suitable due to 

Wilderness or Backcountry designation.

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-25
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Use Conflict 

Access and Travel Management

Use Conflict 

 Least utility construction activity Greatest 

    

Alt. B Alt. A Alt. E Alt. C Alt. D

Effects upon use conflict would be relatively consistent between alternatives. In Alternative A,

B, and E use conflict would continue along current trends and may decline as miles of 

unauthorized trails decrease. More use would be focused on managed trails, however those trails 

have informational signage and trail designs that minimize conflict. Trails are designed to 

minimize conflict by using contouring trails, establishing adequate clearing limits, and by 

meeting recreation use needs.

Alternative D would focus mountain bike and OHV use into less area as a result of Wilderness 

designation. In addition, fewer developed parking areas would provide less opportunity for

education about trail sharing and etiquette. Alternative C would increase road maintenance 

levels and reduce the number of roads open to OHVs which would increase OHV use of the 

remaining roads. Increasing the concentration of use could cause an increase in use conflict. 

Alternative C would also allow for more managed parking areas and more educational 

opportunities to mitigate use conflicts.

3.4.1.4 Analytical Conclusions

Effects upon access between alternatives are primarily a result of changes to the Land 

Management Areas and creation of new Backcountry and Wilderness areas. Alternative D 

would have the greatest impacts to access if additional Wilderness would be designated; this

would mainly limit mechanized (mountain bike) access. 

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Alternative A

Alternative A would continue the existing trends of access on NFS lands. 

Alternative B

Similar to Alternative A this alternative would continue along existing trends with minor 

changes to the road system and an increase in mechanized trail access. This alternative balances 

public access needs with resource goals. Alternative B would manage currently unmanaged 

parking areas which would provide an opportunity for interpretation and conservation education.

3-26 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative C

Alternative C would increase passenger vehicle road access, develop the highest degree of transit 

facilities and provide the most developed trail system. The most managed parking would be 

added in this alternative.

Alternative D

This alternative would restrict passenger vehicles the most, however, OHV opportunities on 

roads would increase, and roadside parking would decrease in high use areas.

Alternative E 

Similar to Alternatives A and B, this alternative would continue along existing trends with minor 

changes to the road system and an increase in mechanized trail access. This alternative balances 

public access needs with resource goals. Alternative E would manage currently unmanaged 

parking areas which will provide an opportunity for interpretation and conservation education.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All alternatives would meet the desired conditions however there are differences in timing, and 

the extent to which the desired conditions would be met. 

Alterative A is trending towards meeting desired conditions.

Alternatives B and E both balance resource protection with access and recreation desired 

conditions. 

Alternative C would meet the desired conditions for more managed recreation most quickly; 

however, other alternatives address public access needs more efficiently by providing a balance 

between resource protection and access.

In Alternative D, more areas would have the potential for Wilderness designation which would 

further restrict mechanized and motorized use. While there are no public motorized roads or 

trails in the recommended Wilderness, there are administratively accessed areas for forest and 

utility access that could be affected. This alternative would also take longer to meet the desired 

condition for managing parking. Alternative D would decrease road maintenance levels.

Chapter 3 | Access and Travel Management ■ 3-27
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-28 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2 Air Quality 

3.4.2.1 Introduction 

This report evaluates the potential environmental consequences on air quality resources that may 

result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines, in detail, five 

alternatives for revising the 1988 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Planned Forest activities will result in the generation of varying amounts of 

pollutant emissions. Air Quality is affected via two types of pollutants, viz., primary, secondary, 

and greenhouse gases that can pollute the air for human health, forest health, visibility, acid 

deposition, and climate change. Primary pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides 

(SOx) that can affect human health, are directly generated from sources such as industrial 

facilities, autos and other mobile sources, and forest processes and activities including fire. 

Secondary pollutants, for example ozone (O3), are chemically transformed from the primary 

pollutants VOCs and NOx. Forest fire emissions in addition to primary pollutants that affect 

human and forest health, also include the carcinogenic air toxics like acrolein, benzene, mercury, 

and formaldehyde. Black carbon (BC) and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) including carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) impact climate. Pollutants are easily transported long 

distances away from the point of origin which adds complexity to when attempting to restore 

non-attainment areas to attainment and improving visibility for Class I areas. 

Different air regulatory agencies, viz., federal, state, and local, have created laws, rules and 

regulations for control and reduction of the air pollutants. Pollutants like sulfate (SO4), nitrate 

(NO3), organic, and elemental carbon (soot) reduce visibility. The EPA requires all states to 

develop attainment plans (State Implementation Plans - SIPs) to improve air quality in nonattainment areas and improve visibility in Class I areas. California has developed SIPs for ozone 

and PM2.5 non-attainment areas and visibility for all 29 Class I areas that are located in the state. 

The EPA approved the visibility plan submitted by CA state in April 2011. The LTBMU has one 

Class I area (Desolation Wilderness) and is in nonattainment for ozone (Eldorado and Placer 

county areas). The forest is required to comply to both SIP requirements for all its projects and 

plans (see Table of Issues and Indicators). 

Forest conditions in the Lake Tahoe Basin before Euro-American settlement were strongly 

shaped by fire. Historic ecological data on these fire-adapted forests provide a highly useful 

template for designing future forest conditions (structures, compositions, processes, etc.) that are 

more likely to be resilient to warming climates and intensifying wildfire activity (Section 3.4.11 

Forest Vegetation). Jeffrey pine-dominated forest types in the Lake Tahoe Basin have 

experienced 100+ years of heavy logging, grazing, and fire exclusion (Sugihara et al. 2006). Fuel 

loads are extremely high in the forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin in large part because of the 

suppression policy followed by the agency during the early twentieth century. Wildfires are 

increasing in intensity and size. Estimated pre-1800 fire emissions of carbon dioxide from forests 

in California range from 23.1 to 62.6 terragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxide per year (Stephens et al. 

2007). The average annual estimate of carbon dioxide emissions from fire in California from 

2001 to 2008 was 17.8 Tg carbon dioxide per year. However, 2008 had substantially higher 

emissions (54.5 Tg carbon dioxide) as a result of a large number of lightning-ignited fires 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-29 

(Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). Although recent annual fire emissions are either below or 

within the range of historical emissions of carbon dioxide in California, they are well below the 

upper bound. 

To reduce the intensity and size of future wildland fires, fires burning within historic normal are 

needed to protect public and forest health and reduce the overall contribution of GHG emissions 

to climate change from the high amounts of smoke and pollutants that are generated during high 

intensity wildland fires. 

Wildland fires can be a major source of air pollution emissions. The EPA has set standards for 

criteria pollutants (that include PM10, PM2.5, CO, NOx, SOx, VOCs, ozone, and lead) to protect 

public health. Wildland fires are also a source of black carbon, which is known to contribute to 

increased melting of glaciers and polar ice. 

Off road recreational vehicles like snowmobiles can contribute to some criteria pollutants and 

CO2 in winter. The state of California is in the process of adopting new emission standards for 

recreational engines and vehicles that will reduce future emissions. The new requirements vary 

depending on the kind of engine or vehicle. The emission standards apply to all new engines 

sold in the state and any imported engine manufactured after these standards begin. 

The concept of carbon carrying capacity, the amount of carbon that can be stored in a system by 

watershed condition units (HUC6) as a function of prevailing climatic conditions and natural 

disturbance regimes, has been proposed as a potential foundation for carbon management plans 

(Keith et al. 2009, 2010, Hurteau et al. 2010). Managing within the carbon carrying capacity for 

forests requires incorporating an understanding of fire and stand dynamics (North et al. 2009). 

Altering forest structure by thinning smaller trees and then carrying out prescribed burning 

aggregates carbon into fewer larger trees and reduces the potential for high-severity fire 

(Stephens and Moghaddas, 2005; Finkral and Evans, 2008; Hurteau and North, 2009; North et 

al., 2009). These actions may reduce the amount of standing carbon in trees, but they will 

improve the stability of these carbon stocks over time. Management objectives (to achieve fire 

resiliency) in this context could be focused on achieving a balance between carbon stock size and 

carbon stabilization that falls within the carbon carrying capacity of the forest. 

Regular prescribed fires or other management fires are necessary following thinning treatments 

to manage surface fuels and maintain high-severity fire resistance (Hurteau and North 2009). 

Although understanding the short-term effects of fire on a system and the emissions associated 

with fire are important for managing air quality, these effects need to be viewed over the long 

term to better account for the effects of fire on carbon stocks (Hurteau 2011). Over the long term, 

fire effects on terrestrial carbon stocks are a function of the balance between carbon loss from 

direct fire emissions and decomposition and carbon gain from vegetation regrowth. If the 

successional pathway that resulted in the pre-fire forest remains unchanged, the recovering forest 

will transition from a carbon source to a carbon sink, and with sufficient time, the forest will resequester all of the carbon lost from both direct and indirect sources. Another Forest Service 

practice of slash-for-fire to slash-for-Biochar could be considered because it sequesters carbon 

over a longer time period and minimizes the risk of release through forest fires. In addition, 

Biochar can alter soil structure, soil productivity, and nutrient and water retention. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-30 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

If milling waste is used as biofuel to generate electricity, the carbon contained in this material 

can be used to offset fossil fuel based energy. 

Since the original Forest Plan was written, many new laws, regulations, and rules have been 

implemented that impact the management of air quality and forest ecosystems. Forest actions 

must comply with these new regulations. A new regional fuel strategic plan (under development) 

seeks to treat half a million acres out of 20 million acres managed by FS in California per year. 

Public support for planned and unplanned fires is essential to reduce the health impacts of 

smoke. Revising the Forest Plan provides the opportunity to incorporate policies and practices 

directly into the guiding documents supplying goals, strategies, objectives, and standards and 

guidelines based on new science and regulations not available when the 1988 Forest Plan was 

developed. 

Issues, Indicators, and Methodology 

For air quality analysis and understanding, NEPA documents need to describe the laws, rules, 

and regulations released by the air regulatory agencies. Air emissions do not stop at jurisdictional 

boundaries, but are transported long distances from their point of origin. Released pollutants can 

impact human health, forest health, visibility, climate change and aerosol deposition. The air 

quality issues, indicators, and methodology are as follows: 

Air Quality Issues 

Key issues related to air quality impacts include the following: 

1. Human health impacts. 

2. Forest health impacts. 

3. Climate change (GHGs emissions and CO2 sequestration, black carbon). 

4. Impacts to visibility. 

5. In addition, effects of acid, N compounds, and mercury deposition on terrestrial forest 

health are of concern; however, the alternatives would not materially affect deposition 

because the major sources of deposition are coming from outside. So the issue is not 

analysed in detail. 

6. Conformity (for nonattainment areas) with SIPs. 

7. Ozone injury. 

Air Quality Indicators 

The following Indicators are used to quantify impacts for each issue (Table 3-). 

1. Amount of pollutant emissions resulting from prescribed burning and wildland fire. 

2. Amount of black carbon emissions resulting from prescribed burning and wildland fire. 

3. Amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from prescribed burning and wildland fire. 

3a. Amount of pollutant emissions resulting from snowmobiles. Amount of pollutant 

emissions from other off-road vehicles would not be of magnitude greater than 

snowmobiles. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-31 

4. Amount of emissions averted. 

5. Amount of carbon sequestered. 

6. Tons of biomass removed for potential wood products, bioenergy, and/or biochar 

production. 

7. State Implementation Plan for ozone and visibility, and ozone injury trend. 

8. Amount of emissions averted by the forthcoming state rules with projected phase 

into100% of new non-road recreation vehicles by 2020 (CARB 2013b). 

Table 3-5. Summary of Air Quality Issues and Indicators 

Issues Indicators 

1. Human health 1,4,5,3a,8

2. Forest health 1,3,4,5,6 

3. Climate change 2,3 

4. Visibility 1,4,5,6,3a,8 

5. Deposition External sources

6. Conformity 7 

7. Ozone injury 7 

Methodology 

The management of air quality involves the identification of the sources of pollutants emitted 

into the air, the quantitative estimation of emission rates of the pollutants, the understanding of 

the transport from the source, and the knowledge of the physical and chemical transformation 

processes that can occur during the transport. These elements can then be combined to produce a 

mathematical model that can be used to estimate the changes in observable air borne 

concentrations that might be expected to occur if various actions are taken. The atmosphere is a 

very complex system and it is necessary to greatly simplify some processes in order to produce a 

mathematical model capable of being calculated on the largest and fastest computers. These steps 

and simplifications lead to further uncertainties. 

The emissions from forest fires were estimated on the basis of forest biomass burned or removed. 

The largest uncertainties relating to emission calculations are fuel loading and burn efficiency. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-32 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The formula used to calculate emissions, assumptions made, and mitigation measures for the air 

quality analysis are given below. 

Formula 

The biomass data (bone dry tons) utilized under different alternatives for each treatment was 

supplied by the Regional Analyst/Modeler (see Section 3.4.10 - Fire and Fuels for description of 

modeling). Emissions for criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics are calculated from 

the provided data using the following formula (based on the work of CARB(2013b), Hardy and 

Others (2001) and Ahuja(2006)): 

PE௜ ൌ DBC ൈ EF௜ ൈ 1

2000 ൗ

PE௜ = Pollutant emissions of type i (tons) 

DBC = Dry biomass consumed (bone dry tons) supplied by Regional 

Analyst/Modeler 

EF௜ = Emissions Factor for i species in lbs/ton of biomass consumed 

1//2000 factor is to convert emissions from lbs to tons. 

The emissions from snowmobiles are estimated based on engine type (2 or 4 stroke), hp and 

number of hours the vehicle used (EFMAC 2013). 

Assumptions 

The following assumptions with uncertainties as described above were made in this air quality 

analysis: 

 Emissions are based on modeled outputs for biomass consumed or removed. 

 This section analyzes the effects of alternative strategies, and not site-specific project 

designs; fuel treatments are assumed to be effective at conditions for which they were 

designed. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, treated biomass is assumed to be as 

effective as treated biomass in any other alternative. 

 Weather, resource availability, smoke dispersion, and other conditions necessary for 

implementation of a prescribed fire are based on models that have associated 

uncertainties. Any project acres of prescribed or wildland fire managed to meet 

resource benefits or objectives are based on the assumption that the smoke 

management plan/burn plan has been submitted and authorization has been received 

from the applicable regulatory agency. 

 For site specific projects, outputs from models like PFIRS and Blue Sky (available 

from Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada Reno) are utilized to 

determine plume location and pollutant concentration and released to the public and 

various agencies to reduce impacts on public and forest health. 

 Passive monitoring every 3-5 years is conducted to monitor trends of ozone, acid and 

nitrogen (N) deposition. The biomass removed for bioenergy and wood products is 

used to calculate GHGs and black carbon emissions averted. 

 Mitigation measures to minimize adverse air quality impacts are determined during 

project planning for application during project implementation. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-33 

 Watershed assessments, to prioritize restoration actions over time, are done and 

improvements evaluated. 

 The IMPROVE monitoring site at Bliss is maintained to monitor visibility for the 

Desolation Wilderness (a Class I area) as required under the state SIP. 

 An accounting for watershed (HUC6 units) carbon budget for GHGs released vs. 

sequestered is tracked and compared over time to calculate the carbon footprint and 

the possibility for offset credits with collaborators under cap-and-trade. A trade-off 

between emissions produced with and without application of emission reduction 

techniques (ERTs) is calculated and utilized for a change in management strategies. 

 Emissions shown for prescribed burn include all planned ignitions. Wildfire 

emissions are from unplanned ignitions. 

 Exhaust emissions are calculated for snowmobiles. Evaporative emissions are 

assumed to be small and insignificant and are not included in the data. The engine 

standards being adopted by the state will further reduce evaporative emissions. 

Mitigation 

In addition to the modeling assumptions outlined above, the air quality analysis assumes that the 

mitigation measures described would be implemented. 

Mitigations common to all alternatives are:

 Fuel load reduction. 

 Appropriate fuel moisture content. 

Mitigations for minimizing PM10/ PM2.5 emissions are: 

 Dust abatement during project implementation. 

 Allowing for adequate cure time before igniting slash material. 

 Covering of hand-piled slash for more efficient burning conditions. 

Mitigation measures for fugitive dust: 

 Water application. 

 Use of dust abatement surfacing material application. 

Mitigation measures for greenhouse gases: 

Emissions or sinks for GHGs at the forest level are too small to provide meaningful information 

to translate the information into global climate change. Mitigation strategies that the agency can 

use include the following: 

 Overstocking reduction. 

 Encourage species that are tolerant to climate change. 

 Degraded ecosystem restoration. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-34 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 Increase carbon sequestration through the implementation of applicable ERTs. 

 Consider non-burning alternatives for fuel reduction when possible (mechanical 

treatment, biomass for co-generation, and biochar where economically viable and 

technically feasible). 

 Consider harvesting timber for wood products that increases residence time of 

sequestered carbon. The strategies that have been proposed for using forests to slow 

the amount of CO2 entering the air (Ryan et. al, 2010) include avoidance of 

deforestation, afforestation, forest management (decreasing carbon loss, increasing 

forest growth, thinning to reduce fire threat), urban forestry, biomass energy 

production, carbon storage in forest products. 

 An evolving practice that needs more research and equipment development is slashfor-biochar in place of slash-for-burn (Hurteau et al 2011, Hurteau et al 2009, 

Hurteau et al 2008). Emissions from fossil fuels are the largest contributors to the 

anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The process that reduces CO2 must be long term 

and substantial, must be accountable, and must have a low risk of large-scale leakage 

(Lehmann , J. 2007). Biochar-sequestration can meet these criteria. When combined 

with bioenergy production, it is a clean energy technology, which reduces emissions 

as well as sequesters carbon. 

Mitigations for Black Carbon: 

 Mitigation measures that are applicable to GHG reduction also help in reducing black 

carbon production. The largest forest generated emissions of black carbon are from 

wildland fire (Bond et al. 2004). These emissions are typically generated in the 

summer and fall. The short residence time (2 weeks) of BC and the timing of 

emissions minimize the impacts of BC emissions to climate change and enhanced 

snowmelt. 

Mitigations for Snowmobile Emissions 

 The state of California is adopting new standards for several types of off-road 

recreational vehicles (including snowmobiles) that will reduce future emissions. No 

mitigations are proposed. The forest also has authority to limit the numbers of 

vehicles during permit issuance. Emissions from snowmobiles are generated during 

winter when there is snow on the ground and temperatures are low. This limits the 

formation of unhealthy ozone from NOx emissions. However any entrapped 

emission constitents are released during snow melt, including black carbon. These 

may get deposited in the soil or discharged into the lake (McDaniel and Zielinska 

2013, and McDaniel 2013). 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-35 

3.4.2.2 Overview of the Affected Environment 

Existing Regulatory and Ambient Air Quality 

Jurisdictional 

The LTBMU area falls under the jurisdiction of both California and Nevada. For air quality 

management, California is divided into fifteen air basins, the boundaries of which are based on 

geographical and meteorological considerations, and follow political boundaries to the extent 

practicable. Several jurisdictions are responsible for the management and enforcement of air 

quality standards for the LTBMU. The California portion of the LTBMU is in two air basins, viz. 

Lake Tahoe (parts of the Eldorado and Placer counties) and Great Basin (parts of Alpine county). 

The Nevada portion of the LTBMU falls in Washoe, Douglas, and Carson City counties. For 

purposes of the SIP, Nevada is divided into three jurisdictions: Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP), Clark County (which houses Las Vegas), and Washoe 

County (which houses the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area). The Clark County Department of Air 

Quality and Environmental Management, as well as the Washoe County District Health 

Department Division of Air Quality Management, have been delegated the responsibility to 

complete SIP requirements for their respective county areas. NDEP is responsible for the rest of 

the state of Nevada. Figure 3-1 shows the Lake Tahoe area with the air quality management 

jurisdictional boundaries. 

Figure 3-1 Air Quality Jurisdictions for LTBMU Area 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-36 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Pollutants from anthropogenic and natural sources are ubiquitous to the air resource. Typically, 

anthropogenic sources such as vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions have the most adverse 

effects to human and ecosystem health. Wildland fire can be an important contributor to 

exposure for the public, particularly those that recreate in or live near the forest. Public health 

effects are dependent on pollutant type and concentration (dose) and on the sensitivity of the 

person (receptor). The primary regulated pollutants are: Particulate Matter (PM10/2.5), Ozone 

(O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Lead (Pb), Sulfate 

(SO4), Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Vinyl Chloride, and Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

To protect human health and welfare, the EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for 

the six Criteria Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5), Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead (Pb). 

Federal and California standards for these pollutants are shown in Table 3-6. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-37 

Table 3-6. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (μg m-3 (ppm)) 

Primary Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal State 

PM10 Annual - 20 

24 hour 150 50 

PM2.5 Annual 12 12 

24 hour 35 - 

CO 8 hour 10 mg/m3

 (9) 10 mg/m3 (9.0) 

1 hour 40 mg/m3 (35) 23 mg/m3 (20) 

8 hour 

(Lake Tahoe) 

- 7 mg/m3 (6) 

NO2 Annual 100 (0.053) 57 (0.030) 

1 hour 188 (0.100) 339 (0.18) 

SO2 24 hour - 105 (0.04) 

3 hour 1300 (0.5) - 

1 hour 196 (.075) 655 (0.25) 

Pb 30 day average - 1.5 

Calendar Quarter 1.5 - 

Rolling 3-mo ave. 0.15 - 

O3 1 hour - 180 (0.09) 

8 hour 147 (0.075) 137 (0.070) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-38 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Primary Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal State 

Sulfates 24 Hour For California 

Only

25 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 

1 hour For California 

Only

42 (0.03) 

Vinyl 

Chloride 

24 hour For California 

Only

26 (0.01) 

Visibility 

Reducing 

Particles 

8 hour For California Only Extinction 

coefficient of 0.23 per km - visibility 

of ten miles or more (0.07-30 miles 

or more for Lake Tahoe) due to 

particles when relative humidity is 

less than 70% 

 Annual standards are never to be exceeded. Other standards are 

not to be exceeded more than once a year CARB (11/17/2008)

Key- PM10/PM2.5= Particulate Matter ; CO=Carbon Monoxide; 

NO2=Nitrogen Dioxide ; SO2=Sulfur Dioxide ; Pb=Lead ; O3=Ozone

Nonattainment Area and Conformity 

If federal standards are violated in any area, that area is designated as “non-attainment” for that 

pollutant and the state must develop a plan for bringing that area back into “attainment.” 

El Dorado and Placer counties are designated 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas for both the 

federal (Figure 3-2 and California standards Figure 3-3). The federal agencies must make 

conformity determinations for projects to be implemented in nonattainment areas.
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-39 

Figure 3-2 Area designations for federal 

8-hour ozone 

Figure 3-3 Area designations for state 

8-hour ozone 

Prescribed and Wildland Fire and Conformity 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit follows Title 17 of the California Code of Regulation – 

Subchapter 2, Smoke Management Guidelines for Agriculture and Prescribed Burning. 

Implementation of prescribed burning will only occur after approval from the appropriate state or 

county air regulator. The new conformity rule states that “the prescribed burns conducted in 

accordance with a smoke management program (SMP) which meets the requirements of the 

EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires or an equivalent 

replacement EPA policy" are considered as "presumed to conform." The EPA has approved 

California's revised Title 17 regulations as an equivalent of a SMP. Therefore, the projects will 

fall under "presumed to conform" for implementing prescribed burning. Therefore, the 

conformity determination requirement will be met for all burns under these conditions. 

The most recent large wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin occurred in 2007 (Table 3-7). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-40 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-7. Wildland fire acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

from 2001 to 2010 

Year Acres 

2007 3,128

2008 5

2009 8

2010 8

Smoke impacts were widespread historically in California with smoke impact in recent years 

well below typical (Stephens et al., 2007). 

Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) 

Figure 3-4 shows the areas most likely to contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) in areas 

of California nearest to the Lake Tahoe Basin. The nearest NOA area is 22 miles from the forest 

boundary. 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-41 

Figure 3-4 Areas likely to contain NOA in the Lake Tahoe Area 

Existing Emissions 

Emissions are tracked by county, air basin, and state. Statewide (CA), Lake Tahoe Air Basin, the 

El Dorado portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Placer County portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin, 

and Alpine County (Great Basin Valleys Air Pollution Control District) estimated annual average 

emissions in tons per day for natural sources (including wildfire) are shown in Table 3-7 (CARB, 

2009b). Emissions are shown for Total Organic Gases (TOGs), Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs), 

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitogen Oxide (NOx), Sulfur Oxide (SOx), Particulat Matter (PM), 

Particulate Matter less than 10 micron (PM10), Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micron(PM2.5). 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-42 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-8. 2010 Estimated annual average emissions (tons/day) for natural sources 

(including wildfire) 

Area TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5

Statewide (CA) 2563.9 2226.2 2481.7 79.4 24.5 263.7 253.4 215.0

Lake Tahoe Air Basin 3.0 2.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

El Dorado County* 2.2 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Placer County* 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alpine County* 9.1 8.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

*portions of individual counties that are in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin. 

Concentrations and Deposition 

Table 3-8 compares the years 2002, 2006, and 2010 passive sampling in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

for O3 ,NH3 and HNO3. The results for 2010 were lower than in previous years. The reason may 

be that 2010 summer was cooler than the typical summer. Comparison of HNO3 concentrations 

showed that HNO3 concentrations for 2002 and 2010 were similar while the highest levels were 

in 2006. NH3 concentrations were lower in 2010 than in 2006. NOx concentrations were similar 

for the Basin and ranged between 2 and 26ug N/m3 Bytnerowicz et al (2013). NO/NO2 ratio 

ranged from 1 to 8. High NO/NO2 ratio indicates that N pollution in the Basin originates from 

the local emission sources (mobile sources). The 2010 concentrations are lower than 2002 and 

2006 (attributable to the fact that summer of 2010 was much cooler than a typical year). It is 

assumed that deposition for the constituents will be propotional to the cncentraions. 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-43 

Table 3-9. Average concentration of NH3, HNO3, and O3 for 2002, 2006, and 2010 

Site 

2002 2006 2010 

O3 NH3 HNO3 O3 NH3 HNO3 O3 NH3 HNO3

Valhalla 45.7 ND 0.9 46.4 3.2 2.5 41.7 2.82 1.01

Sugar Pine 42.8 ND 0.7 42.7 3.4 3.0 35.9 2.01 1.23

Crystal Towers (ICN) 52.5 ND 0.9 51.3 3.0 2.9 51.5 1.13 2.40

Cave Rock 51.7 ND 1.1 55.3 2.7 2.6 46.4 1.58 0.84

White Cloud 66.1 ND 1.7 ND ND ND 41.7 1.57 0.86

Predictive spatial representation by Kriging for the 2-week period ending on August 1, shows the 

highest concentrations during this period west of the Lake Tahoe Basin with higher 

concentrations located on the south and east of Lake Tahoe in the most developed areas 

(Figure 3-5). 

Figure 3-5. Concentration of HNO3 for 2 weeks period ending Aug. 1, 2002 

(Adapted from Bytnerowicz 2004) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-44 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-6. Watershed condition for HUC6

Current levels of N deposition to the terrestrial catchments in the valley are not leading to ‘N 

saturation’ of the terrestrial watersheds and thus do not induce elevated levels of nitrate runoff. 

However, N deposition and gaseous N pollutant exposures within and immediately upwind of the 

mountainous area are within the range at which strong nutrient enrichment-induced changes in 

epiphytic lichen communities occur in the Sierra Nevada (Fenn et al., 2008). Anthropogenic 

emissions of nitrogen are currently the largest contributor to N deposition in LTBMU and will 

remain the primary driver and concern for N deposition more so than any change in nitrogen 

deposition from the alternatives. Hydrologic Unit Code 6 (HUC6) watersheds in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin range in size from 235 to 25,963 acres. The assessment of the condition of the watershed 

to handle N deposition ranges from functioning properly to impaired (Table 3-10 and Figure 3-

6). 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-45 

Table 3-10. LTBMU acreages by Watershed Assessment Units (HUC6) and condition for grouping 

for N deposition 

HUC 6 HUC6 Name Acreage Condition Grouping

160501020202 Squaw Creek-Truckee River 4,290 Impaired 

160501010102 Incline Lake-Frontal Lake Tahoe 235 Unclassified 

160501010301 Big Meadow Creek-Upper Truckee 

River 17,496 Functioning at risk 

160501010302 Trout Creek 25,963 Functioning properly 

160501010303 Angora Creek-Upper Truckee River 19,182 Impaired 

160501010401 Fallen Leaf Lake-Frontal Lake Tahoe 20,205 Impaired 

160501010402 General Creek-Frontal Lake Tahoe 24,958 Impaired 

160501010202 Zephyr Cove-Frontal Lake Tahoe 3,881 Functioning properly 

160501010403 Ward Creek-Frontal Lake Tahoe 19,106 Impaired 

160501010101 Burton Creek-Frontal Lake Tahoe 20,292 Functioning properly 

Atmospheric deposition is the dominant if not the sole source of inorganic N in Sierra Nevada 

lakes and therefore a concern at the LTBMU. A critical load of 4.0 kg per ha per year for 

acidification was exceeded in western mountains in only a few places (Williams and Tonnesson 

2000, Fenn et al. 2003). Atmospheric N deposition that exceeds the nutrient enrichment critical 

load of 1.0 to 3.0 kg N per ha per year is more widespread. 

A model was recently completed which estimates the nitrogen-critical loads for lichens (Geiser 

et al. 2010) along with a monograph on nitrogen-critical loads by ecological region (Pardo et al. 

2011). The model contains recommended parameters for applying the model to other EPA Level 

I ecological regions of the US to assess the impact of nitrogen deposition on lichens at the 6th 

level HUC. This paper describes the process used for the analysis. 

 Good if Maximum Total Nitrogen Deposition < CLmax - 1 

 Poor if Maximum Total Nitrogen Deposition > CLmin + 1 

 Fair, anything between the good and poor ratings above. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-46 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Some watersheds are listed with an “Unknown” rating because there is no critical load (CL) 

model available for those Eco-regions. Although the CL model was not applied to the North 

American Deserts region by Pardo et al. (2011), a CL of 3 kg N/ha/y provided by Pardo et al. 

(2011) based on other eco-regional studies was used here. Using this analysis, most of Lake 

Tahoe Basin is in “fair” condition for nutrient nitrogen critical load. 

Ozone injury to Jeffrey and Ponderosa Pine 

Forest health, resiliency, and sustainability in the LTBMU is dependent on multiple factors. 

Anthropogenic emissions impact human health (i.e. unhealthy criteria pollutants), forest health 

through physical damage (i.e. ozone), changes to nutrient cycles (i.e. nitrogen deposition), and 

altering climate (i.e. CO2 emissions). 

The Watershed Condition (HUC6) or the southern and most of the western units in terms of O3

damage is Functioning at Risk while the north portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin is Functioning 

Properly. There is clear separation of O3 concentration distribution on the western side of 

Desolation Wilderness due to emissions coming from the California Central Valley. There is also 

high O3 concentration on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. High concentrations were at 

high elevations, both on the Genoa and Heavenly elevational transects. Ozone concentration was 

high in the middle of the lake, which could be due to high concentrations of O3 precursors, a high 

rate of photochemical reactions (increase in solar radiation from reflection off the lake surface), 

and possibly a lower rate of titration of NO ( Bytnerowicz, A. 2011). 

The Project Forest Study showed Ozone increases occur North to South in Sierra Nevada forests. 

Chlorotic mottles (as an ozone injury indicator) on ponderosa and Jeffrey pine needles 

(Figure 3-7) were used to assess ozone injury in study plots throughout the Basin (Miller et 

al.1996 and Takemoto and Procter 1996) Ozone damage to plants reduce terrestrial productivity 

leading to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere thus increasing GHGs indirectly. This 

perturbation increases in ozone affect the climate system on considerably longer timescales than 

the ozone atmospheric lifetime of only a few weeks (Unger and Pan 2012) . 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-47 

Figure 3-7 Ozone damage to pine needles 

 

Visibility for Class I Areas (Desolation Wilderness) 

The EPA established the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 1999, a major effort to improve air 

quality in national parks and wilderness areas. The RHR calls for state and federal agencies to 

collaborate to improve visibility in federal Class I areas. The RHR specifies a default method to 

track progress towards the national visibility goal of no anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 

RHR focuses on reducing pollution on the 20% worst visibility days each year while allowing no 

degradation of the 20% best visibility days. Central to the RHR is the concept of the uniform 

rate of progress (URP). The URP is the yearly rate of change required to achieve natural 

deciview (a measurement scale representing perceptible changes in visibility) conditions by 2064 

in a linear fashion beginning in 2004. The URP provides a reference to evaluate progress made 

in the context of the change required to reach natural conditions in 60 years (IMPROVE 2011). 

The IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) is a cooperative 

measurement effort between the EPA, federal land management agencies, and state agencies. 

The network is designed to establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in the 156 

mandatory Class I areas, identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, document long-term trends for assessing progress towards 

the national visibility goal, and, with the enactment of the RHR, provide regional haze 

monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal Class I areas where practical. 

The Haze Algorithm differentiates between large and small aerosols, with large organic aerosols 

having slightly more than twice the capacity to extinguish light than the smaller organic aerosols 

CARB 2009a. Potential sources for are wildfires, prescribed fires, agricultural fires, and other 

biomass combustion sources, including residential wood smoke. Industrial areas and motor 

vehicle sources contribute VOCs. Natural biogenic emissions by plants contribute to the primary 

and secondary aerosol loadings; any of these can be transported from outside the immediate area. 

The wind pattern moves pollutants along the Willamette Valley, offshore, and back on-shore 

through the San Francisco Bay Area, across the Central Valley and up into the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range. Vehicle transportation corridors follow river valleys, which also serve as inter-
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-48 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

basin transport corridors. “Backslider” circulation patterns occasionally rotate Nevada air into 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

An IMPROVE site (BLIS1) is located at Bliss State Park. The Bliss IMPROVE site covers 

Desolation Wilderness. The monitor is located at 38.9761 north latitude, 120.1035 west 

longitude, near the western shore of Lake Tahoe at an elevation of 2,131meters (6,992 ft), about 

219 (719 ft) meters above the shore of Lake Tahoe and near the lowest elevations on the eastern 

slopes of Desolation Wilderness (Figure 3-8). The collected samples are analyzed for PM10, 

PM2.5, SO4, NO3, organic carbon, dust, and soot. The data helps identify sources that generate 

pollutants for visibility degradation. 

Figure 3-8 Bliss IMPROVE site location 

The BLIS1 IMPROVE site is more susceptible to local trapped emissions in the Tahoe Basin that 

do not extend to higher Desolation Wilderness elevations. It is most representative of Desolation 

Wilderness locations on the lower eastern slopes facing Lake Tahoe that may be the worst case 

conditions overall during conditions of uniform regional haze. The closest source region with 

emissions that could contribute to haze in the Desolation Wilderness is the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

The more distant Central Valley of California near Sacramento, from which emissions could be 

transported to Desolation Wilderness, is about 50 miles southwest, linked to Desolation 

Wilderness by the American and Rubicon Rivers. The Reno, Nevada area is about the same 

distance to the northeast but is generally downwind for prevailing wind directions and in a 

distant air shed. Potential emission transport from source regions in the California Central Valley 

occur mainly in the summer. Locally, eastern wilderness locations may be predominantly 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-49 

influenced by emissions within the Tahoe Basin. Highest summertime measured concentrations 

at BLIS1 are associated with regional forest fire events. In the absence of such regional events 

there is likely to be a significant contribution from vehicle traffic in the Tahoe Basin to aerosol 

measures at BLIS1. In the fall and winter there may be wood smoke impacts associated with 

prescribed burns and residential burning in the Tahoe Basin (CARB 2009b). 

Natural visibility represents the visibility condition that would be experienced in the absence of 

human-caused impairment. Based on EPA guidance, CARB calculated the natural visibility for 

the BLIS1 monitor at 0.4 deciviews for the 20% best days and 6.1 deciviews for the 20% worst 

days. It is possible that the natural conditions deciview value for 2064 could change in the future 

as more is learned about natural plant emissions and wildfire impacts. 

Baseline visibility was determined from BLIS1 IMPROVE monitoring data for the 20% best and 

the 20% worst days for the years 2000 through 2004. The baseline visibility for the BLIS1 

monitor is calculated at 2.5 deciviews for the 20% best days and 12.6 deciviews for the 20% 

worst days. Figure 3-9 shows the uniform rate of progress or “glide slope.” The glide slope is the 

rate of reduction in the 20% worst days deciview average that would have to be achieved to 

reach natural conditions at a uniform pace in the 60 years following the baseline period. 

The EPA approved the California haze plan in April,. Comprehensive SIP revisions are required 

every 10 years. The initial planning period of the Regional Haze Rule is 2008 through 2018. The 

first benchmark along the path towards achieving natural conditions occurs in 2018. The glide 

slope shows that the 2018 benchmark for the 20% worst days is 11.10 deciviews. According to 

the Regional Haze Rule, the 20% best days baseline visibility of 2.5 deciviews must be 

maintained or improved by 2018, the end of the first planning period. 

Each pollutant species (PM10, PM2.5, SO4, NO3, Organic Carbon , dust, and soot) causes light 

extinction but contribution differs on best and worst days. 

Figure 3- shows the contribution of each species for the 20% best and worst days in the baseline 

years at BLIS1. 

As shown in Figure 3-10 and Table 3-11, organic matter, sulfates, and elemental carbon have the 

strongest contributions to degrading visibility on worst days at the BLIS1 monitor. Organic 

matter dominates the worst days, while the best days are dominated by sulfate. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-50 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-0 depicts the individual species contribution to worst days in 2002. (The Base line is 

based on the data 2000 to 2003). Organic matter increases in the summer while sulfates increase 

slightly in the spring. The occurrence of elevated elemental carbon concentrations is sporadic 

throughout the year. Organic matter (om) clearly dominates the other haze species on worst days, 

but sulfates (so4, nitrates (no3), elemental carbon (ec), and coarse mass(cm) also contribute to 

the worst days. Sea salt has a very small contribution to haze at the BLIS1 monitor. Marine 

shipping and other long-range transport sources affect SOx contributions but are 

“uncontrollable” by California. 

Figure 3-9. Glide path 

proposed in the visibility 

SIP 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-51 

Figure 3-10. BLIS1 pollutant species for the best and worst 20% 

Table 3-11. Baseline (2000-2004) vs. 2005-2009 data from the Bliss IMPROVE site showing 

the trend for worst visibility days 

Sulfate 

Bext

Nitrate 

Bext

POM 

Bext

EC 

Bext

Soil 

Bext

Coarse 

Mass Bext

Sea Salt 

Bext

2000-2004 5.1 2.4 14.1 3 1 2.1 0

2005 6.9 1.8 11.3 3.1 0.5 1.9 0.1

2006 6.3 1.4 14.4 2.8 0.9 2.4 0.1

2007 5.8 3.7 22.7 3.9 0.8 2.2 0.1

2008 6.3 2.1 49.2 6.3 0.9 2.3 0.1

2009 4.9 1.7 13.5 2.4 0.7 2 0.1

*Light Extinction (Bext) is the attenuation of light due to scattering and absorption as it passes 

through a medium. 

Particulate organic matter mass concentration (POM) is the main contributor to worst visibility 

days (Figure 3-11 and table 3-12). The Basin was impacted by wildfires in 2007 and 2008 that 

are the source of worst visibility days. Historic and projected deciview for the worst 20% days is 

shown in Figure 3-. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-52 Chapter 3 ▪ Air Quality

Figure 3-11. Light extinction from each pollutant on worst visibility days at BLIS1 

Table 3-12. Baseline (2000-2004) vs. 2005-2009 data from the Bliss IMPROVE site showing 

the trend for the best visibility days 

Sulfate 

Bext

Nitrate 

Bext

POM 

Bext

EC 

Bext

Soil 

Bext

Course 

Mass Bext

Sea Salt 

Bext

2000-2004 1.3 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1

2005 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1

2006 1.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1

2007 1.5 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1

2008 1.2 0.3 1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1

2009 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1

*Light Extinction (Bext) is the attenuation of light due to scattering and absorption as it passes 

through a medium. 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-53 

Sulfate and POM are the main contributors on best visibility days. Best visibility days occur 

when levels of organic carbon are the lowest (Figure 3-12 and Table 3-12.). Historic and 

projected deciview for the best 20% of days is shown in Figure 3-3. 

Figure 3-12. Light extinction from each pollutant on best visibility days at BLIS1 

Both natural and man-made sources contribute to the calculated deciview levels made by haze 

pollutants at BLIS1. Some haze species arise from sources that are within the control of the State 

of California and neighboring states. Others arise from natural, uncontrollable situations such as 

wildfires, sea salt, or dust storms in natural areas. Finally, other uncontrollable, man-made 

sources are those industrial pollutants and other manmade (anthropogenic) emissions transported 

from outside the United States. The largest contributor to primary organic carbon at the BLIS1 

monitor is from fire sources. 

Table 3-12 shows the existing 5 years (2000-2004) average deciview value (i.e. existing value 

calculated from IMPROVE monitoring data and the CA state calculated natural visibility values 

that need to be achieved by the year 2064 for best and worst days. These attainment values are 

described in the state prepared visibility SIP approved by the EPA in April 2011. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-54 Chapter 3 ▪ Air Quality

Table 3-13. Best and worst deciviews for the glide path 

Year Best Worst 

2000-2004 2.5 12.6

2064 0.4 6.1

Figure 3-13. Worst and best 20% visibility days 

By looking at the worst visibility graph (Figure 3-13) it is clear that organic carbon from 

wildfires play the major role in causing the decline in worst visibility at the BLIS1 site. 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-55 

3.4.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

Impacts to Air Quality 

This section analyzes potential air quality impacts under the proposed alternatives on human 

health and forest health, resiliency, and sustainability. In addition, impacts of the alternatives on 

visibility and climate change (as indicated by greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions as well 

as carbon sequestration) are discussed. Because the proposed management strategies under each 

alternative can have short and long-term adverse or beneficial impacts to air quality locally, 

regionally, and globally, analysis of environmental consequences to air quality necessarily must 

attempt to balance short-term adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts. Emissions and 

deposition from implementation of the activities projected under the alternatives are often orders 

of magnitude less than those generated from sources outside the scope of this plan. 

Outcomes are determined as beneficial or adverse. Beneficial outcomes reduce emissions or 

provide benefits to human health; forest health, resiliency, and sustainability; visibility; and 

climate change, while adverse increases emissions or have adverse impacts. 

Air quality assessment of alternatives considers the environmental consequences of alternatives 

over time. Impacts that occur during an event are considered short-term impacts while long-term 

impacts consider future emission changes from management practices. Potential short-term 

adverse impacts may occur while generating long-term beneficial impacts. Short-term impacts 

include emissions and impacts associated with events, such as increased pollutant concentration 

during a fire, while long-term impacts consider future impacts to emissions, such as increased 

potential to mitigate future fire emissions through beneficial changes to forest health, resiliency, 

and sustainability (i.e. carbon sequestration stabilization) and visibility. Change in the natural 

ecological role of smoke in Sierra Nevada forest health, resiliency, and sustainability is 

considered. 

Present and future gaseous pollutants and airborne particulate matter would continue to be 

present and dependent on life span (e.g. CO2 has a life span of 200+ years while CH4, O3 and 

black carbon have short life spans and their control can result in CO2 reduction in the short term). 

Primary emissions sources include wood burning stoves, motor vehicle exhaust, emissions from 

recreational campfires, emissions associated with development of private lands, prescribed fire, 

fugitive dust, and wildfires. Burning associated with foreseeable actions, as well as burns 

occurring outside of the managed area can impact air quality and have short-term effects. 

While fire suppression can provide short-term beneficial impacts to local air quality and public 

health, this short-term benefit is balanced with the inherent lack of sustainability and the 

likelihood of adverse long-term impacts from larger, more intense wildfires on air quality, public 

health, and climate change. Fire suppression and the subsequent fuel accumulation generate a 

potential for negative long-term adverse impacts to air quality in the LTBMU. Controlled release 

of the backlog of emissions from fuel accumulation from fire suppression on the LTBMU has the 

greatest potential to alleviate long-term adverse impacts from fuel accumulation and provide 

long-term benefits to air quality that comes from a sustainable forest ecosystem. This method can 

be complemented with use of excess biomass for bioenergy (which generates much less 

pollutants than wood burning) and biochar (which conserves the carbon in a relatively stable 

state). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-56 Chapter 3 ▪ Air Quality

The concept of carbon carrying capacity, the amount of carbon that can be stored in a system by 

watershed condition units (HUC6) as a function of prevailing climatic conditions and natural 

disturbance regimes, has been proposed as a potential foundation for carbon management plans. 

Managing within the carbon carrying capacity for forests requires incorporating an 

understanding of fire and stand dynamics. Altering forest structure by thinning smaller trees and 

then carrying out prescribed burning aggregates carbon into fewer larger trees and reduces the 

potential for uncharacteristic high severity fire. These actions may reduce the amount of standing 

carbon in trees, but they will improve the stability of these carbon stocks over time. Management 

objectives in this context focus on achieving a balance between carbon stock size and carbon 

stabilization that falls within the carbon carrying capacity of the forest. 

Forests provide a suite of ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration for mitigating 

human-caused climate change. However, even if forest-based carbon sequestration were 

maximized to achieve the 1 giga-ton of carbon per year required to mitigate one-seventh of the 

global emissions projected by Pacala and Socolow (2004), reduced fossil-fuel consumption 

would still be required to lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Thus, forests offer a 

bridging strategy and are only part of the climate change mitigation portfolio (McCarl and Sands 

2007). Although forest carbon sequestration does carry a risk of reversal, even impermanent 

carbon offsets generated by increasing above ground forest carbon stocks can serve to reduce 

compliance costs in a cap-and-trade system, and in the case of fire, this risk can be reduced 

(Hurteau et al. 2009, Mignone et al. 2009). However, mitigating fire risk and maintaining forest 

health and ecological function in a fire adapted ecosystem requires periodic carbon emissions 

from prescribed and natural ignition fires. Therefore this is insignificant on a global scale. 

Biomass removal and timber harvest can reduce forest fuel loading from non-resilient and 

ecologically non-functional forest landscapes and can lead to resiliency and sustainability. 

Prescribed fire is an “anthropogenic” source, except where it is utilized to maintain an ecosystem 

that is currently in an ecologically functional and fire resilient condition, in which case it is 

classified as a “natural” source (WRAP 2007). This can also result in less intense wildfires and 

reduce organic matter carbon (OMC) contribution to worst visibility days. Biochar can reduce 

runoff and increase sub-surface water retention to help fulfill ecological restoration goals aimed 

at restoring degraded forest meadows to improve their habitat, function, and ability to hold water 

longer into the summer, and deliver clean water when most needed. 

Pollutant Emissions from Fire 

Emissions are projected through 5 periods with each period consisting of 10 years. 

Because of the difficulty in projecting both acres and emissions from wildfire, particularly over a 

50 year period, the analysis focuses on emissions from Period 1 (the first 10 years) under each 

alternative. 

Pollutant emissions for prescribed fire are the lowest for Alternative B and E, increasing under 

Alternative A followed by Alternatives D and C (Table 3-14. and Figure 3-14). 
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-57 

Table 3-14. Pollutant emissions from prescribed fire for Period 1 (tons) 

Alternative PM10 PM2.5 CO NMHC NOx 

A 3,562 3,188 31,671 2,551 1,028

B 2,802 2,542 26,312 1,643 816

C 4,464 3,996 39,695 3,197 1,289

D 3,822 3,477 36,307 2,130 1,114

E 2,802 2,542 26,312 1,643 816

Figure 3-14 Pollutant emissions from prescribed fire for Period 1 (tons) 

Pollutant emissions from wildfire are similar for all alternatives, with Alternative A showing the 

lowest emissions levels and Alternative C highest (Table 3-15 and Figure 3-15). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-58 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-15. Pollutant emissions from wildfire for Period 1 (tons) 

Pollutant 

Alternative 

PM10 PM2.5 CO NMHC NOx

A 1,275 1,169 12,502 609 373

B 1,418 1,300 13,909 678 415

C 1,528 1,401 14,984 730 447

D 1,466 1,345 14,381 701 429

E 1,418 1,300 13,909 678 415

Figure 3-15. Pollutant emissions from wildfire for Period 1 (tons) 

Total pollutant emissions from prescribed and wildland fire for Period 1 are lowest under 

Alternatives B and E. Emissions increase from Alternatives B and E to A to D to C, being 

highest under Alternative C. 

Table 3-16.6 and Figure 3-16 display the risk of public exposure to pollutant emissions from 

burning and wildland fire would be least under Alternative B and E and highest under 

Alternative C. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-59 

Table 3-16. Total pollutant emissions (prescribed and wildfire) for Period 1 (tons) 

Pollutant 

Alternative 

PM10 PM2.5 CO NMHC NOx 

A 4,837 4,357 44,173 3,160 1,401

B 4,220 3,842 40,221 2,321 1,231

C 5,992 5,397 54,679 3,927 1,736

D 5,288 4,822 50,688 2,831 1,543

E 4,220 3,842 40,221 2,321 1,231

Figure 3-16 Total pollutant emissions (prescribed and wildland) for Period 1 (tons) 

Alternatives B and E have the lowest emissions of air toxics (Figure 3-17). The highest toxics 

would occur under Alternative C. Public exposure to air toxics from prescribed and wildland fire 

combined would be least under Alternatives B and E and highest under Alternative C. Impacts 

from air toxic exposure are most applicable to those closest to the source of emissions, which are 

typically firefighters. Wildfire emissions typically occur during one or two events, where nearly 

all emissions are released in a short time period (typically less than two weeks) with little or no 

control over the timing of these emissions. Prescribed fires (planned ignitions) occur on declared 

burn-day designations under favorable environmental conditions, including good dispersal and 

defined parameters such as size, fuel moisture, temperature, etc. to control emission amounts and 

timing. Planned ignitions allow for flexibility in the timing of the emissions allowing avoidance 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-60 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

of high use times, thereby minimizing exposure to air toxics. Emission rates and timing need to 

be considered when determining impacts from management actions. Maximum impact to public 

health occurs under wildfire. 

Figure 3-17. Air toxic emissions for Period 1 (tons) 

Black Carbon Emissions from Fire 

Figure 3-18 shows total black carbon emissions for prescribed fire and wildfire for each 

alternative for Period 1. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-61 

Figure 3-18. Period 1 black carbon emissions (tons) 

During Period 1, the maximum black carbon is released under Alternative C followed by 

Alternative D, A, B and E. Total black carbon emissions are lowest under Alternative B and E. 

Black carbon, when deposited on snow covered areas especially in the spring, can be a major 

contributor to increased melting, particularly in the Arctic, thereby contributing to climate 

change. Because the lifetime of black carbon is approximately one to four weeks in the 

atmosphere, climate effects from black carbon are typically localized. Historic emissions from 

wildland fire limit the distance of transport of black carbon; however, increased fire size and 

intensity or timing of emissions can increase the effects of black carbon on climate change. Total 

black carbon emissions are lowest under Alternative B and E and highest in Alternative C. 

However, the differences in black carbon emissions between alternatives are very small and 

expected to have little impact on snow melt. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

CO2, CH4, and N20 are the primary greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from land management 

actions. Total GHG emissions are calculated as CO2 equivalents. Alternative B has the lowest 

GHG emissions for prescribed fire and wildfire. Total projected GHG emissions are highest 

under Alternative C. Alternative B and E have the lowest total projected GHG emissions in 

Period 1 (Figure 3-). The GHG emissions from snowmobiles activities are very low in 

comparison to prescribed fires and wildfire and do not vary among alternatives. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-62 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-19 GHG emissions for Period 1 (metric tons of CO2 equivalents) 

Promoting forest health helps to limit GHG emissions, supporting a resilient ecological system 

that mitigates natural release of GHGs. For Period 1, the highest CO2 emissions to the 

atmosphere are projected under Alternative C, followed in decreasing order by Alternative D, A, 

and then B and E. 

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches for carbon sequestration in dry temperate forests: 

carbon maximization and carbon stabilization. Carbon maximization can be achieved by 

increasing the carbon density, on a relative scale, per unit of land area. However, the carbon 

maximization approach neglects the influence of changing climatic conditions and stand density 

on fire weather, fire behavior, fire severity, and tree mortality, and ultimately the potential for a 

very slow forest recovery or vegetation-type conversion (Hurteau 2011). 

Trees sequester carbon; therefore, well-managed forests can act as a sink for carbon rather than 

an emission source. According to Mittal (2009), not all carbon is converted to CO2 during 

wildland fires: black carbon and charcoal are also released and then deposited onto the soil. This 

material can remain in the soil a long time as additional sequestered carbon. The detailed 

research is lacking; however, according to the author, this material can account for up to 30% of 

the CO2 released in a wildland fire. 

Fire suppression policies, dating back over a hundred years, have altered the forests of the 

LTBMU. Climate change projection trends show that the region will become more water stressed 

due to the effects of higher temperatures on evaporation rates (Seager et al. 2007). Fuels have 

accumulated as the interval between fires has increased beyond the intervals associated with an 

active fire regime. This combination of warmer temperatures and accumulated fuels has the 

potential to reduce carbon stocks and net ecosystem productivity if the successional pathway of 

forested ecosystems is continually altered by stand-replacing fires. Such forest ecosystems more 

frequently transition into drought-tolerant grassland and shrub vegetation types. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-63 

Maintaining healthy, resilient forest ecosystems is a key to off-setting CO2 emissions. Prescribed 

fire is a key tool in restoring and maintaining the health and resiliency of forest ecosystems. 

Because smaller fuels typically drive wildland fire behavior, the level of biomass removed under 

each alternative provides another indication of the potential for GHG emissions. The emissions 

under wildfires are generally very high and will vary depending upon the extent and intensity of 

wildfires. The release of GHGs to the atmosphere for a given wildfire year can be greater than 

the carbon sequestration for that area. Figure 3-20 shows the biomass removed under each 

alternative. Forest thinning and follow-up fuels treatments that reduce the accumulation of forest 

fuels lead to smaller and lower intensity wildfires. This can result in reduced emissions of GHGs. 

Greater amounts of biomass removal are projected under Alternatives B, Eand C as compared to 

Alternative A (no action). 

Pollutant Emissions from Snowmobiles 

Among the non-road recreational vehicles snowmobiles(OSVs) are very popular as winter 

activity. The forest has issued use permits for two sites to Zephyr Cove OSV tours and Lake 

Tahoe Snowmobile Tours. The recreationists also use other open areas of the forest that are not 

run by permittee. The data used to calculate emissions for permitted sites is for the 2010-11 

winter, which was an above average snow year (Table 3-17). Permitted use data may overlap 

with the NVUM data i.e. a person who reported OSV use on the NVUM survey may have rented 

an OSV from one of the permittees. For the NVUM data, Table 3-16 shows emissions for 

estimated average use (in hours) with a range of values ±26.3 percent. NVUM methodology and 

analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled: Forest Service National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; 

Southern Research Station; May 2002 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum). 

All the snowmobiles run by the Lake Tahoe Snowmobile Tour site have 4 stroke engines while 

the vehicles by Zephyr and at other forest sites have a mixture of 2 and 4 stroke engines. A 4 

stroke emits less HC, CO and PMs but higher NOx emissions than a 2 stroke engine. Even 

though high NOx (a precursor of ozone) are emitted by 4 stroke engines, ozone concentrations 

are not expected to be higher because of low temperatures during the use period (Science 

Advisory Team 2011). The emissions from snowmobiles will not differ a great deal between 

alternatives. There is a possibility that emissions would be low under Alternative D. Wilderness 

designation in Alternative D would remove a large area currently open to OSVs. This might 

decrease use or it could simply displace users. Otherwise , areas open to OSV use do not vary by 

alternative and thus emissions from OSV use will not differ among alternatives. The table shows 

release of 13458 tons of CO2 from snowmobiles that will add 12207 metric equivalent tons to 

the atmosphere. The amounts are insignificant when compared to the release from prescribed 

and wildland fires. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-64 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-17. Emissions from Snowmobiles (tons/yr) 

Site hp OSV 

use 

(hrs)

stroke HC CO NO x 

(tons/yr)

PM CO2 GHGs 

metric tons 

CO2 eq

Zephyr Cove 

OSV tours 80 6,000 2 29.6 108.5 0.3 0.8 325.4 295.1 

Lake Tahoe 

Snowmobile 

Tours 120 18,654 4 11.5 195.1 21.6 0.7 2,023.4 1,835.2 

NVUM 

estimate 

80 & 

120 146,320 2&4 198.5 1,447.2 103.1 7.1 11,109.7 10,076.5 

Total from 

All Lake 

Tahoe Basin 

Areas 170,974 239.5 1,750.8 125.0 8.6 13,458.4 12,206.8 

Emissions Averted 

Figure 3-20. Biomass removed in Period 1 (bone dry tons) 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-65 

During the first period, the maximum biomass is removed under Alternative B and E, followed 

by Alternatives C, A, and D. 

Timber and biomass removal through mechanical or hand treatments and use of the harvested 

material for wood products, and, in the case of biomass, bio-energy and potentially biochar 

averts emissions from burning and wildland fires. The emissions averted can vary depending on 

how biomass is utilized. The removal of biomass through harvest or other means reduces the 

amount of emissions that would have been generated during wildfire or prescribed fire 

(Table 3-18 and Figure 3-20). Mill waste from harvested material is generally greater than 40% 

but the emissions table is based on total biomass transported to the mill. Therefore, emissions 

averted may be less than shown unless waste is used for bioenergy or biochar. 

Table 3-18. Pollutant emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons) 

Alternative PM10 PM2.5 CO NMHC NOx 

A 7,795 7,148 76,425 3,726 2,281 

B 12,390 11,363 121,485 5,923 3,626 

C 9,801 8,988 96,097 4,685 2,869 

D 6,615 6,067 64,864 3,163 1,936 

E 12,390 11,363 121,485 5,923 3,626 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-66 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-21. Pollutant emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons) 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-67 

For Period 1, Alternatives B and E have the greatest amount of emissions averted for pollutants 

and air toxics, with Alternative D having the least (Table 3-19 and Figure 3-22). 

Table 3-19. Air toxic emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons of CO2 equivalent) 

Alternative Acrolein Benzene Formaldehyde GHG Black Carbon 

A 426 297 1,726 1,218,403 395 

B 677 471 2,744 1,936,765 629 

C 535 373 2,171 1,532,019 497 

D 361 252 1,465 1,034,091 336 

E 677 471 2,744 1,936,765 629 

Total GHG emissions averted are greatest under Alternatives B and E with Alternative D having 

the least. Period 1 black carbon and GHG emissions averted are greatest for Alternatives B and E 

and least for Alternative D. For Period 1, Alternative B and Ehave the largest emissions averted 

while Alternative D has the least. The calculated emissions averted account for removal of 

carbon through timber and biomass harvest. In the event of a change to more extreme fire 

behavior, these emissions averted estimates will lose relevancy. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-68 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-22. Air toxic emissions averted by harvest for Period 1 (tons of CO2 equivalents) 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-69 

Carbon Sequestered 

Above ground biomass is expected to be similar for all alternatives in Period 1, with Alternatives 

C and B and E having the lowest over the five periods (Figure 3-3). There is a less than a 1% 

difference between alternatives in above ground biomass for Period 1. 

Figure 3-23 Above-ground live biomass (bone dry tons) 

To estimate carbon sequestration under each alternative, only above ground biomass is 

considered (Figure 3-24). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-70 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-24 Carbon sequestration under each alternative 

(equivalents of CO2 in metric tons) 

The maximum amount of projected carbon sequestration occurs under Alternative A, followed 

by Alternatives D, B, E and C. Sequestration of carbon under this estimation is based solely on 

forest growth projections and assumes that stand replacing fire does not occur. Large, 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fire would significantly alter the capacity and amount of 

carbon sequestration on the LTBMU. Alternatives B, E and C have lower total carbon 

sequestration through the five periods, with a relatively small difference in the first and second 

periods. Ensuring forest health and resiliency are key to stabilizing carbon sequestration in forest 

ecosystems. Carbon sequestration would be more stable under Alternatives B, C and E. 

The fate of harvested tree carbon can be central to the carbon balance. For example, using 

thinned trees from forests for firewood and accounting for the reduction in fossil fuel used for 

home heating can result in a net carbon loss of 3.11 mega grams (Mg, equal to 1,000 kilograms 

or 1 metric ton) carbon per hectare (ha), whereas using the thinned material for longer-lived 

wood products results in a net gain of 3.35 Mg carbon per ha (Finkral and Evans 2008). In Sierra 

Nevada mixed-conifer forests, understory tree removal can yield a substantial number of trees 

that are appropriate for dimensional lumber production, with lumber being equivalent to 6.4% to 

8.9% of the total post treatment carbon pool (North et al. 2009). North and colleagues (2009) 

reported that the waste associated with milling inefficiency is second only to prescribed fire 

emissions in understory thinning. If the milling waste is used as biofuel to generate electricity, 

the carbon contained in this material can be used to offset fossil fuel-based energy. Assuming 

some percentage of the waste can be converted to biochar, the carbon converted can remain in 

that form for thousands of years, and can also increase soil productivity. 

Hansen et al (2008) showed that improved forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw 

down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net CO2 emission of 60 ±30 ppm over the past few 

hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today. Reforestation could absorb a 

substantial fraction of the 60 ±30 ppm net deforestation emission. Forest wildfires and prescribed 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-71 

fires generate GHGs that can be recouped through plant sequestration partially or completely 

through management strategies. 

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Future wildfire frequency is expected to continue as described in the Fire and Fuels Section 

3.4.11. Future large wildfires could have negative cumulative effects on air quality, depending 

upon the size and intensity of the fire. Visibility impairment and hazardous health impacts, due 

to sudden and dramatic releases of emissions, are likely with a large, high intensity wildland fire 

event. Such events may temporarily reduce visibility and air quality. In addition, they release 

high amounts of GHGs and reduce carbon sequestration from impacted areas for several years 

following fires. The cumulative effects are unknown, because the intensity and size of a wildfire 

is unknown. Research has indicated that wildfires can produce nearly twice the amount of smoke 

as prescribed fire (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-355). Prescribed burning activities 

would comply with California’s Smoke Management Plan to mitigate potential impacts from 

smoke. 

In the event that population, energy consumption patterns, and vehicle travel remain at present 

levels or continue to increase, both short and long-term adverse impacts would continue from 

anthropogenic emissions prevalent in the region and would continue to dominate adverse impacts 

to air resources on the Lake Tahoe Management Basin Unit. The visitation is more tied to 

population growth in adjacent areas(Sacramento, Reno) and in California as a whole . 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue prescribed burning at current levels. It would allow management 

of wildfires to meet resource objectives only in the Desolation Wilderness, leading to increased 

accumulations of surface fuels in the other areas of the LTBMU with an associated increased 

potential for high intensity wildfires in the future and higher potential for air quality degradation. 

Currently, 91% of the Basin is in FRI condition class II or III and only 9% is in condition class I. 

Pollutants, black carbon, and GHG emissions from fire are primarily from prescribed fire. Fuel 

loads can be expected to increase similar to historic levels of increase with fire suppression 

policies. 

Under Alternative A (the no action alternative), short-term adverse impacts to human health 

would be negligible assuming fire activity and smoke generation is similar to those experienced 

in recent years. Short-term changes to NAAQS standard violations would be negligible because 

prescribed burns adhere to smoke management programs established by California’s Air 

Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP). Under the no action alternative, GHG emissions would remain largely unchanged from 

the recent past. Large wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions, reduced visibility, 

and associated NAAQS violations. The potential for an unplanned ignition leading to 

uncharacteristically large and intense wildland fire events would continue to increase, as it has 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-72 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

throughout the Sierra Nevada, leading to increased emissions; therefore long-term adverse 

impacts to human health are moderate under Alternative A. 

Alternative A would have negligible short and long-term adverse impacts with pollutant 

emissions similar to recent years. Impacts to forest health from anthropogenic emission sources 

of air pollutants would continue to be the primary air pollutant stressor to forest health. 

Alternative A would have negligible short-term adverse impacts on air quality Moderate longterm adverse impacts are expected primarily caused by decreased control of emissions during 

wildfire events driven by excessive fuel accumulations and the lack of management strategies for 

adapting to a changing climate, reducing GHGs, and enhancing carbon sequestration. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and preserves, 

perpetuates, and promotes old growth forests to reduce wildfire emissions. Wildland fire 

management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management Units except WUI 

Defense Zones. Alternative B promotes forest resiliency to fire, changing climate through more 

stable environments for carbon sequestration, disease, and insects. Black carbon emissions under 

Alternative B for Period 1 are 52% from prescribed fire, 35% from wildfire, and 12% from 

brush. Period 1 pollutants, air toxics, and GHG emissions from fire are primarily from prescribed 

fire (55%). Biomass is primarily removed through harvest during Period 1 (75% of the total 

biomass removed). Alternative B reduces the potential for large, high intensity wildland fire by 

managing forest health for a changing climate and fire resistance. 

Comparison of Alternative B to Alternative A shows more total acres treated for all periods. 

Wildland fire acreage projections are 17% more under Alternative B compared to Alternative A 

because wildland fire management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management 

Units except WUI Defense Zones. In Period 1, pollutant emissions are 9 to 27% less under 

Alternative B compared to Alternative A, air toxic emissions are 64% less, GHG emissions for 

Period 1 are 12% less. Black carbon emissions are 13% below Alternative A. Biomass removal 

is 32% more in Period 1 under Alternative B compared to Alternative A and 32% more in total 

for all periods. Emissions reduced through harvest in Period 1 are 59% more than Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, short-term beneficial impacts to human health would be negligible based 

on the decreased acres burned, assuming fire activity and smoke generation is similar to levels 

experienced in recent years. Short-term changes to NAAQS violations would be negligible as a 

result of protocols implemented through the APCD and NDEP. Anthropogenic emissions would 

continue to dominate pollutant violation levels. Large wildfires are known to result in high levels 

of emissions with associated NAAQS violations and degraded visibility. The potential for an 

unplanned ignition leading to a large, uncharacteristically severe wildland fire event would be 

limited by management actions leading to decreased GHGs, pollutants, air toxics, and black 

carbon emissions. Long-term beneficial impacts to human health are moderate under Alternative 

B but slightly better than Alternative A. 

Alternative B would have minor short-term adverse impacts, with smoke emissions below that of 

Alternative A and below historic emissions. Impacts to forest health from anthropogenic 

emission sources of air pollutants would continue to be the primary air pollutant stressor to forest 

health. Biomass removal would increase both in Period 1 and for all periods. Total carbon 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-73 

sequestration is 9% less under Alternative B compared to Alternative A, although the level of 

carbon sequestration is the same for both alternatives in Period 1. 

LTMBU actions in Alternative B would have negligible short-term beneficial impacts to air 

quality with increased ability to control fire emission timing and quantity to mitigate human 

health impacts. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts are expected primarily through increased 

biomass removal and reduction of GHG emissions and increased fire resiliency enabling a higher 

probability of maintaining carbon in the forest biomass. Long-term beneficial effects would also 

be realized through Alternative B’s utilization of management strategies that adapt to changing 

climate. Alternative B would have minor short-term adverse impacts as overall emissions from 

this alternative are below the historic normal. Emissions from this alternative are minor in 

comparison to anthropogenic emission stressors. Negligible long-term beneficial impacts on 

forest health, resiliency, and sustainability are expected from the higher probability of carbon 

remaining sequestered by promoting forest resiliency to fire. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and preserves, 

perpetuates, and promotes old growth forest resiliency to reduce wildfire emissions. Wildland 

fire management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management Units except WUI 

Defense Zone. Alternative C promotes forest resiliency to fire, changing climate, disease, and 

insects. Vegetation treatments are designed to reduce the number of entries needed to meet 

desired conditions by thinning to the lower range of desired tree stocking levels, reducing stand 

densities more than in Alternatives A and B. Black carbon emissions for Period 1 are 43% for 

prescribed fire, 30% for pile burning, and 27% for wildfire, with approximately the same total 

amount of black carbon emissions for all periods. Period 1 pollutant, air toxics, and GHG 

emissions from fire are primarily from prescribed fire (45%). Biomass is primarily removed 

through harvest during Period 1. 

Alternative C reduces the potential for large, high intensity wildland fire by managing forest 

health for a changing climate and fire resistance and reducing stand densities to a greater extent 

than Alternatives A and B. 

Wildland fire acreage projections are 29% more under Alternative C compared to Alternative A. 

In Period 1, pollutant emissions are 24% more, air toxic emissions are 23% more, and GHG 

emissions are 24% more under Alternative C compared to Alternative A because wildland fire 

management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management Units except WUI 

Defense and Threat Zones. Black carbon emissions are 24% more under Alternative C than 

Alternative A. Biomass removal under Alternative C is 25% more in Period 1 and 32% more in 

total for all periods compared to Alternative A. Emissions reduced through harvest in Period 1 

are 26% more under Alternative C than Alternative A. Sequestration of carbon under Alternative 

C is equivalent to Alternative A in Period 1 and 9% less in total for all periods. 

Under Alternative C, short-term adverse impacts to human health would be negligible, assuming 

fire activity and smoke generation is similar to levels experienced in recent years. Large 

wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions with associated NAAQS violations and 

degraded visibility. The potential for an unplanned ignition leading to a large, 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fire event would be decreased through Alternative C’s 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-74 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

management strategies, including those aimed at reducing stand density. Increased biomass 

removal would lead to greater forest stand resiliency to fire with increased carbon sequestration 

over all periods and reduced emissions; however, long-term beneficial impacts to human health 

are minor under Alternative C. 

Alternative C would have minor short-term impacts with smoke emissions projected to be lower 

compared to those of recent years. Impacts to forest health from anthropogenic emission sources 

of air pollutants would continue to be the primary air pollutant stressor to forest health. Biomass 

removal would increase under Alternative C both in Period 1 and for all periods compared to 

Alternative A. Total carbon sequestration under Alternative C is less than Alternative A, 

although the alternatives have similar levels of carbon sequestration in Period 1. 

Alternative C would have negligible short-term adverse impacts to human health with increased 

ability to control fire emission timing and quantity to mitigate human health impacts. Increased 

fire resiliency enabling a higher probability of maintaining carbon in the forest biomass is a 

beneficial aspect of Alternative C with minor long-term beneficial impacts expected to human 

health. Forest health, resiliency, and sustainability under Alternative C would have minor shortterm beneficial impacts as Period 1 emissions under this alternative are closer to the historic 

range. Emissions from this alternative are minor in comparison to anthropogenic emission 

stressors. Smoke emissions from wildfires would be reduced as a result of the higher probability 

of carbon remaining sequestered through Alternative C’s emphasis on promoting forest 

resiliency to fire. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D largely allows natural systems to adapt to climate change at their own pace. 

Natural processes are the preferred means to recovery and restoration of disturbed areas. 

Vegetation treatments are focused in WUI areas. Management of natural ignitions and 

prescribed burning are the preferred tools. Wildland fire is recognized as an essential ecosystem 

process in need of restoration, and this alternative utilizes planned and unplanned ignitions to 

meet the need. Wildland fire management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire 

Management Units except WUI Defense Zone. Black carbon emissions under Alternative D for 

Period 1 are 60% for prescribed fire, 10% for brush, and 30% for wild fire, and prescribed fire 

has the largest (53%) of the total black carbon emissions for all periods. Period 1 pollutants, air 

toxics, and GHG emissions from fire are primarily from prescribed fire (63%). Biomass is 

primarily removed through harvest during Period 1 (56% of the total biomass removed). Over all 

five periods, the biomass removal is nearly equal among wildfire 20%, prescribed fire 19%, 

harvest 19%, and pile burning 16%. CO2 equivalents removed by harvest are primarily 

accomplished (75%) in Period 1. 

Restoration of fire as an essential ecological process and increased use of natural ignitions is 

expected to increase the frequency and duration of smoke emissions while fuel accumulated 

through historic fire suppression is consumed. Smoke emissions typical of pre-suppression are 

expected. Alternative D reduces the potential for large, uncharacteristically severe wildfire with 

the emphasis on utilizing fire as a management tool. 

Wildfire acreage projections are 29% more under Alternative D compared to Alternative A 

because wildland fire management for resource objectives is allowed in all Fire Management 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-75 

Units except WUI Defense Zones. In Period 1, pollutant emissions under Alternative D are from 

10% less (NMHC) to 15% more (CO) than Alternative A, air toxic emissions are 10% more, and 

GHG emissions for Period 1 are 10% more. Black carbon emissions under Alternative D are 9% 

more than Alternative A. Biomass removal under Alternative D is 6% less in Period 1 than 

Alternative A and 1% more in total for all periods. Emissions reduced through harvest under 

Alternative D in Period 1 are 15% less than Alternative A. Sequestration of carbon under 

Alternative D is equivalent to Alternative A in Period 1 and 2% less in total for all periods. 

Under Alternative D, short-term adverse impacts to human health would be minor from 

increased use of fire as a natural process to remove biomass, assuming fire activity is similar to 

levels experienced in recent years. Short-term changes to NAAQS violations would be negligible 

because anthropogenic emissions would continue to dominate pollutant violation levels on the 

LTBMU. Large wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions with associated 

NAAQS violations and degraded visibility. The potential for an unplanned ignition leading to a 

large, uncharacteristically severe wildland fire event would be limited by management actions, 

particularly re-introduction of fire as a natural process into the ecosystem. Increased biomass 

removal in Period 1 would lead to greater resiliency to fire with similar carbon sequestration 

over all periods and decreased emissions; therefore, long-term adverse impacts to human health 

are minor under Alternative C. 

Alternative D would have moderate short-term beneficial impacts with re-introduction of smoke 

levels typical in this ecosystem that benefit smoke tolerant biota (Keeley et al 2005). There are 

smoke adapted species such as Chia that germinate with smoke. Certain insects including 

Ovipositors are drawn by smoke to lay their eggs in snags caused by the fire. Certain species 

such as mistletoe and fungus, although part of the Sierra Nevada, are culled to natural population 

levels from episodic smoke events ( Parmeter.1975, and Zimmerman. 1987 ). Smoke cues many 

plant species in Ponderosa Pine forest (Abella.2009 ). Additionally, Keeley( 2005) shows 

increased seed germination and production and cuing for germination in California chaparral of 

the Sierra Nevada. It is a safe assumption that these are not limited to only the lower elevations. 

Impacts to forest health from anthropogenic emission sources of air pollutants would continue to 

be the primary air pollutant stressor to forest health. Biomass removal would decrease slightly in 

Period 1 and remain at approximately the same for all periods. Total carbon sequestration is 

approximately the same across all periods. Long-term beneficial impacts to forest health, 

resiliency, and sustainability are moderate under Alternative D from the re-introduction fire and 

associated smoke emissions. 

Alternative D would have minor short-term adverse impacts on human health with increased use 

of fire. However, careful management of fire would enhance the ability to control fire emission 

timing and quantity to mitigate human health impacts. Increased fire resiliency enabling a higher 

probability of maintaining carbon in the forest biomass is a beneficial aspect of Alternative D, 

but minor long-term adverse impacts are expected to human health through increased emissions. 

Forest health, resiliency, and sustainability under Alternative D would have moderate short-term 

beneficial impacts as overall emissions from this alternative increase from Alternative A and are 

nearer the historic range. Emissions from this alternative are minor in comparison to 

anthropogenic emission stressors. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts to forest health, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-76 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

resiliency, and sustainability are expected due to the higher probability of carbon remaining 

sequestered through Alternative D’s emphasis on promoting forest resiliency to fire. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E includes management strategies to adapt to climate change and preserves, 

perpetuates, and promotes old growth forests to reduce wildfire emissions. Wildland fire 

management for resource objectives is allowed on all NFS lands except the WUI Defense Zone. 

Alternative E promotes forest resiliency to fire, disease, insects and changing climate. Black 

carbon emissions under Alternative E for Period 1 are 52% from prescribed fire, 35% from 

wildfire, and 12% from brush. Period 1 pollutants, air toxics, and GHG emissions from fire are 

primarily from prescribed fire (55%). Biomass is primarily removed through harvest during 

Period 1 (75% of the total biomass removed). Alternative E reduces the potential for large, high 

intensity wildland fire by managing forest health for a changing climate and fire resistance. 

Alternative E resembles Alternative B in terms of air quality impacts and effects. The only 

difference is that Alternative E adds 5000 acres to back country recreation. There is also 5% 

increase in recreational activities. This can lead to minor increase in emissions from these 

activities. The increase in emissions is insignificant as compared to emissions from forest fires. 

In addition the state is proposing new standards for recreational vehicles which will lead to 

significant decline in future emissions as compared to existing emissions. 

LTMBU actions in Alternative E would have negligible short-term beneficial impacts to air 

quality with increased ability to control fire emission timing and quantity to mitigate human 

health impacts. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts are expected primarily through increased 

biomass removal and reduction of GHG emissions and increased fire resiliency enabling a higher 

probability of maintaining carbon in the forest biomass. Long-term beneficial effects would also 

be realized through Alternative E’s utilization of management strategies that adapt to changing 

climate. Alternative E would have minor short-term adverse impacts as overall emissions from 

this alternative are below the historic normal. Emissions from this alternative are minor in 

comparison to anthropogenic emission stressors. Negligible long-term beneficial impacts on 

forest health, resiliency, and sustainability are expected from the higher probability of carbon 

remaining sequestered by promoting forest resiliency to fire.

3.4.2.4 Analytical Conclusions 

All of the alternatives are aimed at reducing the potential for large uncontrolled wildfires that 

typically occur under non-resilient forests. Wildfires present a risk to the public and result in 

damage to both the environment (e.g., increased erosion, air quality degradation) and property. 

Wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions and associated air quality problems. 

Vegetation management treatments provide the opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce the 

magnitude of wildfire air quality problems. 

Comparisons of each alternative to the No Action Alternative are summarized on the next page 

in Table 3-20. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Air Quality ■ 3-77 

Table 3-20. Air Quality Impact summary 

Alternative Issue Short-term Long-term 

B 

Human Health Negligible beneficial Moderate beneficial 

Forest Health Minor adverse Negligible beneficial 

Visibility Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

Climate Change Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

C 

Human Health Negligible adverse Minor beneficial 

Forest Health Minor beneficial Minor adverse 

Visibility Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

Climate Change Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

D 

Human Health Minor adverse Minor adverse 

Forest Health Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial 

Visibility Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

Climate Change Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

E 

Human Health Negligible beneficial Moderate beneficial 

Forest Health Minor adverse Negligible beneficial 

Visibility Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

Climate Change Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-78 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3 Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species 

3.4.3.1 Introduction 

The alternatives (A, B, C, D, and E) under consideration are described in Chapter 2. This 

analysis evaluates the potential direct and indirect effects of the management activities proposed 

under the five alternatives on aquatic habitat as well as federally listed aquatic species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) and Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species. 

Federally listed and sensitive species have been addressed in detail in the Biological Assessment 

(BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE), respectively. Management Indicator Species (MIS) and 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) special interest species are addressed in separate 

documents. A summary of listed species and a comparison of the effects of the five alternatives 

on them are presented in this section. MIS are addressed separately in this chapter, in Section 

3.4.14. Cumulative effects are described in Section 3.5 of this FEIS. 

Methodology 

The purpose of this section is to evaluate effects on aquatic resources from Alternatives A, B, C 

and D, and E. The Forest Plan includes unit-wide land management direction for the following 

program and sub-program areas, which could affect aquatic resources: 

 Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

 Biological Resources 

‐ General/Native Species Conservation 

‐ Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs)/Species Refuge Areas 

‐ Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) 

‐ Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species 

 Forest Vegetation 

‐ Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

‐ General Forest (Non-WUI) 

‐ Managed Wildfire 

 Recreation 

‐ Developed 

‐ Dispersed 

‐ Wilderness 

‐ Backcountry 

 Access to NFS Roads and Trails 

 Permitted Land Uses 

 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-79 

The scope of analysis for aquatic resources covers fish, amphibians and invertebrates, and their 

associated habitats including streams, lakes, wetlands and meadows. The aquatic resources 

analysis is driven by both Forest Service and other federal policies, which include various goals 

to conserve and/or protect species and habitat. The spatial extent of the analysis includes aquatic 

resources across the entire LTBMU. The following aquatic species and their federal and state 

listing status specifically addressed in this analysis are: 

 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi) 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Status: Threatened 

California State Listing Status: None 

Nevada State Listing Status: Vulnerable to Decline Due to Rarity or Restricted Range 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: None 

 Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) 

ESA Listing Status: Proposed Endangered with Critical Habitat 

California State Listing Status: State Candidate Endangered or Threatened 

Nevada State Listing Status: None 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

 Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) 

ESA Listing Status: Proposed Threatened 

California State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern 

Nevada State Listing Status: None 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: None 

 Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) 

ESA Listing Status: None 

California State Listing Status: None 

Nevada State Listing Status: None 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

 Lahontan Lake Tui Chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer) 

ESA Listing Status: None 

California State Listing Status: None 

Nevada State Listing Status: None 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

 Great Basin Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma newberryi)

ESA Listing Status: None 

California State Listing Status: None 

Nevada State Listing Status: None 

US Forest Service, Region 5 Status: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

Of the aquatic species listed above, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, 

and Yosemite toad require consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Sierra 

Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad, as Proposed Endangered and Threatened, 

respectively, will require conference, while Lahontan cutthroat trout, as a threatened species, will 

require formal consultation. 

On June 16, 2010 coordination began between the LTBMU and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), Reno, Nevada and Sacramento, California field offices for species protected 

under the ESA (threatened, endangered, and candidate species) on the revision of the Forest 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-80 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Plan. Discussions on the process for formal consultation, including requesting technical 

assistance for candidate species and incorporation of migratory bird act considerations were 

determined as well as the method of interaction and how information exchange would be 

completed during the revision process. With the changes in Forest Planning rules in late 2010, 

the consultation process with USFWS was placed on hold until the new Draft EIS and Revised 

Draft Forest Plan was released in the spring of 2012. On May 3, 2012 a formal request for 

consultation, technical assistance, and comments was sent to the USFWS (both Reno and 

Sacramento field offices) for the revised Draft EIS and Draft Forest Plan. On April 25, 2013, the 

USFWS published two proposals to list Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog as Endangered with 

proposed Critical Habitat and Yosemite Toad as Threatened with proposed critical habitat (no 

critical habitat was proposed on the LTBMU) and opened a 60 day public comment period that 

ended on June 24, 2013. During and after the initial comment period, the USFWS received 

significant interest in extending the comment period. On July 18, 2013, the USFWS reopened the 

comment period for an additional 120 days. Additional information regarding the status of the 

proposed species and critical habitat listing can be found at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento. 

The aquatic resource analysis is composed of 2 parts, which include habitat and species. 

Potential direct and indirect effects on aquatic special-status species and associated habitat were 

measured by: 1) Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat and 2) Status and Trend in Species 

Distribution. The analysis identifies: (1) the management activities (stressors) associated with 

each alternative, (2) the proposed magnitude of change in these activities by alternative, and (3) 

potential direct and indirect effects from these management activities. Stressors are produced as 

part of implementing programs and sub-programs, which vary by alternative and factor into the 

effects on aquatic resources. Each stressor has an estimated duration (time in which habitat or 

species is exposed to them) and identifies factors causing the stress. 

The analysis area for potential effects is defined as all NFS lands within the LTBMU 

administrative boundary. All measures of effects are evaluated at a basin-wide scale and based 

on the assumption that the future revised LTBMU Forest Plan will be programmatic in nature 

and not area-specific and/or project-specific. All effects are evaluated on a 15-year basis for the 

anticipated life of the Plan; short term effects would be addressed in project-specific NEPA 

analysis as projects under the revised Forest Plan are initiated. 

Assumptions 

In addition to universal assumptions (see Section 3.3), the following aquatic resource specific 

assumptions have been made: 

 Increased recreation capacity would cause or result in increased use 

 Increased access to NFS lands would result in increased access and increased dispersed 

recreation activities. 

 Creation of new developed recreation sites (e.g., facilities, campgrounds) would be 

compatible with natural resource objectives. 

 Expansion of ski resort operational boundaries under Alternatives A, B, C, and E means 

additional ski runs, facilities, lifts and all other infrastructure and activity that occurs in 

current operational boundaries could occur in the newly expanded boundary area. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-81 

 Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) would continue to be an emphasis of small scale 

aquatic restoration projects 

 Actions comprising each program and sub-program area would be consistent with 

pertinent aquatic resource federal and state law and current and proposed revised Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines. 

 Current and future actions for threatened, endangered (T&E) and candidate species 

restoration and recovery would be consistent with the Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery 

plan and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog management strategy, when finalized. 

3.4.3.2 Overview of the Affected Environment 

Lake Tahoe has a relatively small watershed (800 square kilometers, including the lake) for the 

size of the lake surface (500 square kilometers). The basin’s land area is approximately 205,000 

acres, including federal, state, tribal and local government and privately owned lands. The 

federal ownership is approximately 75 percent of the land area in the basin. Between 1870 and 

1900, the forests of the basin were heavily logged for use in mine shafts at the Comstock Silver 

Lode in Virginia City, Nevada. Forest stands have largely been left alone to regenerate during 

the last 100 years, while wildland fires have been aggressively suppressed (USDA 2000). This 

has led to basin forests that are overcrowded with fuels and fairly uniform in age. Urbanization 

of the basin has eliminated 75 percent of its marshes, 50 percent of its meadows and 35 percent 

of its stream zone habitats (USDA, 2000). 

Lake Tahoe was created in the late Tertiary Age when a lava flow blocked the glacially 

formed basin at its north-west extent, allowing it to fill with water (USDA 2000). The Upper 

Truckee River, Trout Creek, Blackwood Creek, Ward Creek and Taylor Creek provide the 

primary water sources to Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe has a mean depth of 313 meters (1,027 

feet) and a maximum depth of 501 meters (1,645 feet). Much of the beauty of the Lake comes 

from its extraordinary transparency and related deep blue color. Secchi disks were visible at 

depths of over 40 meters (131 feet) in the 1960's, and the Lake historically transmitted enough 

light to support beds of mosses and other plants at depths of up to122 meters (400 feet) 

(USDA 2000). In a study released by the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center 

and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, scientist’s report that water clarity dropped to 19.6 

meters (64.4 feet) in 2010, the lowest clarity level ever recorded at Lake Tahoe since 1959, 

when nutrient loading studies were initiated (USDA 2000). Factors likely contributing to these 

declines include climate change and algae growth promoted by increased sediments and 

nutrients. 

Efforts to protect Lake Tahoe since the 1960's have been pioneering examples of watershed 

planning and nonpoint source control, but much work remains to be done. Lake Tahoe is a 

designated "Outstanding National Resource Water" under federal anti-degradation regulations 

and is one of only two lakes with such a designation in California. The Lake Tahoe basin 

receives over 20 million visitor days per year, about five times the visitation to Yosemite 

National Park (USDA 2004). Five million of these visitor days are directly related to outdoor 

recreation (USDA 2004). The Lake Tahoe basin is recognized as a national priority because of 

its high resource value and its sensitivity to water quality impacts; however, increased 

development and watershed disturbance in the Basin continue to impact the Lake and its 

tributaries in spite of a comprehensive point and nonpoint source control program. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-82 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Aquatic Habitat 

Physical Habitat Characteristics 

The Lake Tahoe basin has 11 HUC 6 (Hydrologic Unit Code 6) watersheds encompassing 63 

perennial streams and approximately 400 miles of stream (USGS 1994), of which three-quarters 

are within the LTBMU. The watersheds vary in elevation (1,900 to 3,320m (6,225 to 10,900ft)), 

size (1195 to 14585 hectares (2,953 to 36,040 acres)), geology (granitic or volcanic), and level of 

disturbance. The largest watershed is the Upper Truckee River which contains 14,585 hectares 

(36,040 acres), which serves as the main inlet for Lake Tahoe as well as the major source of 

sediment followed by Blackwood and Ward, respectively (USDA 2000). 

Watersheds and associated perennial streams vary in topography and precipitation based on 

orientation (TRPA and USDA 1971). Streams on the west side of the basin are steep and receive 

an average annual precipitation of 180 to 200 cm (71 to 79 inches) on average. In contrast, 

streams on the east side of the basin are less steep and typically get approximately 90 to 100 cm 

(30 to 39 inches) of precipitation on average. Both the north and south side streams and 

watersheds are intermediate in terms of steepness and precipitation in comparison; however, 

streams on the south side are the most gradual in slope because the rim of the basin is farther 

from the lake. Because of this characteristic, streams on the south side of the basin are large with 

a high diversity in channel morphology specifically towards the mouths of the channel. 

Between 1993 and 2004 the LTBMU conducted watershed improvement needs (WIN) 

inventories throughout the Lake Tahoe basin. During these inventories all, trails and stream 

channels were visited to identify areas of accelerated erosion, and opportunities for restoration 

(See Section 3.4.26 – Watersheds for more information). Additionally, all streams in the Basin 

were classified using the Rosgen Channel Typing protocol (Rosgen 2006).as well as fish habitat 

typing. This information was used to identify stream reaches exhibiting unstable geomorphic 

channel characteristics and poor aquatic habitat quality. 

There are approximately 325 permanent lakes ranging in size from 0.012 to 49,776 hectares 

(0.03 to 123,000 acres). Of those 325 lakes, 273 or 84percent are located on NFS lands. More 

than half of the lakes (186) on NFS lands are less than 1 acre in size. Within the Lake Tahoe 

basin boundary, there are approximately126, 655 acres of lakes. Of these acres, 122,786 are Lake 

Tahoe while 2,400 are within the LTBMU jurisdiction with the remaining 1,470 acres in other 

ownership. 

Management of Lake Tahoe falls under the jurisdiction of the States (both California and 

Nevada); however, restoring and protecting Lake Tahoe, including associated aquatic habitats 

and species, is a shared responsibility. 

Historic Land Uses and Impacts to Habitats 

Regardless of orientation or jurisdiction, aquatic ecosystems in the LTBMU have been 

influenced by major historic land uses and practices such as Comstock era logging (1860-1920), 

cattle and sheep grazing (1850’s-1950’s), rapid human development (1960-1980), and fire 

suppression throughout the basin (1911-present). 

Fine sediment (<20 microns) transport to Lake Tahoe, and its effect on Lake Clarity is a primary 

water quality concern in the Lake Tahoe basin. Nutrient inputs (nitrogen and phosphorus) are 

also a concern, particularly as it affects near shore clarity (See Section 3.4.24 – Water Quality for 

more information). Invasive species in the forms of both aquatic plants and mollusks have also 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-83 

been recently identified as a major contributor to adverse impacts on near shore clarity. Because 

of the multi- jurisdictional status of Lake, conservation, enhancement and restoration efforts are 

often multi-agency endeavors. 

During the Comstock Era, many land use practices contributed to the degradation of water 

quality in both lakes and streams and to the creation of unnatural bodies of water by damming 

and diversions. At least two-thirds of the basin’s forests were clear-cut. Clear-cutting and 

uncontrolled grazing probably caused the discharge of heavy loads of sediment into regional 

water bodies (Elliott-Fisk et al. 1997; Heyvaert 1998). In addition, Strong (1984) noted that it 

was common to dump sawmill waste, such as sawdust, directly into streams and Lake Tahoe. 

Heyvaert (1998) estimated that sediment deposition rates into Lake Tahoe increased between 

seven- and 12-fold during this era compared to pre-European deposition rates. Streams and lakes 

throughout the basin, such as Marlette and Spooner lakes, were dammed and diverted to maintain 

a supply of water to logging flumes (Strong 1984; Landauer 1995). This practice created 

artificial water bodies and changed water levels in existing water bodies such that lowland 

vegetation and riparian communities were presumably converted to aquatic systems. Some 

historians speculate that the diversion of streams and the deposition of large quantities of 

sediment and silt in streams and lakes were partially responsible for the decline of native LCT 

(Gerstung 1988; Elliott-Fisk et al. 1997). 

Wetlands and meadows experienced heavy grazing pressure during the late 1800’s through 

1900’s, which likely negatively affected stream environment zones as well as lakeshore habitat. 

Grazing continues to be an authorized use on the LTBMU; however, all grazing allotments are 

currently in vacant status. Since the mid-1900s, approximately 75 percent of marshes and 50 

percent of meadows have been degraded, and around 25 percent of the basin’s marshlands were 

developed between 1969 and 1979 (Elliott-Fisk et al. 1997). Development includes conversion 

from wetlands and meadows to housing developments, parking lots, and marinas, for example. 

In the 1870s, the first dam on Lake Tahoe was built at the Truckee River outlet, and its use was 

debated by local residents (Landauer 1995). The dam raised the lake’s water level by 2m (6 feet) 

(Elliott-Fisk et al. 1997). Raised lake levels have altered the dynamics of marshes surrounding 

the lake. Loss of these once dynamic systems has altered habitats for native species as well as 

systems that acted as sediment and nutrient sinks, thus protecting the clarity of Lake Tahoe. 

Current Land Uses and Habitat Impacts 

With urbanization came facilities and amenities that encouraged the growth of tourism. The 

LTBMU is recognized as one of the nation’s most popular recreation areas and receives 

approximately 4.6 million visitors per year. The high concentration of recreation activities and 

type of recreation activities (i.e., motorized, non-motorized, developed, dispersed) affect the 

condition of the aquatic habitat and influence abundance, distribution, and community structure 

of native species. The LTBMU manages campgrounds, resorts and lodges, day use sites, 

recreation residences, and ski areas, and also provides special use permits for management of 

developed recreation facilities, outfitter and guide activities and organized events. Recreation 

activities occur throughout the Basin but many highly concentrated activities occur along the 

lake shore where there tend to also be a variety of sensitive habitat types (e.g., meadows, 

marshes, etc.) and species. This is particularly true of the south shore, an area that has 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-84 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

particularly high recreation use and also a high concentration of sensitive wildlife species and 

habitats. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Of increasing concern is the spread of aquatic invasive plant, animals and disease pathogens 

throughout Lake Tahoe and its associated water bodies. These species are known to have 

significant impacts to economic, social and ecologic functions (USACE, 2009). Aquatic invasive 

species (AIS) may be transported from infested lakes and rivers via a variety of pathways, for 

example, recreational watercraft, fishing gear, waders, construction machinery, and rafts. These 

invasive species include: zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena polymorpha and D. rostriformis

bugensis, respectively), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curlyleaf pondweed

(Potamogeton crispus), and Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea). 

Despite public awareness campaigns and regulations prohibiting their introduction, both plant 

and animal invaders have been found on boats traveling to or preparing to launch in Lake Tahoe 

and other waterbodies in the basin. The Lake Tahoe basin is not only threatened by new AIS 

from other waterbodies, but also the expansion of existing populations within Lake Tahoe that 

expand the threat of further spread with in the Basin to nearby waterbodies. As examples, 

Eurasian watermilfoil has been spreading from the south to the western shores of Lake Tahoe 

over the last 15-20 years, and curlyleaf pondweed has begun to expand dramatically at the south 

end of the Lake over the last three years. Additionally, beds of Asian clams have been 

established in Lake Tahoe and are degrading water quality and aquatic habitat (USACE, 2009). 

Populations of warm water fishes such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) are expanding in the mouths of various tributaries and lagoons, 

specifically in marinas, which provide optimal habitat for these invasive species (Kamerath et al. 

2008). Moreover, global climate change has resulted in warmer water temperatures, likely 

facilitating the establishment of non-native plants in the nearshore environment and providing 

increased spawning areas for warm water fishes that compete with desirable species. 

In recent years, warm-water fishes, e.g. bluegill and largemouth bass, occur at 58% of the 16 

locations monitored in Lake Tahoe. Their establishment in the south (e.g. Tahoe Keys) has led to 

the continued decline of native fishes since 1999; when non-natives are present, often no native 

fish are caught during the surveys (Kamerath et al. 2008). 

An Establishment Likelihood Model was developed by University of Reno (UNR) for 

largemouth bass based on limnological and satellite data. Temperatures observed in this study 

revealed the entire near shore is thermally suitable for warm water fish spawning, and that future 

establishment is currently limited by the distribution of aquatic plants (Chandra, 2013). 

A Bioenergetics Model was also developed by UNR to determine the potential impact of 

largemouth bass on native fishes. After numerous simulations the model indicates these 

predators could eliminate 100% of fish biomass at 37- 80% of sites examined. Fortunately the 

movement and establishment of warm water fishes is still in its early stages and fish exhibit 

generally slower growth rates, allowing for the potential control of these populations (Chandra, 

2013). A control project is currently being implemented in the Tahoe Keys by CDFW; although 

funding is becoming limited making future treatment uncertain. 

Aquatic ecosystems within the LTBMU provide critical habitats for fishes, amphibians, benthic 

invertebrates and lake plankton. Aquatic ecosystems not only include streams and lakes, but also 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-85 

a complex network of wetlands and meadows that provide hydrated conditions in the form of 

springs, seeps, swamps/marshes and lagoons AIS threaten the diversity or abundance of native 

species and the ecological stability of infested waters USACE 2009). Given AIS are commonly 

spread by activities such as boating, fishing, hatchery releases, and aquarium dumping, an area 

such as Lake Tahoe, with the large amount of visitor use, is highly susceptible to invasion. 

Restoration Efforts 

Concern for the basin’s water quality and aquatic habitat has steadily increased since the 1960s, 

as research continues to reveal the impacts of urban pollution, particularly sewage and runoff, on 

the basin’s watersheds and on Lake Tahoe itself (Goldman et al 1986). Most sources of pollution 

have long-lasting effects. For example in the 1970s, Heavenly Creek still carried 60 times the 

nutrient load of Ward Creek five years after sewage effluent was released around Heavenly 

Creek (Strong 1984). To address these problems, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) 

announced a set of environmental threshold carrying capacities in 1982 that were designed to 

control nutrient loading and other damage to Lake Tahoe’s natural resources (TRPA 1982). 

Since the adoption of the 1988 Forest Plan and the creation of the Environmental Improvement 

Program (EIP) in 1997, functional characteristics of aquatic habitats have improved as a result of 

stream and wetland restoration efforts, reduced grazing pressure and/or installation of water 

quality upgrades at road/trail and recreation facilities. Based on benthic macroinvertebrate results 

from 2011, the overall quality of most streams is good to excellent with nearly 70 % are in 

reference condition (i.e. undegraded and therefore in compliance with the Clean Water Act). 

Restoration efforts to restore physical and biological processes, such as efforts at Blackwood 

Creek, Trout Creek, and Cold Creek, all of which were Environmental Improvement Projects 

(EIP), not only improved geomorphic processes but are also improved habitat for native species. 

Since the creation of the EIP, over 3,000 acres of sensitive land have been acquired, 800 acres of 

wetlands have been restored, 30 miles of state highways have improved stormwater runoff, 60 

miles of dirt roads have been re-vegetated or removed 

Aquatic Organism Passage 

Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) was assessed in 2010 and 2011. In the summer of 2010 the 

LTMBU evaluated 112 road/stream crossings. Of these, 61 had full assessments completed and 

51 were partial assessments due to factors such as no flow, no structure, the crossing was a 

bridge, or the crossing was on a decommissioned road. Approximately 82% (50 of 61) of the 

full assessment on all road crossings do not meet the criteria for fish passage (RED), and are 

barriers for at least one life stage of salmonid or sculpin. Only 11% of the fully assessed 

crossings met the passage criteria (GREEN) to fish for both juvenile and adult salmonid life 

stages. The remaining 7% of fully assessed crossings were undetermined (GREY) for salmonid 

or sculpin and are candidates for further evaluation. In the summer of 2011, the LTMBU 

evaluated 204 road-stream crossings. Of these, 117 had full assessments completed and 87 were 

partial assessments. Approximately 82% (96 out of 117) of the full assessments on all roadstream crossings in the 2011 survey did not meet the criteria for fish passage (red), and were 

barriers for at least one life stage of salmonid or sculpin. Only 8% (9 out of 117) of the fully 

assessed crossings met the passage criteria (green) for both juvenile and adult salmonid life 

stages. The remaining 10% of fully assessed crossings were indeterminate (gray) for either 

salmonid or sculpin and are candidates for further evaluation. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-86 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Climate Change 

Changes in temperature, precipitation, and fire behavior have been occurring in the Lake Tahoe 

basin and throughout the Sierra Nevada due to fire suppression and a changing climate and are 

likely influencing aquatic habitat. Mean annual temperature has risen by about 17 degrees 

Centigrade (two degrees Fahrenheit) and precipitation has increased by 7 inches over the past 98 

years; however, there is large interannual variability (DEIS Appendix C, Safford 2010). Overall 

there appears to be a strong upward trend in air and lake temperature, rainfall intensity, a shift 

from snow to rain, earlier seasonal snowmelt events, and increased inter-annual variability in the 

Lake Tahoe basin (Coats 2010). Stewart et al. (2005) showed that the onset of spring thaw in 

most major streams in the central Sierra Nevada occurred 5-30 days earlier in 2002 than in 1948, 

and peak streamflow (measured as the center of mass annual flow) occurred 5-15 days earlier. 

The Sierra Nevada has experienced an increased frequency of fires since the 1980’s (Westerling 

et al. 2006) and an increase in the mean and maximum fire size, total burned area, and fire 

severity between the early 1980’s and 2007 (Miller et al. 2009); increases are attributed to the 

interaction between climate change and increasing forest fuels. 

Changing climate conditions are likely influencing amphibian and fish populations in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin but our understanding of the effects are not well understood and predictions are 

limited due to the complexity of biological and physical interactions. Temperature, water quality, 

food availability, flow regime, and biotic interactions are all critical factors for aquatic species 

distributions (Wegner et al. 2011). Changes in aquatic habitats will parallel trends in climate 

changes, streams and lakes will become warmer, flow will be more variable, there will be an 

increase in extreme events such as flooding, droughts (Rieman and Isaak 2010). Changes in 

sediment input and recruitment of large woody debris will likely occur due to altered forest and 

riparian communities and increased fire (Rieman and Isaak 2010, Miller et al. 2007). 

Individual species will respond differently to changing climate, which may change community 

composition and lead to the formation of novel communities. Sensitivity to changes in 

temperature and flow regime varies by species. Trout and salmon require cold water to survive 

and the warming of the atmosphere will increase water temperatures, making certain sections of 

streams and rivers uninhabitable for trout and salmon as water temperatures increase. Most 

climate change models predict water temperature increases of approximately 5.4° F by the year 

2050. Fish that are already stressed by poor water quality, degraded habitat, and non-native 

species will have a harder time as these natural disturbances increase and cause additional strain 

on them (Haak 2010). Additionally, trout are coldwater species that are sensitive to high water 

flow after spawning (Wenger et al. 2011). 

Amphibians are more threatened than either birds or mammals due to a combination impacts 

including: non-native fish introduction (Knapp 1996, Knapp et al. 2000a), disease (Daszak et al. 

2003), habitat loss (Davidson et al. 2002) ultraviolet (UV) radiation (Blaustein et al. 1988, 

Blaustein et al. 2003), climate change (Davidson et al. 2002, Stuart et al. 2004) and pesticide use 

(Davidson et al. 2002, Boone and Bridges 2003). 

In order to survive, species have two options, migrate to appropriate conditions or adapt to new 

environmental conditions (Hawkins et al 2008). Species will only be able to migrate if habitat 

exists and barriers to dispersal and migration do not (Rieman and Isaak 2010). 

In addition to the physical habitat qualities, habitat needs to be suitable biologically. It cannot be 

degraded by competition with or predation by non-native species or disease. Climate may play 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-87 

an indirect role in facilitating disease. Chytridiomycosis (Chytrid fungus) is a fungal disease that 

infects amphibians and has been causing mortality and population declines worldwide (Berger et 

al. 1999, Daszak et al. 1999, Fellers et al. 2001, Bradley et al. 2002, bell et al. 2004). Fungal 

habitat is normally influenced by temperature and water availability (Bosch et al. 2007). Bosch et 

al. (2007) identified a positive correlation between climate change and chytridiomycosis. 

Aquatic Species 

Fish 

A basin-wide inventory of native non-game fishes was initiated in 2007 to gain an understanding 

of the current distribution, relative abundance of species and relative composition of native fish 

species verses non-native within tributaries. The monitoring efforts were intended to determine 

and inform land managers of the baseline conditions of fisheries and provide information for 

future watershed and ecosystem level management decisions. To date 26 streams within the Lake 

Tahoe basin have been surveyed. Data from these monitoring activities revealed that native nongame fishes have been eliminated or drastically reduced in tributaries where wide spread 

introduction of non-native salmonids have occurred. 

Of the 26 streams surveyed since 2007, 15 have been dominated by non-native trout. Non-native 

trout have occupied nearly every habitat in all tributaries surveyed throughout the fish 

assessment and account for approximately 61% of fish surveyed since 2007. Paiute sculpin, 

speckled dace, and Lahontan redside shiner make up 38% of all fish surveyed, while the other 

native species and warm-water invasives including bluegill, brown bullhead, and goldfish make 

up the remaining 1% (USFS 2011). Surveys determined when native non-game species were 

detected, it was typically in the lower third of streams (USFS 2010). 

Species such as mountain whitefish, Tahoe sucker, Lahontan redside shiner and Paiute sculpin 

historically dominated Lake Tahoe’s species assemblage, along with Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

Other studies found similar distributions and determined that of the eight native species 

historically found in the Tahoe Basin, Lahontan cutthroat trout and Lahontan lake tui chub are 

vulnerable and mountain whitefish is near threatened (Moyle et al. 2011, Moyel et a. 1995, 

Moyel et a. 1989). Native fish species have also been further depressed by the illegal 

introductions of invasive warm-water fishes. In 2011, California Department of Fish and Game 

initiated manual removal efforts of invasive warm-water fishes in the Tahoe Keys and will 

continue such management in 2012. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Similar monitoring efforts occurred in lentic habitats to determine the status and trends of 

amphibian and reptile populations from 2002 through 2004 (Manley et al. 2005). Results were 

consistent with other research that describes this habitat and associated species particularly 

vulnerable to degradation because of sensitive physical, biological, and chemical balanced 

required to sustain the biological integrity. Specifically, amphibians and non-native fish 

interactions have proven detrimental to native amphibian population throughout the Sierra 

Nevada’s, including Lake Tahoe (Knapp 1996, Knapp et al. 2000a). 

Results from the basin-wide monitoring effort determined that of the four native amphibians and 

three native garter snakes species, with the exception of Pacific treefrog, all had low occupancy, 

and that long-toed salamander, western toad, and Sierra Nevada-yellow legged frog were 

vulnerable of extinction (Manley et al. 2005). Of the 72 lakes and 16 wet meadows (88 sample 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-88 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

units) that were sampled, Pacific tree frogs were present in 43 of the sample units while the 

remaining native species occurred in only one to eight of the 88 sample units. 

It is evident from these survey results that native amphibians in the Lake Tahoe basin are at risk 

of population declines and potential extinction. The number of sites occupied by the American 

bullfrog, an aquatic invasive species that predates on native species and a vector of infectious 

disease (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has been detected at the majority of low elevation 

lentic habitats (Manley et al. 2005) and has the potential to spread with rising water temperatures 

predicted through climate change. Bullfrogs are considered are known to prey on any species 

smaller than themselves, including other bullfrogs. Eradication of bullfrogs would be required in 

any native species recovery effort. 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi) 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) was listed as an endangered species in 1970 (Federal 

Register Vol. 35, p.13520). In 1975, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as 

amended (ESA), LCT was reclassified as threatened to facilitate management and to allow 

for regulated angling (Federal Register Vol. 40, p.29864). In 1995, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its recovery plan for LCT, encompassing six river 

basins within LCT historic range, including the Truckee River basin. Endangered Species 

Act Specific recovery targets related to down listing (i.e. number of self-sustainable subpopulations) have yet to be determined for the basin. 

The 2009 LCT 5-year status review recommended the following range-wide actions 

including: revise the 1995 recovery plan, develop state and tribal hatchery management 

plans, improve utility of monitoring/accomplishment databases and develop regulations to 

help conserve LCT. Discussion between both state and federal agencies regarding the 

revision to the 1995 recovery plan has occurred, but revision has not been formally 

initiated. 

Historically, LCT occurred throughout the Truckee River drainage from lakes and streams 

within the Lake Tahoe basin downstream to Pyramid Lake, which has no outlet (Gerstung, 

1988). The LCT in Pyramid Lake and Lake Tahoe were known regionally as a valuable 

food source consumed by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the Washoe Tribe, early 

explorers and by commercial fishermen (Fowler and Bath 1981). By 1938 LCT had been 

extirpated from the Tahoe Basin. Historically, LCT utilized both lake and stream habitats. 

Like other native fish species, they preferred cold water habitat but could utilize a wide 

variety of habitats as long as oxygen levels were high and cover and food were plentiful. 

Stream dwelling LCT feed on drift, typically a combination of terrestrial and aquatic 

insects. In lake habitat, small LCT fed on zooplankton or insects, while larger LCT fed on 

other fish species, historically Lake Tahoe tui chub (Moyle, 2002) 

LCT were introduced to the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River in Meiss Meadows in 

the late 1980’s and early 1990’s through a cooperative effort between the CDFW, USFS 

and FWS. The Meiss Meadow population is one of the only high-elevation meadow 

populations of LCT in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and also functions as a source 

population for LCT in the lower river. This is the only self-sustaining population in the 

Lake Tahoe basin. Expansion efforts were initiated to increase the range of this population 

in 2009 and will continue through 2015. Additional recovery actions for LCT are ongoing 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-89 

in Fallen Leaf Lake and Glen Alpine Creek. Future recovery activities could also over the 

next 10 years in Lake Tahoe, and Third, Blackwood, Meeks, and Taylor creeks. 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) 

Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) is a Proposed Endangered Species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species (USDA 

Forest Service 1998). On April 25, 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a 

proposal in the Federal Register (Federal Register Vol.78, No. 80) proposing listing SNYLF as 

endangered and designating critical habitat. The criterion for the proposed listing is based on the 

danger of extinction throughout the species entire range and on the immediacy, severity, and 

scope of the threats to its continued existence. These threats include habitat degradation and 

fragmentation, predation and disease, climate change, inadequate regulatory protections, and the 

interaction of these various stressors impacting small remnant populations. There has been a 

rangewide reduction in abundance and geographic extent of surviving populations of frogs 

following decades of fish stocking, habitat fragmentation, and most recently a disease epidemic. 

Surviving populations are smaller and more isolated, and recruitment in disease-infested 

populations is much reduced relative to historic norms. This combination of population stressors 

makes persistence of the species precarious throughout the currently occupied range in the Sierra 

Nevada. 

It is recognized that restoration and recovery efforts are needed to restore the species habitat and 

prevent its range-wide extinction. To date, range-wide conservation activities (including the 

development of a conservation strategy) for SNYLF have been accomplished in a multi-agency 

format involving the FWS, National Park Service (NPS), US Forest Service (USFS), CDFW and 

academic institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley and Sierra Nevada Aquatic 

Research Laboratory. 

SNYLF occupied the majority of lake, pond, marsh, and stream habitats within its historic range, 

and may have been the most abundant vertebrate in these montane ecosystems (Grinnell and 

Storer 1924). Because of their abundance, SNYLF played important roles in structuring aquatic 

ecosystems, nutrient cycling and food web dynamics (Finlay and Vredenburg 2007). Non-native 

trout, however, that have been introduced to over 90% of the historic SNYLF habitat have 

drastically altered these ecosystems (Knapp et al. 2008, Epanchin et al. 2010). The introduction 

of fishes into naturally fishless mountain lakes often results in the extirpation of large-bodied 

zooplankton species (Knapp et al. 2008). In another study comparing 24 fishless and stocked 

lakes, lakes with fish had 98% fewer mayflies than did fishless lakes (Epanchin et al. 2010). The 

presence and abundance of mayflies is an indicator of the health of a waterbody and an important 

found source for aquatic species. The decline of the SNYLF is being driven primarily by the 

introduction of non-native fish and the emerging infectious disease, Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis (sometimes referred to as Bd or chytrid fungus) (Knapp et al 2003, Vredenburg 

2004, Knapp et al 2007, Vredenburg et al 2010). 

Within the historical range of SNYLF, most aquatic habitats were naturally fishless due to the 

presence of natural barriers that prevented the upstream movement of fish from occupied 

downstream habitats. Starting in the mid-1800s, several species of trout were widely introduced 

into fishless lakes and streams throughout the Tahoe Basin. Predation by trout on all SNYLF life 

stages resulted in marked declines of SNYLF across their range (Knapp and Matthews 2000, 

Vredenburg et al. 2005). These declines caused by introduced trout are now being partially 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-90 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

reversed via removal of trout populations from some sites by the NPS, CDFW, and USFS 

Knapp et al. 2007). 

Bd is a skin disease linked to population declines and extinctions of over 200 amphibian species, 

including SNYLF (Longcore et al., 1999; Skerratt et al., 2007). Since its description in 1999, a 

considerable amount of research on the pathogen’s life history, physiology, population genetics, 

its responses to host immunity and how it causes death has occurred (Morehouse et al., 2003; 

Piotrowski et al., 2004; Berger et al., 2005; Rollins-Smith and Conlon, 2005; Morgan et al., 

2007; Woodhams et al., 2007a, b, 2008). However, much less is known about how to control or 

manage the disease in nature. There have been recent developments in research using 

Janthinobacterium lividum (J. lividum), a skin microbe naturally found on amphibians. Studies 

have determined that skin microbes, like J. lividum, can enhance the disease resistance and thus 

reduce the impacts of the disease (Harris et al. 2009). Although additional research on the 

relationship of amphibians’ skin microbes and Bd is needed, these new breakthroughs are 

promising. Research is currently underway in Desolation Wilderness that will test a treatment 

method using skin microbes. 

SNYLF has been nearly extirpated from the Lake Tahoe basin. A small remnant population was 

discovered in Hell Hole Meadow, located in the headwaters of Trout Creek in the 1990’s. 

Monitoring in the last decade has shown that the Hell Hole population is all but extirpated 

presumably due to prevalence of Bd and other factors. In an effort to avoid extirpation from the 

LTBMU, a recovery effort was initiated in 2008 to restore historic habitat in Desolation 

Wilderness. Seven lakes were identified in close proximity to source populations on the Eldorado 

National Forest. A sub-adult was detected in close proximity to a newly restored lake in 2011. 

Implementation activities were completed in 2007 and included manual removal of non-native 

trout, with plans to initiate SNYLF re-introduction efforts in these seven lakes. 

Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) 

The Yosemite Toad is currently a Proposed Threatened species for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. On April 25, 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) published a proposal in the Federal Register (Federal Register Vol.78, No. 80) proposing 

listing Yosemite toad as Threatened and designating critical habitat. Yosemite Toad is also listed 

by the State of California as a Species of Special Concern. To date, range-wide conservation 

activities (including the development of a conservation strategy) for BUCA have been 

accomplished in a multi-agency format involving the FWS, National Park Service (NPS), US 

Forest Service (USFS), CDFW and academic institutions such as the University of California, 

Berkeley and Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory. 

Yosemite toads are endemic to the Sierra Nevada Mountains or Province from Ebetts Pass, 

Alpine County to the Spanish Springs Mountain area, Fresno County (Karlstrom, 1973; Stebbins 

1966) at elevations ranging from 1950 to 3444 m (6398 to 11299 ft). Jennings and Hayes 

(1994a) estimate that populations have disappeared from 50 percent of historical habitat. Of 

historical sites, declines have been concentrated in lower elevation locations with greater 

persistence in higher elevation locations (Davidson et al 2002). Their current range borders the 

boundary of the Tahoe Basin but, to date, no detections have been recorded. However, habitat for 

the species, which includes high elevation, open, montane meadows with permanent water 

sources, does occur throughout the basin. Given projected climate changes impacts, species such 

as Yosemite Toad, could expand their current range in response to changing habitat conditions. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-91 

Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) 

The northern leopard frog is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species (USDA Forest Service 

1998). Historically this species occurred from Newfoundland and southern Quebec to West 

Virginia and west across the Canadian and northern and central portions of the United States 

including Oregon, Washington, and Northern California (Stebbins 1985). Reports of extirpation 

and range contraction are common in the western United States, where the species has 

disappeared from 95 percent of its historic range in California (Jennings 1995). Northern leopard 

frogs may be absent where large populations of American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) occur 

(Hammerson, 1982b; Jenning and Hayes, 1994b), as is the case in many lower elevation (lake 

level) habitats in the Tahoe basin. According to Jennings and Hayes (1994b), northern leopard 

frogs were introduced to the Lake Tahoe basin. Although preferred habitat exists within the Lake 

Tahoe basin, including streams, wetlands, or ponds as well as upland areas for foraging, to date, 

there have been no detections of this species. 

Lahontan Lake Tui Chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer) 

Lahontan Lake tui chub is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species (USDA Forest Service 

1998). They occur in open water habitats, such as lakes, lagoons or river mouths and feed 

primarily on zooplankton. Tui chub populations have presumably declined as a result of 

introductions of non-native species, specifically kokanee salmon (Oncorhychus nerka) and 

opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta), which, through predation and competition, have significantly 

reduced native zooplankton (Moyle, 2002). Compounding these impacts are the illegal 

introductions of invasive warm-water fishes, specifically largemouth bass but potentially blue 

gill, crappie and brown bullhead catfish, which prey on juvenile chubs at their inshore rearing 

habitats (Kamerath et al. 2008). 

Great Basin Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma newberryi) 

Great Basin Great Basin rams-horn is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species (USDA Forest 

Service 1998). This aquatic pulmonate snail has haemoglobin in its blood and a secondary gill or 

pseudobranch, allowing it to occupy poorly oxygenated, but cold waters such as cold spring 

upwellings. It can be almost invisible to the casual observer even when abundant because it may 

burrow into muddy substrates. This species may be found in larger lakes and slow rivers, 

including larger spring sources and spring-fed creeks (Taylor 1981). In Eagle Lake, Lassen 

County, H. newberryi commonly occurs on top of sandy substrates at depths greater than 3 

meters (10 ft) (Brim Box et al. 2005). Historically the species occurred in Lake Tahoe and the 

slow flowing outflow into the Lower Truckee River. The population status of Great Basin ramshorn is currently unknown and there are currently no known occupied sites on the Lake Tahoe 

basin. However, habitat does exist indicating that if populations were detected through survey 

efforts they would be vulnerable to bed altering activities including, but not limited, to marina 

dredging and pier replacement. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-92 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3.3 Environmental Consequences 

This section will provide a brief discussion of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E by various program 

areas and the direct and indirect effects on aquatic resources. A summary of the effects by 

alternative is displayed in Table 3-21. 

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the No-Action alternative and continues current management as described in the 

1988 Forest Plan as amended. 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration under this alternative continues to protect and conserve 

aquatic habitat. Alternative A would continue to emphasize the need and importance of healthy 

watersheds, stable stream channels, and the critical role of Stream Environmental Zones (SEZs) 

for their contribution to local water quality and lake clarity goals. This alternative would 

continue to recognize that activities adjacent to SEZs have the potential to deliver sediment to 

stream channels. Restoration of streams and related watershed processes is primarily linked to 

decreasing or eliminating sediment sources (stream banks, roads, and other infrastructure) and 

other non-point pollution sources with improving aquatic habitat conditions as secondary goals. 

Existing management direction under Alternative A gives the highest priority, if a conflict in 

management would occur, to ‘the protection of water quality and the enhancement of the clarity 

of water in Lake Tahoe.” 

Management would continue to utilize the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA), Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) 

associated goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines in those defined areas, providing 

opportunities to incorporate protection measures for aquatic species (i.e. mitigation measures, 

design features, ) to minimize risks and impacts to aquatic species and their associated habitat. 

Stressors to aquatic habitat and species caused through implementation of watershed and aquatic 

habitat restoration are typically short-term and mitigated by installation of BMP’s, which are 

standards designed to mitigate and alleviate impacts from stressors. Stressors can include 

temporary road construction and decommissioning, use of heavy equipment, water drafting, 

stream dewatering, and new channel construction. These stressors that are actions associated 

with restoration activities are consistent through all alternatives. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, Meadows and Springs) 

Aquatic habitat will continue to improve as restoration efforts restore and enhance physical 

processes of degraded stream channels by constructing new stream channel, reconnecting 

floodplain connectivity, planting riparian vegetation, and creating habitat conditions needed by 

native aquatic species. Results depicting the benefits to streams and meadows from restoration 

activities are seen at Cookhouse Meadow (USDA, 2009), where a new channel was constructed 

in 2005 and 2006. Post restoration, the channel morphology has changed, overbank flows have 

been reestablished, and groundwater levels have increased dramatically. Channel survey 

measurements (cross sections and longitudinal profiles) as well as visual observations indicate 

that the channel is maintaining both horizontal and vertical stability, and is maintaining the 

desired channel stability and habitat characteristics of a “C” Rosgen stream channel type. Prior 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-93 

to restoration out of bank flows had not occurred in this meadow for approximately 30 years. 

During the three spring snowmelt seasons that have passed since completion of the restoration 

work, a relatively small amount of over bank flooding occurred for 6 days in 2008, and a larger 

amount of over bank flooding (approximately 50% of the meadow) occurred during a 21 day 

period following rain on snow events in May of 2009. Based on groundwater data collected 

throughout the meadow, the increased wetted area with available water for plants during the late 

summer is estimated to have increased 10% in 2007 and 60% in 2008. These efforts will reduce 

sediment and nutrients generated from eroding stream beds and banks, increase stream shade and 

riparian vegetation, and enhance critical habitat components, such as large wood and pool riffle 

structure, where new stream channel is created. 

The construction of temporary roads needed for some implementation activities will degrade 

conditions by potentially increasing sediment, but these degradations should be short-term. 

Standards and Guidelines and project-specific resource protection measures will reduce or 

eliminate impacts to aquatic habitat. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Lake habitat will stay in current conditions or improve where sediment load reductions occur as 

a result of restoration activities, resulting in improved lake clarity. Stream restoration efforts that 

restore the connection of the stream to its floodplain contribute in the reduction of sediments and 

nutrients entering lakes, including Lake Tahoe. If, however, climate change impacts exceed 

what active management can affect, lake habitat quality could decrease as clarity decreases with 

an increase in phytoplankton. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Where watershed and aquatic restoration efforts include the reclamation or restoration of LCT or 

SNYLF habitat, species distribution should stay in baseline conditions or increase. An 

outstanding goal of stream restoration is to improve habitat conditions. However, food resource 

availability (e.g., Ensign et al. 1990), climate (e.g., Clarkson and Wilson 1995), competition 

(e.g., Budy et al. 2007, Knapp and Mathews 2000, Knapp et al. 2007), and habitat (e.g., Bozek 

and Rahel 1991, Knapp et al. 2003,) are just a few examples of the factors limiting the 

distribution and abundance of salmonids and amphibians. In many cases it is a combination of 

these factors that determine the quality of a habitat. Therefore, the impact of habitat 

improvement depends on the extent to which habitat, rather than other biological factors such as 

the presence non-native or invasive species, was the limiting factor before restoration efforts are 

initiated (Bond and Lake 2003; Lepori et al. 2005). If biological factors are limiting the 

distribution of LCT or SNYLF, non-native species eradication will be needed in addition to 

physical habitat restoration to increase the distribution of LCT and SNYLF. 

By restoring aquatic habitat components for various lifestages of each species, range expansion 

is possible, thus providing opportunities for an increase in distribution. The term habitat includes 

many variables, such as temperature, water velocity, cover (e.g., deep pools, undercut banks, 

boulders, overhanging vegetation), substrate, and depth. The relative importance of these 

different variables often changes over the life history of both LCT and SNYLF. For example, 

spawning activity for LCT is strongly correlated with depth, water velocity, and substrate size 

(Thurow and King 1994; Magee et al. 1996; Knapp and Preisler 1999), while rearing habitat is 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-94 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

more strongly correlated with cover (Quiñones and Mulligan 2005; House 1996). Similarly, 

habitat for SNYLF varies based on lifestage. Although both are aquatic dependent, adults do 

utilize exposed boulders and logs for basking while tadpoles require in-lake habitat for cover as 

well as basking. Populations of LCT and SNYLF (and Yosemite toad, if detected) as a whole 

can suffer if the habitat requirements for all life stages are not met (White and Rahel 2008). The 

abiotic factors limiting populations can potentially be determined by identifying the habitat 

requirements of individuals of different life stages (Rosenfeld 2003). However, in most cases, 

even if the abiotic factors are restored, if biotic factors, such as the influence [or presence] of 

non-native species, are not also addressed, an increase in population distribution will be limited. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Species distribution will increase where aquatic habitat restoration overlaps with biological 

restoration (i.e. warm-water fish and Eurasian water milfoil removal) and emphasizes or focuses 

on tui chub habitat needs. Great Basin Great Basin rams-horn distribution will continue to stay in 

baseline conditions by maintaining and protecting the integrity of springs, spring-influenced and 

near-shore habitats, and riparian zones. 

Alternatives B, C, and E 

The emphasis of these alternatives is to protect, conserve and restore aquatic habitat. Although 

Alternative A provides management direction to protect and conserve, it does not provide clear 

direction on restoration, unlike Alternative B, C and E. These alternatives would continue to 

implement restoration necessary to restore watershed and aquatic habitat conditions. Similar to 

Alternative A, the primary focal areas over the next 5 years would continue to be those projects 

that decrease sedimentation from actively eroding features (i.e. stream bed and banks) and have 

measured contributions toward the Lake Tahoe TDML. Results of current restoration efforts and 

benefits to aquatic habitat are described above in Alternative A (USDA, 2009). 

 In addition the current watershed restoration efforts, Alternatives B, C and E provides additional 

direction that would also focus restoration activities on achieving aquatic organism passage at 

road crossings, enhancing aquatic habitat structural components/function of streams, lakes and 

wetlands, and reclaiming meadow boundaries/ecological processes by removing conifers and 

reintroducing fire. By improving both water quality through reducing sedimentation while 

restoring other stream characteristics needed for life history requirements for aquatic species, 

such as rearing, spawning, and migration, Alternatives B, C, and E would improve habitat. 

Additionally, Forest Plan direction would move from a broad approach (tied to Riparian 

Conservation Objectives {RCOs} in the SNFPA Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) to a more 

basin-specific strategy that addresses key aspects of watershed and aquatic habitat restoration 

(i.e. implementing natural channel design approaches). In Alternatives B, C, and E the 

importance of lake clarity and meeting the Lake Tahoe TMDL is equal to habitat restoration. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-95 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, Meadows and Springs) 

Aquatic habitat will continue to improve as restoration efforts restore and enhance physical 

processes to reduce sediment and nutrients generated from eroding stream beds and banks, 

increase stream shade and riparian vegetation, and enhance habitat components, such as large 

wood and pool/riffle structure. Sensitive aquatic habitat that has been degraded due to developed 

recreation will be restored or enhanced. In most cases these types of habitats occur along the 

shoreline of Lake Tahoe. Any restoration or enhancement effort that improves habitat 

components along the junction of streams and Lake Tahoe will increase required habitat for 

native species that utilize the mouths of streams, lagoons, or lake shore wetlands. Basin-wide 

fish assessments (USFS2011) have determined that the majority of native fish species are found 

in the lower third of watersheds. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Lake habitat will stay in current conditions or improve where sediment load reductions occur 

resulting in improved lake clarity. Stream restoration efforts that restore the connection of the 

stream to its floodplain contribute in the reduction of sediments and nutrients entering lakes, 

including Lake Tahoe by encouraging riparian vegetation to stabilize soils, protect stream banks 

from erosion, and intercept nutrients that might otherwise enter the lake. If, however, climate 

change impacts exceed what active management can affect, lake habitat quality could decrease as 

clarity decreases with an increase in phytoplankton. Because higher air temperatures can 

promote an increase in the surface water temperature in lakes, changes in climate can affect the 

physical and chemical processes in a body of water and its watershed and, as a result, influence 

the primary production of waterbodies (Izmest’eva 2009). 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Where watershed and aquatic restoration efforts include the reclamation or restoration of LCT or 

SNYLF habitat, species distribution will increase because of increased recovery efforts including 

both physical and biological habitat restoration. By restoring aquatic habitat components for 

various lifestages of each species, range expansion is possible thus providing opportunities for an 

increase in distribution. As state above, a goal of stream restoration is to improve habitat 

conditions. However, food resource availability (e.g., Ensign et al. 1990), climate (e.g., Clarkson 

and Wilson 1995), competition (e.g., Budy et al. 2007, Knapp and Mathews 2000, Knapp et al. 

2007), and habitat (e.g., Bozek and Rahel 1991, Knapp et al. 2003,) are just a few examples of 

the factors limiting the distribution and abundance of salmonids and amphibians. In many cases 

it is a combination of these factors that determine the quality of a habitat. Therefore, the impact 

of habitat improvement depends on the extent to which habitat, rather than other biological 

factors such as the presence non-native or invasive species, was the limiting factor before 

restoration efforts are initiated (Bond and Lake 2003; Lepori et al. 2005). If biological factors are 

limiting the distribution of LCT or SNYLF, non-native species eradication will be needed in 

addition to physical habitat restoration. 

Alternative B, C, and E provide specific Standards and Guidelines to direct future management 

of habitat restoration to support all life stages of native assemblages by provided connectivity, 

appropriate conditions for reproduction and rearing habitat. Additionally, Alternative B, C, and E 

provide strategies for continued coordination and partnerships to meet the recovery needs of the 

species. By providing management direction that supports and encourages habitat restoration, 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-96 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

rather than merely protection and mitigation, distribution should increase in Alternative B, C, 

and E. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

The status and trend of tui chub, and Northern leopard frog (if detected) will increase where 

aquatic habitat restoration overlaps with biological restoration (i.e. warm-water fish and Eurasian 

water milfoil removal) and targets specific habitat needs. Restoration activities that improve 

stream habitat including but not limited to water quality conditions (e.g. reduction of sediment, 

reduction in nutrients), restore biological characteristics (e.g. trout abundance), and/or improve 

stream characteristics (e.g. pool riffle ratios, stream complexity, LWD) will improve habitat for 

tui chub. Great Basin rams horn distribution will continue to stay in baseline condition by 

maintaining and protecting the integrity of springs, spring-influenced and near-shore habitats, 

and riparian zones. Restoration activities that restore sensitive near shore habitat that provide 

spawning and rearing habitat for Lake Tahoe tui chub and Great Basin rams horn will improve 

the distribution of these species by increasing optimal and, currently, limiting habitat. 

Alternative D 

Restoration projects that have measurable benefits for the Lake Tahoe TMDL, T&E species 

recovery and aquatic organism passage related to road upgrades would continue to be 

implemented. Beyond these activities, this alternative puts less emphasis on active management 

and restoration and, instead, allows natural processes and system adjustment to occur. This 

alternative directs land managers to remove potential stressors to a specific system and then 

allow natural processes, both positive and potentially negative to occur. For instance, in-stream 

headcuts would not actively be stabilized, thus allowing for natural channel adjustment processes 

to occur. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, Meadows and Springs) 

The status and trend of aquatic habitat will continue to improve where planned projects are 

implemented. In these areas, restoration efforts will reduce sediment and nutrients generated 

from eroding stream bed and banks, increase stream shade and riparian vegetation, and enhance 

habitat components, such as large wood and pool/riffle structure, where new channels are 

designed and constructed. Other aquatic habitat will remain in baseline conditions where 

currently stable OR degrade where features, such as headcuts, migrate upstream and result in 

channel incision. In these areas, efforts will be made to conserve and protect but no active 

restoration will occur, thus any improved habitat conditions would come through natural 

processes and time, most likely beyond the life of the Forest Plan. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Lake habitat will generally stay in baseline conditions OR degrade where structural 

improvements, such as stream restoration to improve bank stability and reduce sediment and/or 

nutrient transport, are needed to restore or enhance habitat conditions. Although stressors will be 

removed to allow natural processes to restore habitat, this passive approach to restoration could 

lead to reduction in lake clarity and degradation of habitat as temperature or water chemistry 

exceed critical thresholds for native aquatic species. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-97 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Where watershed and aquatic restoration efforts include the reclamation or restoration of LCT or 

SNYLF habitat, species distribution will increase. By restoring aquatic habitat components for 

various lifestages of each species, range expansion is possible thus providing opportunities for an 

increase in distribution. Because management for TE, candidate and proposed species has the 

intention of assisting in the recovery and subsequent delisting or downlisting of listed species, 

the passive management approach in Alternative D will not negatively impact LCT, SNYLF, or 

Yosemite toad directly, as Recovery Plans are put in place if a species is listed on the 

Endangered Species Act. However, other native species could decline due to lack of active 

management while non-desirable non-native and invasive species could increase due to lack of 

active managment (eradicate). This would indirectly impact the distribution of LCT, SNYLF, 

and Yosemite toad, if detected. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Species distribution will increase where currently planned aquatic habitat restoration overlaps 

with biological restoration (i.e. warm-water fish and Eurasian water milfoil removal) and targets 

tui chub habitat needs. Beyond these planned restoration activities, tui chub distribution will 

remain in baseline conditions or decline where aquatic habitat is impacted by, for example, 

urbanization, climate change, or expansion of invasive species. Where these habitat impacts 

cannot be off-set by restoration, biological and physical habitat quality (water quality) will 

decline as will species distribution. Great Basin rams- horn distribution will continue to stay in 

baseline conditions by maintaining and protecting the integrity of springs, spring-influenced and 

near-shore habitats, and riparian zones. 

Restoration activities that improve stream habitat including but not limited to water quality 

conditions (e.g. reduction of sediment, reduction in nutrients), restore biological characteristics 

(e.g. trout), and/or improve stream characteristics (e.g. pool riffle ratios, stream complexity, 

LWD) will improve habitat for tui chub. 

Biological Resources 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the no-action alternative, the 2004 SNFPA Aquatic Management Strategy 

(AMS) would continue to be implemented. The current CAR boundaries and associated 

Standards and Guidelines would be maintained. The AMS Standards and Guidelines address 

aquatic habitat in general context, focused on protection and mitigation, and more related to 

achieving water quality goals by preventing stream degradation. Special status species (LCT, 

SNYLF, and Yosemite toad are addressed in the AMS Standards and Guidelines only in the 

context of grazing management (stream bank disturbance) and pesticide application (i.e. 

herbicides).While the 2004 SNFPA did include goals and strategies for a wide variety of aquatic 

ecosystem features as well as Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) and designation of 

Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs), this direction was for protection and mitigation of species and 

habitat aimed to reduce the impacts of other activities. The ability to initiate and participate in 

proactive approaches for threatened, endangered, and candidate species recovery and 

management is more tied to FSM 2670 policy, which provides direction for the recovery and 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-98 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

delisting of federally listed species and habitat. Because the SNFPA AMS was intended to 

provide management direction for all National Forests in the Sierra Nevada, it does not include 

specific protection or mitigation measures to address native non-special status species, such as 

Lake Tahoe’s native non-game fishes. In addition, the SNFPA and 1988 Plan do not address 

aquatic invasive species management, as the impacts of these species was not prevalent during 

the development of the SNFPA. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows, and Springs) 

Aquatic habitat will generally stay in baseline conditions, with potential to improve where 

physical and chemical habitat elements are restored or enhanced to meet threatened, endangered 

or candidate species life history needs. Current efforts to restore habitat through the removal of 

nonnative species in selected streams and lakes, as well as, stream restoration efforts that 

incorporate aquatic habitat components required by various life stages of native species will 

continue to improve status and trend of aquatic habitat. Restoration efforts that restore and 

enhance physical processes of degraded stream channels by constructing new stream channel, 

reconnecting floodplain connectivity, planting riparian vegetation will improve habitat 

conditions needed by native aquatic species. These efforts will reduce sediment and nutrients 

generated from eroding stream beds and banks, increase stream shade and riparian vegetation, 

and enhance critical habitat components, such as large wood and pool riffle structure, where new 

stream channel is created. Removal of non-native or invasive species improves habitat by 

reducing threats of predation, competition for food resources as well as spawning and rearing 

habitat thus improving growth, survivorship and overall distribution. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

LCT distribution will continue to increase in Upper Truckee River, through continuation of 

habitat expansion efforts down the watershed by manually removing non-native species. 

Increases in LCT distribution within other basin watersheds may be limited due to conflicts with 

management area direction or lack of consensus with the multiple agencies that make up the 

Recovery Implementation Team. SNYLF distribution will increases in Desolation Wilderness in 

response to fish removal efforts from selected lakes (Knapp et al. 2007). There is a high 

potential for the SNYLF population in Hell Hole to go extinct due to the presence of Bd and 

other factors. Due to management area direction specifically as it relates to recreational fishing, 

the presence of non-native fish, and current or proposed California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW) stocking allotment, SNYLF distribution may be limited in other basin 

watersheds. If Yosemite toads were detected within the life of the Forest Plan, protection and 

conservation measures would be taken. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog)

Tui chub distribution may increase or decrease depending on where warm water fish are targeted 

for removal. Restoration activities that improve stream habitat including but not limited to water 

quality conditions (e.g. reduction of sediment, reduction in nutrients), restore biological 

characteristics (e.g. trout), and/or improve stream characteristics (e.g. pool riffle ratios, stream 

complexity, LWD) will improve habitat for tui chub. Great Basin rams horn distribution will 

continue to stay in baseline conditions by maintaining and protecting the integrity of springs, 

spring-influenced and near-shore habitats, and riparian zones. If Northern leopard frogs were 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-99 

detected within the Lake Tahoe basin within the life of the plan, protection and conservation 

measure would be implemented. Distribution would expand wherever competing or picivorous, 

warm water fish removal efforts were successful. 

Alternatives B, C, and E 

Alternatives B, C, and E put forth a revised set of desired conditions, objectives, and Standards 

and Guidelines that are based on current biological resource needs and anticipated future 

needs. Alternative E, in response to comments, added additional management direction to 

further clarify and add management direction to ensure the both the conservation and 

enhancement of habitat for aquatic species. 

This set of protection measures shifts from the current species-specific emphasis approach 

towards a more holistic habitat-based approach that focuses on habitat elements, function, 

connectivity, climate change, and community-level needs. To shift to this holistic approach, 

habitat and species management direction was categorized into four biological resource groups 

that are interrelated. These groups include: 1) General Conservation, (2) Species Refuge Area, 

(3) Protected Activity Center (PAC)/ Home Range Core Area (HRCA) (discussed in the 

Terrestrial Wildlife Report), and (4) Invasive Species (Table 3-22). 

Table 3-21. Biological Resource Groups and Emphasis 

Group Aquatic Resource Type Management Function as 

Related to Desired Conditions 

General 

Species 

Conservation 

Native Species (including Region 5 sensitive, TRPA, and species of 

local concerns) and Habitat 

Lahontan tui chub, Tahoe sucker, Lahontan Redside, Paiute sculpin, 

speckled dace, mountain whitefish, western toad, long-toed 

salamander, Great Basin Great Basin rams-horns, and western 

pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata). 

Sets a framework for aquatic habitat 

management by linking physical 

conditions/processes to life history 

needs and concepts necessary to 

achieve species diversity. 

Recognizes the unique assemblages 

of endemic aquatic species and 

allows for partnership collaboration to 

conserve species and enhance 

habitat. 

Species 

Refuge Areas 

LCT and SNYLF 

(and others per potential future listing actions) 

Sets desired trajectories for T&E and 

candidate species recovery. 

Invasive 

Species 

Aquatic Invasive Species: 

Mollusks – Quagga/zebra mussels, New Zealand mudsnail, Asian 

clam 

Plants – Eurasian water milfoil, curly leaf pondweed 

Fishes – Largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie, brown bullhead catfish, 

goldfish 

Amphibians – bull frogs 

Disease/pathogens – Chytrid fungus (Bd), whirling disease 

Sets a framework for AIS 

management (prevention, control, 

eradication and interagency 

collaboration) to guard against wide 

spread ecological, social and 

economic impacts. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-100 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

These groups have been ordered in an “umbrella” organization where the General Species 

Conservation provides overarching, broad direction for the entire LTBMU while the other three 

groups, also applicable throughout the entire LTBMU, provide more specific direction for certain 

species and current or potential habitat. 

The General Conservation incorporates management direction for all habitat and associated 

special status species within the LTBMU. It provides general direction in the form of desired 

conditions, objectives, S&G, and strategies that will guide future decision makers on habitat 

protection, enhancement, and/or restoration measures needed to maintain and improve the status 

and habitat of special status species (including Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Proposed, 

and R5 Sensitive Species). 

The Species Refuge Area (SRA) provides more specific direction for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, or Proposed species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Unlike the General 

Conservation Area, the SRA provides decision makers with detailed guidance to aid in the 

recovery of these species protected under ESA while still providing the flexibility for species that 

could be listed in the future. 

Similar to the Species Refuge Area, the Invasive Species groups provide more detailed direction 

for species and habitat. Direction within the Invasive Species Group provides direction for 

prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species that currently degrade terrestrial or 

aquatic habitat, as well as species that are considered potential threats for future invasion. This 

direction was not provided in Alternative A and is limited in Alternative D due to passive 

management approach. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands and Meadows) 

Aquatic habitat will improve where physical and biological habitat elements are restored or 

enhanced to meet native species life history needs. Where management emphasizes or focuses on 

the removal of Eurasian milfoil, curly leaf pondweed (i.e. decrease non-native habitat structural 

components that invasive warm water fish utilize), prevention of non-native mussel 

introductions, and control or eradication of warm water fish, available habitat will increase for 

native species. Where restoration activities restore connectivity, aquatic habitat in streams will 

improve. Alternative B, C, and E recognize the need for both aquatic passages to fulfill various 

natural history requirements as well as the possible impacts climate change could have on 

aquatic systems. These alternatives provide direction for insure the connectivity, both spatial and 

temporal, of aquatic habitats to allow for the unobstructed movement of native species to support 

migration, reproduction, and dispersal needs. 

Current efforts to restore T&E habitat through the removal of nonnative species in selected 

streams and lakes, as well as, stream restoration efforts that enhance aquatic habitat components 

required by various life stages of native species, such as large woody debris structures, increased 

riparian vegetation, and pool riffle ratios that mimic historic conditions (if new stream channel is 

constructed), will continue to improve status and trend of aquatic habitat. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Overall LCT distribution increases as recovery targets resident fluvial and lacustrine life histories 

in multiple watersheds throughout the Lake Tahoe basin. Additionally, LCT distribution would 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-101 

increase in areas where warm-water fish removal occurs and where restoration efforts continue 

to remove nonnative salmonids that out-compete LCT. 

Regardless of additional management direction to aid in the recovery of SNYLF, there is a high 

potential for the population in Hell Hole to go extinct due to with presence of disease (Bd) and 

other factors. However, current recovery efforts in Desolation Wilderness will increase the 

distribution within the wilderness, although translocation techniques will most likely be required. 

Translocation efforts could be utilized to further increase the distribution of this species into 

other historic location throughout the basin as future recovery strategies are identified. Research 

initiated in 2012 will provide additional tools to aid in the recovery and expansion of SNYLF. 

If Yosemite toads were detected within the LTBMU, conservation, enhancement, and restoration 

measures would be implemented to insure actions were consistent with recovery strategies. 

These actions would insure that species distribution would be maintained or improved. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog)

As the emphasis on near shore habitat management and restoration increases such as the control 

and removal of warm water fish and aquatic invasive weeds, as well as, the restoration of 

geomorphic conditions and barrier beach formation that support marsh and lagoon habitat, native 

tui chub distribution will increase. 

 Efforts that restore slow moving water such as lakeshore lagoons, wetlands, and barrier beaches, 

which are rare and important habitats, and occur where fluvial systems interface with Lake 

Tahoe will maintain or increase Great Basin rams-horn as well as tui chub distribution. 

Additionally, efforts to control and remove Eurasian water milfoil and curly leaf pond weed will 

maintain or increase the distribution by improving water chemistry conditions and removing 

optimal habitat for warm water invasive fish. 

If Northern leopard frogs were detected within the Lake Tahoe basin within the life of the plan, 

protection and conservation measure would be implemented. Distribution would increase where 

warm water fish removal efforts were targeted. 

Alternative D 

This alternative implements a more passive approach to management of native and aquatic 

invasive species. Recovery programs for T&E and candidate species would continue to occur in 

order to meet ESA and FSM 2670 policies. Only prevention and control for high priority species 

(e.g. quagga/zebra mussels, New Zealand mudsnail, Eurasian milfoil and curlyleaf pond weed) 

are implemented. Otherwise, current invasive species populations will be allowed to persist, 

compete with native aquatic ecosystems and/or succumb to environmental and anthropogenic 

factors. Desired Conditions and Standards and Guidelines in Alternative D are the same as 

Alternative B and C; however, objectives that recommend active restoration beyond those 

projects that are already planned, would not occur in Alternative D. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-102 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands and Meadows) 

Aquatic habitat will generally stay in baseline conditions, with potential to improve where 

physical/chemical habitat elements are restored during restoration efforts that are already 

planned. Aquatic habitat that is degraded or lacking components needed for life history 

requirements of native species will be managed passively. Known stressors, which are 

contributing to limited functionality, will be removed and the system will be allowed to recover 

through time. Aquatic habitat status and trend could decline through the life of the plan as there 

is a potential for a reduction in water quality/chemistry, lack of flood plain connectivity and 

associated stream shade, increased w/d ratios, increase of warm water fish and other medium to 

low priority AIS species, such as bullfrogs. Improvements, beyond just removing known long 

term stressors, to physical, chemical, or biological habitat elements would only be employed in 

cases that are needed to restore TE, candidate, or proposed species life history traits. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Overall LCT distribution increases as recovery actions target resident fluvial and lacustrine life 

histories in multiple watersheds throughout the Lake Tahoe basin. Because Alternative D utilizes 

the passive management approach, eradication and control measures for some AIS would not 

occur and instead natural selection processes would be allowed to determine species 

composition. This would indirectly impact the distribution of LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad 

(if detected), as most AIS reduce both the abundance and distribution of native species that 

provide food sources and reduce the quality of habitat by altering water quality (i.e. temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH). 

There is a potential for SNYLF distribution to increase in other basin watersheds as future 

recovery strategies are identified and coordination with partner agencies continues. However, 

SNYLF distribution may decrease due to lack of targeted bull frog population reduction if such 

species expands to higher elevation habitats (factor being climate change). If Yosemite toads 

were detected within the LTBMU, conservation measures would be implemented to insure 

actions were consistent with recovery strategies. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub distribution may decline where invasive warm water fishes are not treated on NFS 

lands. Where active restoration is unacceptable, nearshore habitat may decline, thus further 

reducing the habitat and distribution of tui chub. 

Great Basin Great Basin rams-horn distribution will be maintained at current levels through the 

protection of spring habitat, spring-influenced and near-shore habitats, and riparian zones. 

Distribution in slow moving water habitat could decline when active restoration is needed yet 

unacceptable and leads to increased sediment or reduction in water quality and chemistry 

required for species survival. 

If Northern leopard frogs are detected, conservation measures would be incorporated to maintain 

distribution. Where warm water fish interact with population, distribution may decrease. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-103 

Forest Vegetation 

Forest vegetation management practices occur within various stream environment zones (SEZs) 

where management is usually adjusted to prevent long-term erosional processes, measurable 

decreases in stream shade and undesired adjustments to channel form and function. 

In all alternatives there are risks of adverse resource effects associated with wildfire, which could 

result in degradation of overall aquatic habitat and watershed condition. Because of the extreme 

unpredictability of either wildfire occurrence or level of effects, it is not useful to speculate 

regarding the level of effects on resources attributes that could occur under the various 

alternatives as a result of wildfire. However it can be assumed that there is a heightened level of 

risk of adverse effects on resources, associated with the elevated level of risk of catastrophic 

wildfire that would lead to the loss of vegetation, increased stream temperatures, and increased 

erosion that would contribute to decreases in water quality. 

Treatment types and vegetation prescriptions vary between the alternatives and each pose some 

level of short term risk of soil erosion and subsequent impacts to aquatic habitat. These risks 

will be managed by a variety of established best management practices (BMPs), project-specific 

resource protection measures, and the standards and guidelines presented in the Draft Forest 

Plan. 

Stressors to aquatic habitat and species in the course of conducting forest vegetation 

management include temporary road construction, permanent road construction, road 

decommissioning, mechanical equipment use, landings, piles, use of foam, and water drafting. 

Beyond the potential impacts of permanent roads, the environment consequences for aquatic 

resources would be short-term and mitigated by BMPs or project level design features. 

Alternative A 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, and Meadows) 

Stream habitat will generally stay in baseline condition. Habitat will improve where forest 

vegetation treatments improve the structure of riparian vegetation structure in SEZ’s thus 

floodplain processes that trap sediments and nutrients and provide stream shade and bank 

stability. The construction of temporary and permanent roads needed due to lack of road access 

in WUI and general forest could degrade conditions by potentially increasing sediment, at least 

short-term, because roads can create linear conduits for concentrating flows and eroded 

sediments. Additionally, temporary roads could increase the establishment of invasive species 

and create, potentially short term, passage issues for aquatic species. However implementation of 

BMPs and standards and guidelines would adequately manage this risk. 

Depending on wildfire behavior (severity) there are potential effects on riparian vegetation and 

sediment, habitat structure (i.e. large wood recruitment) and base flows. Baseflows could 

increase as riparian and adjacent upland vegetation decrease. Alterations in baseflows could 

affect spawning and rearing habitat of aquatic species. 

Wetland habitat will stay in baseline conditions or decline with more potential to change site 

hydrologic characteristics as road construction could affect the quantity and/or timing of ground 

water delivery. Depending on wildfire behavior (severity) there are potential effects on riparian 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-104 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

vegetation and sediment storage, habitat structure (i.e. large wood recruitment) and possibly 

ground water availability. If riparian and herbaceous vegetation decreases due to severe fire 

intensity, wetland functions, such as sediment storage, will decrease leading to decrease in water 

quality. 

Similar effects could be seen in meadow habitat from road construction. However, meadow 

habitat will improve where removal of encroaching conifers is included in forest health 

treatments. Where forest vegetation treatments overlap with SEZ habitat and remove upland 

species from within and along meadow edges, habitat for riparian dependent species will 

improve. These efforts will increase meadow size, and improve vegetative composition and/or 

site hydrologic characteristics. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Lake structure, depth, and clarity generally stay in baseline conditions as any potential excess 

sediment reaching lake habitat from forest management activities is not expected to be 

measurable. Wildfire would increase the potential for short-term impacts to water quality due to 

ash and fine sediment deposition with increasing benthic/plankton production resulting from 

input of nutrients. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Forest vegetation treatment under Alternative A will not change the distribution of LCT, 

SNYLF, or Yosemite toad. Recovery efforts will continue as directed by Recovery Plans and 

Recovery Strategies. Forest activities will not delay future LCT or SNYLF increase in 

distribution resulting from restoration/recovery actions. There is potential for short-term impacts 

to LCT sub-populations from increased sediment or escaped fire followed by recovery due to 

stocking and/or natural recruitment from connected occupied drainages. Where fire moves into 

occupied SNYLF or Yosemite toad habitat, there is potential for short-term local extirpation 

where high - moderate burn severities occur. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

No change in the distribution of tui chub or Great Basin rams-horn are expected due to forest 

vegetation treatments under Alternative A. Rather, the status and trend of these species is 

dependent on effectiveness of future AIS and aquatic habitat management. There could be shortterm impacts from temporary roads that contribute sediment to stream channels; however, BMPs 

would be in place to mitigate the effects. Vegetation treatments that improve meadow habitatwill 

improve the distribution of Northern leopard frog, if they are detected. 

Alternatives B, C, and E 

In Alternatives B, C, and E trees greater than 30 inches in diameter could be removed under 

certain limited circumstances. While canopy closure limits would only be retained for PACs and 

HRCAs, emphasis would be placed on maintaining and improving late seral habitats. Openings 

up to 10 acres can be created under these alternatives. However, cutting large trees or thinning to 

lower densities would be implemented where the objective is to enhance the promotion of mid 

seral, longevity of late seral stands, or the resiliency of any stand. There is allowance for the 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-105 

creation of openings within the mid seral stage of up to 10 acres in size to establish early seral 

habitat. Therefore, vegetation treatments under Alternatives B, C, and E could remove the 

largest diameter trees under limited circumstances and open up the canopy beyond 40% and 50% 

closure, respectively. Alternative C differs from Alternative B and E in that a greater number of 

treatment acres would be implemented annually and more acres would be treated using 

mechanized equipment if possible. All other factors are the same. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, and Meadows) 

Similar to Alternative A, stream habitat will generally stay in baseline condition in Alternative 

B,C, and E. Habitat will improve where forest vegetation treatments improve the structure of 

riparian vegetation structure in SEZ’s thus floodplain processes that trap sediments and nutrients 

and provide stream shade and bank stability. Although these alternatives could remove large 

diameter trees and open canopy beyond 40% and 50%, standards are in place to protect both 

streambanks and water temperature. Additionally, removal of larger trees within meadows or 

meadow edges that are seed sources for conifer encroachment would benefit meadow restoration 

efforts. 

Because Alternative C proposed the treatment of more acres as well as more mechanical 

treatment (Table 2.1: Forest Vegetation Management section), more temporary and permanent 

roads will be needed. These could degrade conditions by potentially increasing sediment, at least 

short-term, because roads can create linear conduits for concentrating flows and eroded 

sediments. Additionally, temporary roads could increase the establishment of invasive species 

and create, potentially short term, passage issues for aquatic species. However implementation of 

BMPs, project-specific resource protection measures, and standards and guidelines would 

adequately manage this risk. 

Alternatives B, C, and E provide direction for reintroducing fire into meadows, specifically if 

encroaching conifers have been removed. Where forest vegetation treatments overlap with SEZ 

habitat and remove upland species from within and along meadow edges, habitat for riparian 

dependent species will improve. These efforts will increase meadow size, vegetative 

composition and/or site hydrologic characteristics. These actions would benefit aquatic habitat 

by restoring the vigor and diversity of riparian and herbaceous vegetation, improving water 

storage, and reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Same as Alternative A except Alternative C, which proposes slightly more acres to be treated 

and burned , could have greater risk of short-term impacts to water quality due to ash and fine 

sediment deposition with increasing benthic/plankton production resulting from input of 

nutrients. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

The status and trend in species distribution of LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad is the same 

Alternative A. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-106 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

The status and trend in species distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) is the same as Alternative A. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D is similar to Alternative A but is further limited in the size of trees that could be 

removed (dbh limit of 12 inches). 

Alternative D focuses more heavily than the other alternatives on the use of fire in management 

of forest vegetation. This alternative would also emphasize hand thinning more than the other 

alternatives. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Wetlands, and Meadows) 

Stream, Wetland and Meadow habitat would stay in baseline condition or decline as limited 

Forest Vegetation projects would overlap with SEZs, thus conifer encroachment within these 

habitats could continue to degrade conditions as riparian and herbaceous vegetation is replaced 

by upland species. As forest health declines through lack of active management and increased 

beetle infestations, the likelihood of catastrophic fire increases. Depending on fire behavior 

(severity) there is potential for effects on riparian vegetation, erosion, and possibly base flows. 

Baseflows are expected to increase as riparian and adjacent upland vegetation decrease. 

Alterations in baseflows could affect spawning and rearing habitat of aquatic species. 

Because of the 12 in. diameter limit set in Alternative D, most areas will be treated using hand 

removal methods, which require either the creation of burn piles or underburns with the material 

lop and scattered through the unit. This could result in temporary impacts to riparian habitats, 

and delay vegetation rejuvenation after burns due to soil damage. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Lakes) 

Alternative D has the greatest potential to cause excess sediment transport to lake habitat due to 

the increase likelihood of unplanned, catastrophic fire. Additionally, water quality could further 

decline as the potential for ash and fine sediment deposition increases in Alternative D leading to 

increases in benthic/plankton production resulting from input of nutrients. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Forest vegetation treatment will not affect the distribution of LCT, SNYLF, or Yosemite toad. 

Recovery efforts will continue as directed by Recovery Plans and Recovery Strategies. 

However, as the risk of catastrophic fire increases risk of sedimentation into streams and lakes, 

increased benthic and plankton production could occur in Alternative D, and LCT, SNYLF, and 

Yosemite toad distribution could decline as habitat is degraded or lost. Where fire moves into 

occupied LCT, SNYLF or Yosemite toad habitat, there is potential for short-term local 

extirpation where high - moderate burn severities occur. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-107 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

As the risk of catastrophic fire, increased sediment loads into streams and lakes, increase benthic 

and plankton production could occur in Alternative D, indirectly Lake Tahoe tui chub, Great 

Basin rams-horn, and Northern leopard frog distribution could decline as habitat is degraded or 

lost.. Where fire moves into occupied habitat, there is potential for short-term local extirpation 

where high - moderate burn severities occur. 

Recreation 

Managed and unmanaged recreation has varying degrees of impacts on aquatic resources, 

especially where activities occur in or near Stream Environment Zones (SEZs). Facilities, 

including parking lots, marinas, roads, and trails, pending the use, location, and site specific 

characteristics can impede the hydrologic characteristics of these sites, alter the vegetative 

composition and reduce the quality of habitat for native species. Typically the areas that provide 

recreational opportunities overlap with some of the most sensitive and rare habitat found in the 

Lake Tahoe basin, which includes lake shore wetlands, lagoons, meadows, barrier beaches, and 

stream mouths. Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow for some varying degree of expansion. 

Under all alternatives snowmobile use will continue to be allowed in all areas that are not 

designated as closed in the OSV use maps. Some concerns exist regarding this activity and 

potential impacts on water quality, indirectly impacting aquatic habitat. There are two potential 

concerns related to this permitted use as it relates to hydrology, soils, and water quality. First is 

potential for ground disturbance, if sufficient snow cover is not maintained on travel routes 

leading to potential increase in erosion. This concern is addressed in Section 3.4.22 - Soils of 

this FEIS. 

The second is the impacts of vehicle emissions on water quality, as exhaust emissions (VOCs 

and PAHs and nitrogen) are discharged and accumulate within the snowpack. There has been 

limited research conducted on water quality impacts from snowmobile emissions, primarily in 

Yellowstone and Grant Teton National Park. The results of this research indicate that although 

these emissions have been documented in the snowpack, there has been no evidence of 

exceedance of water quality standards in adjacent water bodies, related to VOCs and PAHs and 

the VOC concentrations in the snowmelt runoff were well below levels that would adversely 

impact aquatic systems (Arnold, 2006, Reah, 2005 ,NPS, 2011). 

The incremental amount of OSV contributions to nitrogen loading is relatively small, but could 

be important if total loading is close to or exceeded a critical load of nitrogen (NPS, 2011). 

According to the Tahoe TMDL, the amount of total nitrogen loading in the Tahoe Basin (largely 

from out of basin atmospheric sources) is such that Lake Tahoe is considered to be largely 

phosphorus limited, in terms of effects on Lake clarity. 

It is also important to note that existing research was conducted during a time when the majority 

of snow mobiles in use were utilizing 2-stroke engines, which produce much more of these 

pollutants, then 4-stroke engines that are becoming much more prevalent and are required to 

meet current EPA standards for emissions. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are 

reduced by 50% and 30% respectively when comparing average 2 stroke engines to current EPA 

snowmobile requirements (NPS, 2011). 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-108 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Based on an analysis of the existing research, we conclude that continued OSV use, as proposed 

under all the alternatives, will result in negligible impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. 

However, additional monitoring is needed to determine the effects of this use on breeding 

success and overwintering survival of amphibian species, specifically Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog and, if detected, Yosemite toad. Currently, research is lacking regarding the impacts 

of ground vibration during overwinter hybridization “torpor”. Research and monitoring is also 

lacking on the effects of breeding success and spring OSV use. Potential effects would not differ 

per alternative. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A allows for 10% expansion of developed recreation sites within the designated 

permit area and into the general forest. Alternative A also identifies a number of site-specific 

areas where recreation facilities could be expanded and new recreation facilities could be 

developed based on direction from the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended). SNFPA 

provides general direction for avoiding adverse effects from ground disturbing activities, 

designing management to meeting habitat and species goals and implementing mitigations to 

prevent further declines of aquatic habitat conditions. For instance, a new Fallen Leaf Lake boat 

launch facility was identified as desirable for construction. If pursued, new facilities such as this 

pose high risk for both expansion of existing AIS and new introductions where developed 

recreation sites expand and provide direct/indirect access to waterbodies. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows, and Springs) 

Where campgrounds and parking areas are expanded adjacent to SEZs, local hydrologic 

processes/characteristics may change, thereby affecting water quality and aquatic habitat 

parameters. Standards and guidelines would require that project design incorporate measures to 

mitigate effects to SEZs. However, regardless of standards and guidelines or project level BMPs, 

expanded recreation development will cause increased impacts. Although the measures are 

implemented to protect sensitive areas during expansions, visitors often deviate from direction 

making it challenging to both increase use and protect habitat. Otherwise, where campgrounds 

and parking areas are expanded in dry upland areas, there would be no expected change in 

baseline conditions. The risk of decrease in stream, wetland and meadow condition where resort, 

ski area, new trail crossings, etc. expansion results in modification of hydrologic function would 

impact water quality parameters, affecting habitat quality and quantity. There is potential for 

aquatic habitat to improve (physical form and function) where facilities are moved out of SEZs. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

LCT distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions as recreation site expansion should 

not preclude recovery actions; however expansion of recreation may result in an increase in 

human disturbance on the species, increase threat of illegal stocking of non-native fish, and 

increase threat of new AIS infestation. 

LCT will continue to occupy habitat in the Upper Truckee River within the recommended Wild 

and Scenic River (WSR) segment that is self-sustaining and reproducing with elements of source 

sub-populations. Individual LCT will continue to migrate downstream to lower UTR segments 

that are outside of the WSR designation as expansion efforts continue. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-109 

Recreation activities may directly disturb SNYLF in all life stages, specifically tadpoles and 

juveniles that have the potential to be injured or killed by bikers, hikers, OHVs, and pack-stock 

animals. Recreational foot traffic in riparian areas tramples the vegetation, compacts the soils, 

and can physically damage the streambanks (Kondolf et al. 1996). Hiking, horse, bicycle, or offhighway motor vehicle trails compact soils within riparian habitat (Kondolf et al. 1996), and can 

cause increased erosion. However, studies have not been conducted to determine the extent to 

which recreational activities are directly contributing to the decline of the Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog populations, and direct effects from recreation have not been implicated as a major 

cause of the decline of this species. Nevertheless, recreational activities are the fastest growing 

use of National Forests. As such, their impacts on Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are likely to 

continue and to increase (USDA 2001b). Currently, recreational activities are considered a threat 

of low significance to the species’ habitat overall. 

Stocking of high elevation lakes with non-native fish to support recreational fishing has had the 

greatest impact on this species, because all life stages are preyed upon by the fish (Bradford 

1989, Feller and Drost 1993). Additionally, the recreational activity of anglers at high mountain 

lakes can be locally intense in the Sierra Nevada, with most regions reporting a level of use 

greater than the fragile lakeshore environments can withstand (Bahls 1992). 

With the potential to increase recreation facilities by 10 percent, direct and indirect impacts 

could decrease the abundance and distribution of SNYLF. Emphasis on SNYLF recovery in the 

Desolation Wilderness will continue (per Wilderness Act and FS wilderness policy), but this 

species will continue to face extinction and local extirpation threats which include: Bd disease 

and human impacts on the quantity and quality of historic and current habitat. SNYLF will 

continue to be at risk of local extirpation in Hell Hole due to disease and other factors. Similar 

responses would apply to Yosemite toad distribution if the species was detected in the LTBMU. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub and rams-horn distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions; however 

disturbance from recreation site expansion may result in a decrease of habitat quality by 

potentially increasing access to sensitive aquatic habitats. Site expansion and associated 

increased visitor use could also increase the threats of new AIS introduction through both 

motorized and non-motorized boat use. This would further reduce habitat and distribution of tui 

chub and potentially Great Basin rams-horn and Northern leopard frog (if detected).

Alternative B 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

Where campgrounds and parking areas are expanded adjacent to SEZs, local hydrologic 

processes will risk decline if soil compaction, vegetative compositions, and ground water 

characteristics decline and affect water quality and aquatic habitat parameters. However, 

standards and guidelines would require that project design incorporate measures to mitigate 

effects to SEZs. These potential direct and indirect impacts would be less than Alternative A as 

the potential for expansion decreases 5 percent in this Alternative. However, regardless of 

standards and guidelines or project level BMPs, expanded recreation development will cause 

increased impacts. Although the measures are implemented to protect sensitive areas during 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-110 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

expansions, visitors often deviate from direction making it challenging to both increase use and 

protect habitat. Where campgrounds and parking areas are expanded in drier site upland areas no 

change in baseline conditions is expected. The potential for a decrease in stream, wetland and 

meadow condition where resort, ski area and new trail crossing expansion results in modification 

of hydrologic function, water quality and habitat would be mitigated as required by the standards 

and guidelines. Alternative B allows for the relocation of developed recreational sites that are 

located in sensitive habitats. Where developed recreation facilities are modified or relocated in 

order to restore habitat parameters that resemble historic conditions, aquatic habitat will improve 

(physical form and function). Sensitive habitats such as SEZs, wetlands, and barrier beaches not 

only provide dynamic and rare habitat for aquatic species but also filter fine sediments and 

nutrients, thus protecting water quality parameters of both streams and lakes. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT , SNYLF, and Yosemite Toad) 

The potential recreational impacts to LCT , SNYLF, and Yosemite Toad are the same as 

Alternative A. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern leopard frog (if detected) distribution will 

generally stay in baseline conditions or improve where habitat is restored. Where recreation site 

expansion overlaps with sensitive species or habitat, there may be a decrease of habitat quality as 

access to sensitive aquatic habitats increases. 

Alternative C 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

As in Alternative A and B, where campgrounds and parking areas are adjacent to SEZs, local 

hydrologic processes/characteristics could change as potential soil compaction increases, 

infiltration decreases, vegetation diversity decreases, and erosion increases, thereby affecting 

water quality and aquatic habitat parameters. However, standards and guidelines would require 

that project design incorporate measures to mitigate effects to SEZs. Alternative C allows for the 

greatest amount of expansion, therefore has the greatest potential impacts to the status and trend 

of aquatic habitat. Similar to Alternatives A and B, regardless of standards and guidelines or 

project level BMPs, expanded recreation development will cause increased impacts. Although 

the measures are implemented to protect sensitive areas during expansions, visitors often deviate 

from direction making it challenging to both increase use and protect habitat. These potential 

impacts would be the greatest in Alternative C. 

Otherwise, where developed recreation is expanded in drier site upland areas, conditions will 

remain in baseline or decrease as visit use and associate impacts increase. There is a potential for 

decrease in stream, wetland and meadow condition where resort, ski area, new trail crossings, 

etc. expansion results in modification of hydrologic function. These impacts could impact to 

water quality parameters affecting habitat and/or direct modification of habitat. However, similar 

to Alternative B, Alternative C provides directions for the relocation, if deemed. There is 

potential for aquatic habitat to improve (physical form and function) where facilities are moved 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-111 

out of SEZ; however, as recreational sites increase by 15%, unforeseen human disturbance is 

expected to increase, thus degrading habitat conditions. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT , SNYLF, and Yosemite Toad) 

LCT and SNYLF distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions as recreation site 

expansion should not preclude recovery actions; however expansion may result in an increase in 

human disturbance on the species. Potential disturbance and habitat degradation is the greatest in 

Alternative C as the recreation footprint can increase by 15 percent. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions, 

however disturbance from recreation site expansion may result in a decrease of habitat quality by 

potentially increasing access to sensitive aquatic habitats. Increased recreational facilities and 

associated use could increase fine sediment into streams and lakes and contribute to new 

infestations of AIS. 

Alternative D 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, and Meadows) 

Where campgrounds and parking areas or other developed recreation facilities are reduced by 

15%, in SEZs, water quality and aquatic habitat parameters has the potential to improve in both 

form and function. Removal of developed sites in sensitive areas where streams intersect with 

Lake Tahoe will improve lake clarity and water chemistry. These areas, if restored, trap 

sediments and nutrients. These areas also offer access to Lake Tahoe. If this access is removed, 

unmanaged recreation could occur and have unanticipated negative impacts such as excess trash, 

waste and user created trails in these sensitive habitats. The impacts of unmanaged recreation use 

in highly desirable locations, which often overlap with highly sensitive habitat, could lead to 

more degradation of these areas than if some component of the developed site remained. Due to 

the large amount of use and the projection that the demand will continue to increase in the future, 

visitors will certainly create access to these areas. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

LCT and SNYLF distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions as recreation site 

reduction shouldn't influence recovery actions; however this reduction may result in a decrease 

in human disturbance on the species. Reduction in recreation in sensitive habitats along the 

lakeshore of Lake Tahoe could increase the distribution of native non-game fish. By aiding in the 

recovery of the historic foodweb, distribution of LCT will be improved. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn distribution will increase as the removal of recreation sites 

may result in an improvement of habitat quality by decreasing human disturbance and access to 

sensitive aquatic habitats. Restoration that removes developed recreation from mouths of creeks 

will increase available habitat for both species. However, because this alternative proposes active 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-112 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

management, the benefits of the reduction in developed recreation could be offset by the 

unintended consequences of this passive approach, such as, increased distribution of AIS and the 

impacts of unmanaged recreation (increase trash, waste, and user created trails). 

Alternative E 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

As in Alternatives A, B, and C where campgrounds and parking areas are adjacent to SEZs, local 

hydrologic processes/characteristics could change as potential soil compaction increases, 

infiltration decreases, vegetation diversity decreases, and erosion increases, thereby affecting 

water quality and aquatic habitat parameters. However, standards and guidelines would require 

that project design incorporate measures to mitigate effects to SEZs. Alternative E allows for a 

mix of expansion and reduction when compared to other alternatives. Similar to Alternative B, 

Alternative E allows for 5 percent expansion in both developed recreation sites and day use 

parking. Similar to Alternative A, both overnight accommodations and ski area footprints can 

expand up to 10 percent under Alternative E. Where developed recreation is expanded in drier 

site upland areas, conditions will remain in baseline or decrease as visitor use and associated 

impacts increase. Where overnight accommodations expand unforeseen human disturbance 

including but not limited to potential introductions or spread of invasive species, could increase 

thus degrading habitat conditions. There is a potential for decrease in stream, wetland and 

meadow condition where resort, ski area, new trail crossings, etc. expansion results in 

modification of hydrologic function. These impacts could impact water quality parameters, 

affecting habitat and/or directly modifying habitat. 

However, similar the Alternative B and C, Alternative E provides directions for the relocation, if 

deemed appropriate, of developed sites to higher capability land. Therefore, there is potential for 

aquatic habitat to improve (physical form and function) where facilities are moved out of SEZ 

and habitat is restored. Additionally, standards and guidelines found in Alternative E would 

provide additional direction (beyond that found in Alternative B and C) for protection and 

enhancement of aquatic habitat and ensure any recreation expansion was compatible with natural 

resources. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT , SNYLF, and Yosemite Toad) 

The potential recreational impacts to LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite Toad are the same as 

Alternative A. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Tui chub, Great basin rams-horn, and Northern leopard frog (if detected) distribution will 

generally stay in baseline conditions, however disturbance from recreation site expansion may 

result in a decrease of habitat quality by potentially increasing access to sensitive aquatic 

habitats. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-113 

Access to NFS Roads and Trails 

Alternative A , B, and E 

Stream connectivity is a critical component of a healthy stream by allowing fish species to 

migrate to fulfill various life history needs (Fairfull and Witherridge 2003). The potential direct 

and indirect effects of impeding fish passage include interrupting spawning or season migrations, 

restricting access to preferred habitat and available food, reducing genetic flow between 

populations, increasing susceptibility to predation, and fragmenting previously continuous 

populations (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2006). Additionally the effects of roads on 

aquatic habitat can include increased fine sediment (Weaver and Fraley 1993, Young et al. 

1991), changes in streamflow (Fairfull and Witheridge 2003), changes in water temperature by 

loss of shade cover, migration barriers, vectors for diseases, invasive fish introduction, channel 

reconfiguration and increased fishing pressure. 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, and Meadows) 

Aquatic habitat would generally stay in baseline conditions or improve where roads and trails 

were restored or where BMPs were implemented to improve aquatic resource conditions. 

Culverts can result in significant modification to channel bed form and flow conditions due to 

increased flow velocities, turbulence and reduced flow depth through the structure. Warren and 

Pardew (1998) observed that fish passage success at waterway crossings was inversely related to 

flow velocity, in addition to culvert structures exhibiting the highest velocities of crossing types 

assessed. High water velocities and excessive headloss (otherwise known as the waterfall effect) 

are of particular importance to many native fish. Culverts can further restrict fish movement due 

to insufficient lighting within culvert, and from debris build-up at the opening, which physically 

blocks fish passage. Where AOP issues are addressed by replacing or re-engineering problem 

road crossings and enhancing form and function of the stream, habitat will increase in both 

quantity and quality. Hydrologic characteristics of stream channels will improve aquatic habitat 

by decreasing factors that contribute to erosion, contribute fine sediments and nutrients to aquatic 

habitat and reduce water quality. 

 By addressing the unauthorized trails either through adoption or decommissioning, condition of 

habitat in close proximity will most likely benefit by reducing potential sediment from 

unmanaged trails. There is a potential for an increase in stream, wetland and meadow condition 

where upgrades to the road or trail system results in modification of hydrologic function, impacts 

to water quality affecting habitat and/or direct modification of habitat (i.e. new trail crossings at 

streams). By decommissioning or adopting and installing appropriate BMP’s there would be an 

expected reduction in soil compaction, erosion, and loss of vegetative compositions that is seen 

on unmanaged trails. 

Where off-road highway vehicles are permitted near aquatic habitat, conditions could deteriorate 

where soil compaction and erosion increase, reducing ground water characteristics, water quality, 

vegetative compositions and overall habitat quality. As riparian vegetation decreases, water 

quality often decreases, as this type of vegetation captures sediment and nutrients. Additionally, 

infiltration capacity of compacted soils is reduced increasing the likelihood of overland flow 

during high rain events. If riparian and herbaceous vegetation is lacking, there is a greater 

potential for sediments and nutrient to enter stream channels and other aquatic habitat. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-114 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Species distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions or continue to increase as road 

management shouldn't preclude recovery and restoration actions. Wherever connectivity is 

restored through the reengineering of problem stream crossings, increased distribution should 

occur. In some cases, however, these barriers could restrict non-desirable aquatic species from 

occupied habitat. Removal of barriers to organism passage may elevate the risk of spreading 

invasive species and depressing the abundance and distribution of these species. These situations 

would be addressed during project level analysis. 

 The potential increase in trails may increase human disturbance and increase potential for illegal 

fish introduction in LCT or SNYLF occupied habitat. New trails could also increase sediment 

loads, increased fishing pressure, or increased potential for disease (e.g. Bd) to spread in 

occupied or potential SNYLF habitat. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions or increase where AOP increases habitat 

connectivity. If Northern leopard frogs were detected near existing OHV trails, distribution could 

decrease due to degraded habitat conditions and increased disturbance. 

 

Alternative C 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

Aquatic habitat has the potential to decrease in amount and quality as miles of road open to 

passenger vehicles increases. Some part of these could be paved roads, which create impervious 

surfaces where surface runoff of substances such as motor oil, gasoline, heavy metals, as well as 

toxic substance used in de-icing programs can reach aquatic habitats (Noss, 1995). However, an 

aggressive BMP retrofit program has disconnected most roads from stream channels. There will 

be similar aquatic habitat benefits as stated in Alternative B when AOP issues are addressed and 

when unauthorized roads are decommissioned. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions or continue to increase as road 

management shouldn't preclude recovery/restoration actions. The potential increase in trails and 

road miles open to passenger vehicles will increase human disturbance and increase potential for 

illegal fish introduction in LCT or SNYLF occupied habitat. New trails could also increase 

fishing pressure or potential for disease (e.g. Bd) to spread in occupied or potential SNYLF 

habitat. These impacts will be greater in Alternative C than other alternatives. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

Species distribution will generally stay in baseline conditions or increase where AOP increases 

habitat connectivity. Disturbance from potential road and trail expansion may result in a decrease 

of habitat quality by potentially increasing access to sensitive aquatic habitats (more than 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-115 

Alternative A and B) where species occur. Increased sediment from increased road and trails 

could further reduce habitat and water quality, but would be prevented through measures 

required by the standards and guidelines. 

Alternative D 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

Potential to decrease (same as or slightly less than Alternative C) due to an increase in total road 

mileage for high clearance vehicles and OHV. Where OHV use increases, there is a potential for 

accelerated habitat degradation. Because of their weight, off-road vehicles compress and 

compact soil, altering its ability to absorb and retain water and nutrients thus concentrating the 

surface flow of water and increasing erosion (Dregne, 1983). OHV use is only allowed on 

designated routes and areas, and trail design and maintenance controls runoff, minimizing 

impacts. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite) 

Generally stay in baseline conditions or continue to increase as road management shouldn't 

preclude recovery/restoration actions. Potential increase in roads and trails may increase human 

disturbance and increase potential for illegal fish introduction in LCT/SNYLF occupied habitat 

(same as or slightly less than Alternative C). 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard) 

The effects to species distribution would be slightly greater than other alternative because of the 

increase in high clearance vehicles and OHV use. 

Permitted Land Uses 

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E 

Status and Trend in Aquatic Habitat (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, Meadows) 

Aquatic habitat quality will generally stay in baseline conditions or decrease where activities 

impact SEZs. Level of impact to aquatic habitat is dependent on duration of activity and spatial 

extent which occurs. However, developed standards and guidelines should eliminate or minimize 

any direct or indirect effects to aquatic habitat. 

Alternative A considers livestock grazing as a suitable use; however, it is given the lowest 

priority when conflicts arise. Highest priority is given to the protection of water quality and the 

enhancement of clarity in Lake Tahoe 

Alternative B, C, D, and E also consider livestock grazing as a permitted use although site 

specific environmental analysis would be needed to determine the suitability of this activity any 

of the vacant grazing allotment on the LTBMU. Any authorized livestock grazing is, however, 

expected to have impacts to stream, wetland and meadow form and function within a designated 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-116 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

allotment. Livestock grazing has been known to widen channels, reducing the amount of pool 

habitat and raising water temperatures thus reducing dissolved oxygen (Hubert et al. 1984, 

Stuber 1985). These alterations in channel form and function reduce spawning habitat for 

salmonids and other aquatic organisms. Sediments blanket spawning gravel, entombing or 

suffocating fish embryos and juveniles (Stevens et al. 1992). 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (LCT, SNYLF, and Yosemite toad) 

Beyond livestock grazing, permitted land uses will generally have no direct or indirect effects on 

LCT, SNYLF or, if detected, Yosemite toad. Developed Standards and Guidelines should 

eliminate or reduce impacts to any TE, proposed or candidate species. However, as distribution 

increases through implementation of recovery efforts, there is potential for human interaction 

and disturbance on occupied sites to increase. This would lead to an increase potential for new 

AIS infestations, reduction in habitat quality (i.e. reduced stream shade or increased sediment on 

spawning gravels) and an increased probability of disease transmission, specifically Bd. 

If livestock use were authorized, current distribution of LCT, SNYLF, and, if detected, Yosemite 

toad could decrease due to habitat degradation. Livestock grazing reduces herbaceous and 

riparian vegetation, causes soil compaction, and alters stream channels due to streambank 

trampling. Higher water temperatures from loss of shade, increased sedimentation and reduction 

in plant detritus and some benthic macroinvertebrates (Rinne 1988) are known impacts of 

livestock grazing and cause a loss in species that require clean, cold water habitats such as LCT, 

SNYLF, and Yosemite toad. 

Status and Trend in Species Distribution (Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, and Northern 

leopard frog) 

There is potential for decrease of habitat quality and distribution by potentially increasing access 

to sensitive aquatic habitats where species occur. If Northern leopard frog were detected, habitat 

and distribution could decrease if authorized grazing occurred near occupied habitat. Grazing can 

replace riparian species by upland species and invasive weeds (Kauffman et al, 1983a, Green and 

Kauffman 1995), reducing riparian habitat for species such as Northern leopard frog. 

Climate Change 

Reiman and Isaak (2010) provide management options to support adaptation of fish populations 

and stream communities in response to climate change. These include enhance resilience and 

resistance, prioritize, facilitate transition to new states, develop local information, and coordinate 

efforts. While all alternatives address some of these options, Alternative D does not enhance 

resilience and resistance, or facilitate transition to new states because this alternative focus on 

passive management. Alternatives B, C, and E specifically address removal of barriers for 

migration, and aquatic invasive species. Removal of barriers to organism passage will afford an 

opportunity for species to take advantage of the improved connectivity, allowing them to migrate 

and avoid localized detrimental conditions caused by climate change. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-117 

3.4.3.4 Analytical Conclusions 

Management direction in Alternative B, C, and, to the greatest extent, E more clearly and 

contemporarily outlines restoration and enhancement of watershed and aquatic habitat specific to 

the Lake Tahoe basin. Lahontan cutthroat trout and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are 

expected to increase in their localized range with implementation of area-specific 

recovery/restoration efforts. 

Impacts from the recreation, road and trail and permitted land use programs could potentially 

off-set achievement of desired conditions for aquatic habitat and species due to increased human 

disturbance in and around aquatic habitat. This potential situation is prevalent in all alternatives, 

but somewhat buffered in Alternatives B, C, D, and E where updated desired conditions, 

objectives and standard and guidelines provide project-level direction for protection, 

enhancement, and restoration for aquatic habitat and associated species. 

Alternative E would offer the greatest benefits to aquatic habitat and species because the impacts 

from other resource areas are the same or less than other alternative but the benefits from AIS 

management are the greatest. Although some components of recreation (overnight 

accommodations and ski area) increase in Alternative E, compared to Alternative B, this 

alternative has additional Desired Conditions and Standards and Guidelines that provide 

direction for both conservation and enhancement of aquatic habitat. Although Alternative C 

shares the restoration benefits and AIS management (same as B but less than E), it is off-set by 

the increase in recreation, roads and trails. Furthermore, the prevalence of existing AIS 

populations and potential for new introductions becomes highest in Alternative D where passive 

management would make control and eradication more challenging as only the highest priority 

species would be targeted for control and/or removal. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-118 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions 

The restoration objectives and biological resource protection measures proposed under 

Alternatives B, C, and, to the greatest extent, E address contemporary desired conditions tied to 

species life history, habitat needs, and overall community-level management in the LTBMU. 

The biological resources protection measures provide clear and proactive management direction 

for special-status species protection and habitat restoration and enhancement as well as 

management standards for certain hot spot areas in the LTBMU. The desired conditions are 

based on Lake Tahoe and Sierra Nevada specific current state of knowledge from various 

watershed, ecological and species-centric assessments and research. The goal of the restoration 

program desired conditions is to refine management intent by defining proactive elements which 

sustain aquatic wildlife habitat and communities of special status species. In addition, approaches 

to achieve such watershed and aquatic restoration, and biological resource protection desired 

conditions (strategies, objectives and standards and guidelines) are scientifically credible and 

outcomes measurable. 

In contrast, desired conditions under the current direction (Alternative A) are founded in a more 

reactive management intent with goals of preventing aquatic habitat and species degradation 

from land management actions. Under Alternative A the opportunity to design site-specific land 

management projects to restore multiple ecosystem functions becomes more of a challenge. 

Alternative D includes the same desired conditions as Alternatives B, C, and E for biological 

resources protection and watershed and aquatic habitat condition but fails to follow the same 

restoration objectives to achieve these desired conditions. Therefore, Alternatives A and D may 

fall short of reaching desired conditions because of the lack of the proactive biological resource 

protection measures in Alternative A and lack of continued restoration under Alternative D. 

Additionally, due to the lack of active restoration, forest management, and AIS treatment, 

Alternative D could contribute to habitat degradation. 

Overall, Alternatives A, B, C, and, to a greater extent, E include management options that would 

maintain and/or improve aquatic wildlife habitat and better enable the habitats to respond to 

changing climate conditions, thereby assisting species dependent on features of these habitats. 

Alternative D does not provide for these opportunities. Alternatives B, C, and E also provide for 

maintenance and improvement of movement corridors that would improve habitat connectivity 

and assist species as changing climate conditions may influence species ranges or habitat needs. 

The increase in recreation proposed in Alternative, A, C, and, to a lesser extent, E, however, 

limit opportunities to meet the desired conditions for aquatic habitat and species by increasing 

the threat of AIS. These limitations, however, are offset in Alternative E due to additional 

desired conditions and management direction. Therefore, Alternative E provides the best balance 

in land use and management direction to attain aquatic desired conditions. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-119 

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative 

Table 3-22. Comparison of Consequences by Alternative, Aquatic Wildlife 

Aquatic 

Resource 

Type 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Streams, 

Lakes, 

Wetlands and 

Meadows 

Status and 

trend: a) 

improve as 

result of 

restoration and 

enhancement, 

b) stays at 

baseline in 

roadless and 

wilderness 

areas, or areas 

treated in 

forest 

vegetation 

actions, or c) 

decreases 

where 

impacted by 

land uses, 

especially 

where 

expansion of 

recreation 

increases 

potential for 

AIS 

transference. 

Status and 

trend: a) improve 

as result of 

restoration and 

enhancement, b) 

stays at baseline 

in roadless and 

wilderness 

areas, or areas 

treated in forest 

vegetation 

actions, or c) 

decreases 

where impacted 

by land uses, 

especially 

recreation, roads 

and trails and 

permitted 

livestock 

grazing. 

Impacts on 

aquatic habitat 

are less than Alt. 

A. 

Status and 

trend: a) improve 

as result of 

restoration and 

enhancement, b) 

stays at baseline 

in roadless and 

wilderness 

areas, or areas 

treated in forest 

vegetation 

actions, or c) 

decreases 

where impacted 

by land uses, 

especially 

recreation, roads 

and trails, 

construction of 

temporary roads 

(forest veg), 

permitted 

livestock 

grazing. 

Impacts on 

aquatic habitat 

are more than 

Alt. A and B. 

Status and 

trend: a) 

improve as a 

result of 

currently 

planned 

restoration and 

enhancement b 

and c) 

decreases 

where 

restoration or 

enhancement 

(aquatic and 

terrestrial) is 

needed but not 

permitted, by 

land uses, 

especially 

recreation, 

roads and trails 

and permitted 

livestock 

grazing. 

Impacts on 

aquatic habitat 

more than A, B, 

and C (due to 

AIS threats and 

risks of 

catastrophic 

fire). 

Status and trend: 

a) improve as 

result of 

restoration and 

enhancement, b) 

stays at baseline 

in roadless and 

wilderness 

areas, or areas 

treated in forest 

vegetation 

actions, or c) 

decreases where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

recreation, roads 

and trails and 

permitted 

livestock 

grazing. 

Impacts on 

aquatic habitat 

are less than Alt. 

A and similar to 

B. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-120 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Aquatic 

Resource 

Type 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

LCT The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery/restor

ation strategies 

progress. LCT 

may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and 

subsequent 

human 

interaction on 

occupied 

habitat. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. LCT 

may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction on 

occupied habitat 

at levels less 

than Alt. A. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. LCT 

may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction on 

occupied habitat 

at levels greater 

than Alt. A and 

Alt. B. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. LCT 

may face 

greater threats 

than in Alts A, B 

and C due to 

increased AIS, 

increase risk of 

fire, increase 

impacts of 

unmanaged 

recreations, and 

lack of active 

restoration 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. LCT 

may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction on 

occupied habitat 

at levels less 

than Alt. A and 

similar to B. 

SNYLF The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery/restor

ation strategies 

progress. 

SNYLF may 

face increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and human 

interaction and 

potential for an 

increase in AIS 

as human 

interaction in 

occupied 

habitat 

increases. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. 

SNYLF may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction and 

potential for an 

increase in AIS 

as human 

interaction in 

occupied habitat 

increases. This 

potential threat 

is less when 

compared to Alt. 

A. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. 

SNYLF may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction and 

potential for an 

increase in AIS 

as human 

interaction in 

occupied habitat 

increases at 

levels greater 

than Alt. A and 

B. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. 

SNYLF may 

face greater 

threats than in 

Alt.’s A, B and C 

due to 

increased AIS, 

increase risk of 

fire, increase 

impacts of 

unmanaged 

recreations, and 

lack of active 

restoration. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

increase as 

recovery 

strategies 

progress. 

SNYLF may face 

increased 

threats with 

expansion of 

recreation 

facilities, trails 

and subsequent 

human 

interaction and 

potential for an 

increase in AIS 

as human 

interaction in 

occupied habitat 

increases. This 

potential threat is 

less when 

compared to Alt. 

A and similar to 

B. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-121 

Aquatic 

Resource 

Type 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Tui Chub, 

Great Basin 

rams-horn, 

and Northern 

leopard frog 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to 

stay at 

baseline 

conditions or 

decrease with 

a potential 

increased 

distribution of 

existing and 

new AIS. 

Otherwise, the 

species will be 

susceptible to 

potential 

impacts on 

sensitive shore 

zone and lakestream 

interface 

habitats. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to stay 

at baseline 

conditions or 

increase with 

continued 

emphasis on AIS 

prevention, 

control and 

eradication and 

restoration and 

enhancement 

efforts. Potential 

impacts to 

sensitive habitat 

are expected to 

be less than Alt. 

A. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to stay 

at baseline 

conditions or 

increase with 

continued 

emphasis on AIS 

prevention, 

control and 

eradication and 

restoration and 

enhancement 

efforts. Species 

distribution will 

decrease where 

land use, 

specifically 

recreation, 

roads/trails, 

temporary roads 

(forest 

management) 

increase. 

Potential 

impacts to 

sensitive habitat 

are expected to 

be more than 

Alt. A and B. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to stay 

at baseline 

conditions or 

increase with 

decreases in 

recreation. 

Species 

distribution 

expected to 

decrease due to 

increased threat 

of AIS, 

catastrophic 

fire, unmanaged 

recreation. 

Potential 

impacts to 

sensitive habitat 

comparable or 

greater than 

other 

alternatives. 

The species 

distribution is 

expected to stay 

at baseline 

conditions or 

increase with 

continued 

emphasis on AIS 

prevention, 

control and 

eradication and 

restoration and 

enhancement 

efforts. Potential 

impacts to 

sensitive habitat 

are expected to 

be less than Alt. 

A and similar to 

B. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.4 Botanical Resources

3.4.4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate potential effects to botanical resources—plants, lichen, 

and fungi taxa as well as unique plant communities—across the five Forest Plan Revision 

alternatives. Descriptions of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E are included in Chapter 2. The 

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (TEPCS) 

Plants Species provides a more complete discussion of the species analyzed and the potential 

effects, including a determination for each species and each alternative. There are no Threatened, 

Endangered, or Proposed plant species known to occur or have suitable habitat on LTBMU.

Methodology

Analysis Area & Duration of Effects 

The analysis area for direct and indirect potential effects is defined as all NFS lands within the 

LTBMU administrative boundary because this is the area affected by the direction included in 

the revised Forest Plan. All indicators are evaluated at a basin-wide scale and based on the 

assumption that the revised Forest Plan will be programmatic in nature and not area-specific 

and/or project-specific. Effects of projects designed under the revised Forest Plan will be 

addressed in project-specific planning and environmental analysis. All effects are evaluated on a 

15-year basis for the anticipated life of revised Forest Plan.

Species Considered 

There are over 1000 species of plants, lichen, and fungi (referred to collectively as plants) known 

to occur on LTBMU—most of which are not considered in this analysis. For the vast majority of 

species, the general species and habitat guidance provided in the revised Forest Plan is 

considered sufficient to maintain variable populations and therefore maintain botanical diversity. 

These more common plant species are not at risk for a loss of viability due to a combination of 

their relative abundance and a relative low risk that management activities will significantly 

impact populations or suitable habitat; these species are not specifically addressed in the FEIS. 

Instead, the analysis focuses on species at risk of not maintaining viable populations. Appendix E 

details the management direction and process undertaken to evaluate species at risk as well as the 

list of species considered for inclusion in the revised Forest Plan and FEIS. 

Species lists maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species 

Act—Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species—and the Forest Service’s 

Pacific Southwest Region—Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List—were the primary 

sources for identifying species at risk (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b, USDA Forest 

Service 2013a).(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) 

2012, USDA Forest Service 2013a). These are referred to collectively as TEPCS plants or 

species. Because the listing process for both agencies includes an assessment of endangerment, 

these lists were preferred over other ranking systems that focus on species rarity, such as Nature 

Serve’s global ranking or the California Rare Plant Rank. Rarity is an expression of the pattern 

of distribution and abundance of a species at a specified time; some plants naturally occur less 

frequently than others (Regan 2004). Whereas, endangerment refers to factors—generally 

3-122 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

human-related—that make a particular species more susceptible to decline or extinction. Species 

listed as Sensitive by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) were also considered; all 

TRPA Sensitive species are included within the R5 Sensitive list (Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency 2012). TEPCS species present or having suitable habitat on LTBMU are considered the 

most likely to be impacted by the proposed activities. Conversely, species outside the LTBMU 

were not considered to have a high likelihood of being impacted by the proposed project either 

directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. Therefore, only those TEPCS species with known 

occurrences or with high potential for suitable habitat on LTBMU were analyzed. 

Species Analyzed 

Detailed descriptions of each species can be found in the Biological Evaluation for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (TEPCS) Plants Species. Some species have 

more than one subspecies or variety—lower taxonomic levels—that are considered at risk (e.g. 

Lewisia kelloggii, Draba asterophora). To simplify terminology in this analysis, these lower taxa 

are referred to as species and included separately in counts of species diversity.

Table 3-23. Plant species analyzed in the revised Forest Plan FEIS

Scientific Names Common 

Name

Legal 

Status

Suitable habitat characteristics

Boechera

rigidissima var. 

demota

Galena Creek 

rock cress

R5S Open, rocky areas along forest edges of conifer and/or 

aspen stands; usually found on north aspects; 7,500 ft. 

& above.

Boechera tiehmii Tiehm’s rock 

cress

R5S Open rocky soils in the Mt. Rose Wilderness; 10,000 ft. 

& above.

Boechera 

tularensis

Tulare 

rockcress

R5S Shaded, mostly east-facing subalpine rocky areas,

including rocky slopes, rock-lined streams and seeps, 

rocky outcrops, saddles, and canyons; 6,000-11,000 ft.

Botrychium spp Botrychium species are found in similar habitat; wet or 

moist soils such as marshes, meadows, and along the 

edges of lakes and streams; generally occur with 

mosses, sedges, rushes, and other riparian vegetation; 

2,000-10,000 ft.

Botrychium 

ascendens

upswept 

moonwort

R5S See Botrychium spp.

Botrychium 

crenulatum

scalloped 

moonwort

R5S

Botrychium 

lineare

slender 

moonwort

R5S

Botrychium 

lunaria

common 

moonwort

R5S

Botrychium 

minganense

Mingan 

moonwort

R5S

Botrychium 

montanum

western 

goblin

R5S

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander’s 

candle moss

R5S Mainly in montane meadows and stream banks, but 

also on bare, slightly eroding soil where competition is 

minimal.

Dendrocollybia 

racemosa1,2

branched 

collybia

R5S On old decayed or blackened mushrooms or 

occasionally in coniferous duff, usually within old 

growth stands.

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-123
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Scientific Names Common 

Name

Legal 

Status

Suitable habitat characteristics

Draba 

asterophora var.

asterophora

Tahoe draba R5S; 

TRPA

Rock crevices and open granite talus slopes on northeast slopes; 8,000-10,200 ft.

Draba 

asterophora var.

macrocarpa

Cup Lake 

draba

R5S; 

TRPA

Steep, gravelly or rocky slopes; 8,400-9,300 ft.

Draba cruciata Mineral King 

draba

R5S Subalpine gravelly or rocky slopes, ridges, crevices, 

cliff ledges, sink holes, boulder and small drainage 

edges; 7,800-13,000 ft.

Erigeron miser starved daisy R5S Granitic rock outcrops; 6,000 ft. & above

Eriogonum 

luteolum var. 

saltuarium

goldencarpet 

buckwheat

R5S Sandy granitic flats and slopes, sagebrush 

communities, montane conifer woodlands; 5,600-7,400 

ft.

Eriogonum 

umbellatum var.

torreyanum

Donner Pass 

buckwheat

R5S Dry gravelly or stony sites; often on harsh exposures 

(e.g. ridge tops, steep slopes)

Helodium 

blandowii

Blandow’s 

bog-moss

R5S Bogs, fens, wet meadows, and along streams under 

willows.

Hulsea brevifolia short-leaved 

hulsea

R5S Red fir forest, but also in mixed conifer forests; found 

on gravelly soils; 4,900-8,900 ft.

Ivesia sericoleuca Plumas ivesia R5S Vernally wet portions of meadows and alkali flats, 

vernal pools within sagebrush scrub or lower montane 

coniferous forest; often on volcanic soils; 4,300-7,200 

ft.

Lewisia kelloggii 

ssp. hutchisonii

Kellogg’s 

lewisia

R5S Ridge tops or flat open spaces with widely spaced 

trees and sandy granitic to erosive volcanic soil; 5,000-

7,000 ft.

Lewisia kelloggii 

ssp. kelloggii

Kellogg’s 

lewisia

R5S See Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii

Lewisia 

longipetala

long-petaled 

lewisia

R5S; 

TRPA

North-facing slopes and ridge tops where snow banks 

persist throughout the summer; often found near snow 

bank margins in wet soils; 8,000-12,500 ft.

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved 

hump-moss

R5S Bogs and fens, but also very wet meadows.

Orthotrichum 

praemorsum

orthotrichum 

moss

R5S Shaded, moist habitats of east side of Sierra Nevada 

rock outcrops; up to 8,200 ft.

Peltigera gowardii Goward’s 

water fan

R5S Cold unpolluted streams in mixed conifer forests.

Pinus albicaulis whitebark 

pine

C; R5S Subalpine and at timberline on rocky, well-drained 

granitic or volcanic soils.

Rorippa 

subumbellata

Tahoe yellow 

cress

C; 

R5S; 

TRPA; 

CA-E; 

NV-T

Endemic to the shore zone of Lake Tahoe, typically in 

back beach areas between 6,223 and 6,230 ft.

3-124 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Notes:

There are no federally threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species known to occur or with known suitable 

habitat within LTBMU. This list includes all R5 Sensitive plant and fungi species with known occurrences or known 

suitable habitat on LTBMU.

Legal status: C—Candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (US Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011b); R5S—Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 5 (USDA Forest Service 2013a); TRPA—Tahoe 

Regional Planning Commission Sensitive Species (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2012); CA-E—Considered 

endangered by the State of California (State of California Department of Fish and Game 2012); NV—CE—

Considered critically endangered by the State of Nevada (State of Nevada 2005) 1 For branched collybia, surveys are only effective when fruiting bodies are visible. This species typically fruits in 

late fall -early winter. The extent to which aboveground fruiting bodies are correlated with the abundance of 

underground structures is unknown. When a survey does not find the fruiting body, the species could still be 

present at the site. Because of this detection difficulty, it is important to manage habitat in a state that is suitable for 

fungi.

2 An alternative framework for the management of Sensitive fungi is pending Regional Forester approval (expected 

in 2013)

 

Aggregation of Species by Habitat Type 

While the 28 species analyzed vary widely in their ecological requirements and life history 

characteristics, many occur in similar broad habitat types where the effects of proposed

management are comparable. Major habitat types—General Forest, Subalpine, Aspen, Meadow, 

Montane Riparian—were derived from California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) 

vegetation types—consistent with the Forest Vegetation and Wildlife Sections of Chapter 3. 

Plant habitats associated with fine-scale features that are not capture by courser CWHR 

classification include Shoreline and Rocky Habitat. Each species was assigned to a minimum of 

one habitat type, but may be assigned to more, if it had broader habitat requirements. The 

following types have been selected to represent the species being addressed in this analysis: 

General Forest

The General Forest habitat type consists of Jeffrey Pine, White Fir-Mixed Conifer, Red Fir and 

Lodgepole Pine forest types. Each of these forest types and their current condition is described in 

detail in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report; these are summarized briefly below:

Jeffrey Pine Forest—Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forests occur on drier sites from 6224 ft. to 

approximately 8,000 ft. and currently dominates an estimated 17% of LTBMU. Associates 

include sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murryana), incensecedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and white fir (Abies concolor). Western white pine (Pinus 

monticola) and red fir (Abies magnifica) replace sugar pine and white fir respectively at higher 

elevations. 

White Fir-Mixed Conifer Forest—generally occurs from 6,224 ft. to about 7,000 ft. and currently 

dominates an estimated 33% of LTBMU. White fir is dominant but this forest type also includes 

Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, sugar pine. 

Red Fir Forest—Red fir forests typically replace white fir-mixed conifer on similar moist but 

well drained soils between elevations of 7,000 to 8,500 feet, mostly on north and east aspects and 

currently dominates an estimated 12% of LTBMU. 

Lodgepole Pine Forest—Lodgepole pine forest type occurs at variety of elevations, often on 

azonal soils (e.g. sites that are either too wet or too dry or rocky for more competitive species to 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-125
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

dominate the stand.) Lower elevation lodgepole pine stands are primarily found on wet soils or in 

areas of cold air drainage, where air and soil temperatures are unfavorable for other species. 

Species found in general forest are: Boechera rigidissima v. demota, Dendrocollybia racemosa,

Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium , Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Helodium 

blandowii, Hulsea brevifolia, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. kelloggii, 

Subalpine

Subalpine zone occurs from approximately 8,200 ft. to treeline (9,000-10,000 ft.) and is 

comprised of a mosaic of forest, woodland, meadows, rock outcrops, and shrub vegetation types. 

The most common forest type in the subalpine is mixed subalpine woodland, with white bark 

pine (Pinus albicaulis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and species from the upper 

montane, such as red fir, lodgepole pine and western white pine. Stands tend to be open on sandy 

soils and rocky slopes. Many species form krummholz.

Species found in the subalpine are: Boechera tiehmii, Boechera tularensis, Draba asterophora 

var. asterophora, Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, 

Lewisia longipetala, Pinus albicaulis

Aspen

The aspen forest type occurs at elevations ranging from lake level to over 9000 feet and currently 

dominates less than 1% of LTBMU. Stand sizes range from less than a quarter acre to 130 acres, 

with half of the stands being 0.8 acres or smaller. Approximately 35% of the Basin’s aspen 

stands are found within a 300-foot elevation zone above the shoreline of Lake Tahoe, mostly 

growing in the broad bottomlands of west side canyons. 

Species found in aspen stands are: Boechera rigidissima v. demota, Botrychium lineare, 

Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia bolanderi

Meadows

Meadows areas characterized by the presence of water is at or near the surface for most of the 

growing season and dense graminoid (grasses, sedges, rushes) and forb cover, with or without a 

shrub component (Weixelman et al. 2011). In this analysis, this habitat type includes groundwater-dependent communities such as seeps, springs and fens. Meadows occur from lake level to 

almost 10,000 feet. While meadows account for a small percentage of the overall Lake Tahoe 

Basin landscape, they are ecologically important because they plays a crucial role in hydrologic 

processes, erosion control, nutrient cycling, and habitat for many plant and animal species

(Manley et al. 2000). Meadows are a subset of the stream environment zone (SEZ) as defined in 

the both the current and revised Forest Plan.

Species found in meadows are: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium 

lineare, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, Bruchia 

bolanderi, Helodium blandowii, Ivesia sericoleuca, Meesia uliginosa,

3-126 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Montane Riparian

These are areas occur adjacent to streams and rivers and is often characterized by plant species 

that are tolerant of seasonal flooding, such as willow and alders. Riparian zones occur from lake 

level to almost 10,000 ft. They can be found under dense canopies of mixed conifer forest, 

within aspen stands, or as the primary canopy vegetation. They are a subset of the SEZ as 

defined in the both the current and revised Forest Plan.

Species found in montane riparian areas are: Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, 

Botrychium lineare, Botrychium lunaria, Botrychium minganense, Botrychium montanum, 

Bruchia bolanderi, Peltigera hydrothyria

Shorelines

This habitat type includes the shorelines of Lake Tahoe Basin’s large lakes—Lake Tahoe and 

Fallen Leaf, Cascade, Upper Echo, and Lower Echo Lakes. Shoreline habitat ranges from 

relatively narrow rocky outcrops to wide, open, sandy beaches or connections to lagoons and 

wetlands. The Lake Tahoe Basin, the interface of the lake and other aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems are often relatively biologically diverse (Manley et al. 2000, Murphy and Knopp 

2000); the largest wetlands in the Lake Tahoe basin and the only barrier beaches and lagoons are 

located next to shorelines of large lakes. It is a subset of the SEZ as defined in the current and

revised Forest Plan.

Species found along shorelines are: Rorippa subumbellata

Rocky Habitats

Rocky habitats encompass a spatially disparate and diverse group of habitat types including, but 

are not limited to: talus and scree fields; rock outcrops and boulders; rocky, steep slopes and 

ridge tops; granitic, sandy soils; shallow, volcanic soils; and thin, rocky soils in conifer forests.

They range in size from a single large glacial erratic to multi-acre talus fields.

Species found in rocky habitats are: Boechera tiehmii, Draba asterophora var. asterophora, 

Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa, Draba cruciata, Erigeron miser, Eriogonum umbellatum

var. torreyanum, Hulsea brevifolia, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. 

kelloggii, Lewisia longipetala, Orthotrichum praemorsum, Pinus albicaulis

Indicators & Major Activity Categories 

Because the revised Forest Plan does not authorize project-level activities, it is not particularly 

meaningful to assess the effects to botanical resources through quantitative indicators such as 

number of occurrences or acres of suitable habitat affected. Site-specific effects to occurrences 

and habitat will be addressed in subsequent project-specific environmental analysis. Instead, the 

following indicators form the basis for this analysis and are defined and discussed below:

• Species Conservation Strategy type—Active or Passive; an active approach uses 

watershed restoration and forest health treatments to achieve desired conditions for 

TEPCS species, whereas passive restoration relies on natural processes.

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-127
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

• Trend in abundance—decreasing, stable, or increasing; trend in abundance (number of 

TEPCS plant occurrences) is estimated by comparing current risks to species and the 

risks that may arise or be mitigated by proposed management activities

• Trend in habitat condition—decreasing, stable, or increasing; trend in habitat condition is 

estimated by comparing current habitat condition and the habitat condition that would 

likely result from proposed management activities.

The environmental consequences of the following major categories of activities are discussed as 

follows:

• Species Conservation Strategies

• Vegetation management

• Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration

• Recreation / Access and Travel Management

Some activities are not specified because they are a combination of activities from the above list. 

For example, aspen enhancement and meadow restoration may include hand and mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire. Other activities are not discussed because they are not likely to 

substantial affect botanical resources. 

Assumptions 

The following assumptions have been made:

• Actions comprising each program and sub-program area are consistent with pertinent 

resource federal and state law and current and proposed revised Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. 

• Current and future actions for threatened, endangered (T&E) and candidate species 

restoration and recovery are consistent with conservation strategies, interim prescriptions, and 

recovery plans.

• Current and proposed revised Forest Plan components (i.e. desired conditions, standard 

and guidelines, etc.) invoke unit-specific habitat and species conservation elements, which are 

meant to be consistent with the intent of federal law and state code/statue. 

Data Sources 

Basic information describing the life history, ecology, pollination biology, and specific habitat 

requirements is lacking for most of the LTBMU populations of analyzed species. The scientific 

literature and internal government documents (i.e. species-specific conservation assessments) 

were utilized for the analysis whenever available; however more frequently the analysis of 

effects was based on observations by qualified individuals, field experience, unpublished 

monitoring results, and studies of comparable species.

3-128 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.4.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Species Diversity

The vascular plant flora of the Tahoe Basin is a subset of the northern High Sierra Nevada 

geographic sub region (nSNH) within the California Floristic Province (CFP) (Baldwin et al. 

2012). A Mediterranean-type climate—hot dry summers and cool wet winters—characterizes the 

CFP; there are only five such areas in the world—all of which are considered biodiversity 

hotspots (Dallmann 1998). CFP flora consists of nearly 5800 species, of which 28% are endemic; 

the high level of endemism is related to the topographic, geologic, and climatic diversity of 

California(Ornduff et al. 2003, Baldwin et al. 2012). Lake Tahoe Basin flora represents a much 

restricted subset of the CFP, due to the Basin’s small elevation and climate band—it only ranges 

from 6,000-10,000ft and experiences a relatively short cool summer—and its relatively 

homogenous geologic makeup dominated by glaciated granite which includes few serpentine or 

volcanic soils. Plant species diversity estimates for the Lake Tahoe Basin range from 1,000-

1,800 vascular species (Graf 1999, Manley et al. 2000)Plant species diversity estimates for the 

Lake Tahoe Basin range from 1,000-1,800 vascular species (Graf 1999, Manley et al. 2000); 

project-level floristic surveys conducted by the Forest Service have recorded approximately

1,100 vascular species and approximately 190 species of non-vascular species (USDA Forest 

Service 2013b). There are approximately 70 species that are endemic to the Sierra Nevada that 

are known to occur in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Manley et al. 2000, Murphy and Knopp 2000)

It is difficult to reconstruct what botanical species—including TEPCS plants—were historically 

present prior to the 1844 discovery of Lake Tahoe by John C. Fremont. Collections made by 

John Torrey during Fremont’s expeditions include the first collections of plants from the Tahoe 

area (Torrey 1854). While a steady stream of botanists have visited and collected in the Tahoe 

Basin—starting with William H. Brewer in 1860 and continuing through the 1900’s with 

botanical studies made by Gladys L. Smith who published two floras, many of the collections 

were made primarily at personal vacation locations, and were not focused on providing a 

comprehensive floristic survey (Smith 1984). During the Comstock Era (1849-1900), trees in the 

Lake Tahoe basin were harvested to support mining operations. Only the inaccessible steep 

slopes of original forest remained untouched. Many of the plants found in early years were not 

found during the field work for Smith’s 1983 flora—apparently now historic occurrences 

only(Smith 1984). The current plant species diversity may be much lower than it was only 200 

years ago.

Management Status of Analyzed Species

As stated in the methodology above, this analysis focuses on TEPCS species at risk of not 

maintaining viable populations. There are no Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species 

on the LTBMU. There are two species which are candidates for listing under ESA—whitebark 

pine and Tahoe yellow cress (TYC). Candidate species receive no statutory protection under 

ESA (USFWS 2011); candidate management is dictated by the management direction of the 

agency upon which the species occurs. However, the USFWS encourages conservation efforts 

for candidate species because they are, by definition, species that may warrant future protection 

under the ESA (USFWS 2011). One species—Tahoe yellow cress—is considered endangered by 

the State of California and critically endangered by the State of Nevada, which provides statutory 

protection on non-federal lands, but does not influence management on NFS lands. 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-129
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

All 28 species analyzed—including the two Candidate species—are on the Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Plant Species List (Table 3-23). Forest Service Sensitive species are those plant 

species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as 

evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or 

density; (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). Under the 1982 Planning Rule, Forest 

Service requires a review of all activities or programs that are planned, funded, executed, or 

permitted for possible effects on federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species and develop 

and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or 

endangered because of Forest Service actions (FSM 2672.4). Five of the Sensitive species are 

also considered Sensitive by TRPA (Table 3-23); TRPA prohibits projects and activities in the 

vicinity of sensitive plants and their associated habitat that are likely harm, destroy or otherwise 

jeopardize plants or habitat, unless their significant adverse effects are fully mitigated (TRPA 

2012). 

There are seven species with no known occurrences—only suitable habitat—on LTBMU and 

three species known only from historic records (Table 3-24); due to their absence, no speciesspefici management direction has been developed for these species on LTBMU. 

With the exception of whitebark pine, all species with known occurrences on LTBMU are 

monitored on a 5-year basis with interim annual monitoring of occurrences that exhibit large 

changes (McKnight and Engelhardt 2012). Long-term monitoring protocols have been developed 

for four of the five flowering plant species known to occur on LTBMU—Tahoe draba, Cup Lake 

draba, long-petaled lewisia, Tahoe yellow cress (Pavlik 2002, Engelhardt and Gross 2011b, 

Engelhardt and Gross 2011a). The fifth flowering species—Galena rock cress—requires further 

taxonomic study prior to the development of a monitoring strategy. It is difficult to distinguish in 

the field and often hybridizes with Pioneer rockcress (Boechera elkoensis) (Morefield 2002). In 

Flora of North America and the New Jepson Manual, A. rigidissima var. demota was 

synonymized under Boechera rigidissima (Al-Shehbaz and Windham 2003, Baldwin et al. 

2012). There is an interagency conservation strategy in place for Tahoe yellow cress (Pavlik 

2002). The remaining flowering plants are managed using the general species diversity 

provisions of the Forest Plan. There is a range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine and a 

regional conservation strategy and unit-wide mapping effort are both underway (Keane et al. 

2012; D. Ikeda pers. comm.). 

Eleven of the species are cryptogams—species that reproduce by spores without flowers or 

seeds—including four mosses, one lichen, and six ferns. These cryptogams are found primarily 

in moist to wet places—areas generally bounded by the TRPA SEZ designation. These species 

are managed using the general species diversity provisions of the Forest Plan, though due to their 

coincidence in SEZs, their habitat has been shielded from development as well as fuels 

treatments by the TRPA SEZ guidelines (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2012). A long-term 

monitoring protocol has been developed for broad-nerved hump-moss at Grass Lake Research 

Natural Area.

3-130 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-24 Management Status and Rarity of TEPCS Species

Scientific Name Common 

Name

Life 

form

Legal 

Status

Global 

Rarity 

Rank

State 

Rarity 

Rank

CRPR / 

NNHP 

Rarity 

Rank

Occurrences 

known on 

LTBMU

Boechera 

rigidissima var. 

demota

Galena Creek 

rock cress

V R5S G3T3 S1 / S2 1B.2 / 

W

5

Boechera tiehmii Tiehm’s rock 

cress

V R5S G2 S2.3 / 

S1

1B.3 / 

W

1

Boechera 

tularensis

Tulare 

rockcress

V R5S G2 S2 / -- 1B.3 / -

-

1 unconfirmed 

historic record 

near Emerald 

Bay

Botrychium spp

Botrychium 

ascendens

upswept 

moonwort

V / C R5S G3 S2.3 / 

S1

2.3 / 6

Botrychium 

crenulatum

scalloped 

moonwort

V / C R5S G3 S2.2 / 

S1?

2.2/ W 4

Botrychium lineare slender 

moonwort

V / C R5S G2? S1.3 / -- 1B.3 / -

-

Suitable 

habitat only

Botrychium lunaria common 

moonwort

V / C R5S G5 S2? / -- 2.3 / -- Suitable 

habitat only

Botrychium 

minganense

Mingan 

moonwort

V / C R5S G4 S2 / -- 2.2/ -- 2

Botrychium 

montanum

western goblin V / C R5S G3 S1.1 / -- 2.1 / -- 3

Bruchia bolanderi Bolander’s 

candle moss

V / C R5S G3 S3 / S1 2.2 / -- 7

Dendrocollybia 

racemosa1,2

branched 

collybia

F / C R5S G2G3 -- / -- -- / -- 1 historic 

record near 

Tahoe City

Draba asterophora 

var. asterophora

Tahoe draba V R5S; 

TRPA

G2T2 S2 / S1 1B.2 / 3

Draba asterophora 

var. macrocarpa

Cup Lake 

draba

V R5S; 

TRPA

G2T1 S1 / -- 1B.1 / -

-

1—includes 

entire species 

range

Draba cruciata Mineral King 

draba

V R5S G2 S2.3 / -- 1B.3 / -

-

1 unconfirmed 

historic record 

near Dick’s 

Peak

Erigeron miser starved daisy V R5S G2 S2.3 / -- 1B.3 / -

-

Suitable 

habitat only

Eriogonum 

luteolum var.

saltuarium

goldencarpet 

buckwheat

V R5S G5T1 S1 1B.2 / -

-

Suitable 

habitat only

Eriogonum 

umbellatum var.

torreyanum

Donner Pass 

buckwheat

V R5S G5T2 S2.2 / -- 1B / -- Suitable 

habitat only

Helodium blandowii Blandow’s bogmoss

V / C R5S G5 S1.3 / -- 2.3 / -- 2

Hulsea brevifolia short-leaved 

hulsea

V R5S G3 S3/ -- 1B.2 / -

-

Suitable 

habitat only

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-131
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Scientific Name Common 

Name

Life 

form

Legal 

Status

Global 

Rarity 

Rank

State 

Rarity 

Rank

CRPR / 

NNHP 

Rarity 

Rank

Occurrences 

known on 

LTBMU

Ivesia sericoleuca Plumas ivesia V R5S Suitable 

habitat only

Lewisia kelloggii 

ssp. hutchisonii

Kellogg’s 

lewisia

V R5S G4T2T

3

S2S3 / -

-

3.3 / -- Suitable 

habitat only

Lewisia kelloggii 

ssp. kelloggii

Kellogg’s 

lewisia

V R5S G4T2T

3

S2S3 / -

-

3.3 / -- Suitable 

habitat only

Lewisia longipetala long-petaled 

lewisia

V R5S; 

TRPA

G2 S2.2 /-- 1B.3 / -

-

5

Meesia uliginosa broad-nerved 

hump-moss

B / C R5S G4 S2 / -- 2.2 / -- 2

Orthotrichum 

praemorsum

orthotrichum 

moss

B / C R5S 1

Peltigera gowardii Goward’s 

water fan

L / C R5S G4 S3.2 / -- -- / -- 2

Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine V C; R5S G3G4 -- / -- -- / -- Estimates 

range from 

1,000-20,000 

acres

Rorippa 

subumbellata

Tahoe yellow 

cress

V C; 

R5S; 

TRPA; 

CA-E; 

NV-T

G1 S1 / S2 1B.1 / T 4*

3-132 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Notes: TEPCS: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

Lifeform: B—Bryophytes; C—Cryptogam; F—Fungi; L—Lichen; V—Vascular plants

Legal status: C—Candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act(US Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011b); R5S—Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 5(USDA Forest Service 2013a); TRPA—Tahoe 

Regional Planning Commission Sensitive Species(Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2012); CA-E—Considered 

endangered by the State of California(State of California Department of Fish and Game 2012); NV—CE—

Considered critically endangered by the State of Nevada (State of Nevada 2005)

Global Rarity Rank: G1—Critically Imperiled (At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity—often <5 

populations, very steep declines, or other factors); G2—Imperiled (At high risk of extinction or elimination due to 

very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors).; G3—Vulnerable (At moderate risk of 

extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent & widespread declines, or other 

factors); G4—Apparently Secure (Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or 

other factors); G5—Secure (widespread & abundant); G#G#(Range Rank)—a numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) 

used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon or ecosystem type; T# (intraspecific 

taxon)--status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) using same criteria as global rank(NatureServe 2012).

State Rarity Rank: CA: S1—Less than 6 occurrences, less than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres; S2—6-

20 occurrences, 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres; S3—21-80 occurrences, 3,000-10,000 individuals 

or 10,000-50,000 acres; S4—Apparently secure; S5—Secure. Threat suffixes: 0.1—very threatened; 0.2—

threatened; 0.3—no current threats known(California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2012). NV: S1—

Critically Imperiled; S2—Imperiled; S3—Vulnerable; S4—Apparently Secure; S5—Secure; same criteria as global 

rank(NatureServe 2012).

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Rank: formerly known as “CNPS rank”; 1A—presumed extinct in CA; 1B—

Rare or Endangered in CA & elsewhere; 2—Rare or Endangered in CA, but more common elsewhere; 3—Review 

list (plants that need more information); 4—Watch List (plants of limited distribution). CNPS 1B Threat Suffixes: 

0.1—Seriously endangered in CA (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree & immediacy of threat); 0.2—

Fairly endangered in CA (20-80% occurrences threatened); 0.3—Not very endangered in CA (<20% of occurrences 

threatened or no current threats known) (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2012).

Nevada Native Plant Society (NNPS) Rank: E—Endangered (believed to meet the ESA definition of endangered); 

M—Marginal/Disjunct (rare &/or possibly distinct, & potentially vulnerable, in the Nevada portion of its range, but 

much more widespread & secure outside Nevada); PE—Possibly Extirpated (historically native to Nevada, but may 

no longer survive in the wild); T—Threatened (believed to meet the ESA definition of threatened); W—Watch list 

species (potentially vulnerable to becoming Threatened or Endangered) (Nevada Natural Hertiage Program (NNHP) 

2010).

Occurrences on LTBMU: Derived from the Natural Resource Inventory System (NRIS) accessed in June 2013

(USDA Forest Service 2013b). Except for whitebark pine, occurrence delineation follows the California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB) guidelines.

*Using CNDDB guidelines, there are four TYC occurrences; however, TYC is better described as a single 

metapopulation with several sites that may or may not be occupied annually based on lake levels(Pavlik 2002).

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

Because the revised Forest Plant presents new management strategies for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species, they are briefly summarized below. There are no 

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species on the LTBMU. Effects will be discussed by 

habitat type, except for Species Conservation and Habitat Restoration strategies.

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) 

This 5-needle white pine has broad distribution at high elevation and timberline zones in 

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, and British 

Colombia(NatureServe 2012). In California, whitebark pine has been recorded on National 

Forest System lands in Six Rivers, Klamath, Modoc, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Tahoe, Eldorado, 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests. 

While the species has a broad geographic range, precise information regarding the abundance 

and distribution of stands is limited. 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-133
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

This species occurs on slopes and ridges near timberline, often with cold windswept exposures, 

resulting in geographically isolated stands(Arno and Hoff 1989). In the Sierra Nevada and 

Cascade Ranges of California, whitebark pine often occur as pure or nearly pure stands in the 

subalpine zone, where it regularly defines the upper tree line and often forms krummholz 

cushions. This species generally occurs on cryochrept soils—cold-climate soils lacking 

development—that are moderately to poorly draining, nutrient poor and from granitic or basaltic 

origins (Fryer 2002). Soils on LTBMU are of andesite, granodiorite, tuff breccia and volcanic 

origins (Maloney et al. 2012). 

There is a high level of uncertainty regarding the abundance and distribution of whitebark pine 

on LTBMU. Currently, the best available spatial data for estimating LTBMU’s whitebark pine 

abundance and distribution is a combination of the Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) data in 

the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) and the Region 5’s Existing Vegetation data 

(EVeg). An assessment of these datasets, the methodology of how estimates were produced, and 

maps of estimated distribution within the project and botany analysis area are provided in the 

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (TEPCS) 

Plants Species. Estimates of the abundance of whitebark pine on LTBMU range from 

approximately 1,500 acres to over 24,000 acres (Table 3-25).

Table 3-25. Range of estimated whitebark pine abundance on LTBMU

Data source Stand type Acres

EVeg Whitebark pine—Dominant 1,518

Eveg + TEUI overlap Whitebark pine—Dominant 5,079

TEUI Whitebark pine—Dominant 9,877

EVeg Whitebark pine—Potential 17,791

EVeg + TEUI Whitebark pine—Potential 24,387

Mortality data collected in multiple studies throughout its range strong suggest that whitebark 

pine is in range-wide decline(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a, Keane et al. 2012). The 

primary threat to whitebark pine across its range is a synergistic combination of climate change, 

white pine blister rust (WPBR), periodic mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreaks and fire 

exclusion(Millar et al. 2004b, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a, Keane et al. 2012). Under 

conditions resulting from fire exclusion, weakening by WPBR, and climate-related drought 

events, mountain pine beetle outbreaks can be stand-replacing events that kill 80-95 percent of 

suitable host trees(Keane et al. 2012). In 2009, whitebark pine on an estimated 2,000,000 acres 

were killed(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a).

When compared to other parts of the range, such as the Rockies, California has experienced 

relatively low mortality of whitebark pine, potentially due to the lower incidence of 

WPBR(Dunlap 2010, Millar et al. 2012); however, recent monitoring and research results 

suggest that this may be changing (Gibson et al. 2008, Forest Health Protection (FHP) 2012).

There are isolated stands in California that have experienced stand-replacing mortality events, 

including areas in the Warner Mountains and the Inyo National Forest (M. MacKenzie, personal 

communication; C. Millar, personal communication). On LTBMU, one-time demographic data 

from eight stands indicates relative stability of the whitebark pine population, except near Mt. 

Rose where stands may be in decline (Maloney et al. 2012). While native bark beetles are 

present, the primary threat to whitebark pine on LTBMU is non-native white pine blister rust.

3-134 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Since its detection in the 1920’s, the pathogen has caused unprecedented decline and mortality in 

white pines--including whitebark—across the West(Aubry et al. 2008). On LTBMU, whitebark 

pine stands on the north shore exhibit the highest WBPR (>60%) and the south shore has the 

lowest WPBR incident (1-20%) (Maloney et al. 2012). 

Compared to other TEPCS plants in the Sierra Nevada, analysis and management of the effects 

to whitebark pine presents distinctive challenges. Most other TEPCS species are not so widely 

distributed—both within and among NFS units—and most TEPCS populations consist of 

relatively isolated occurrences, rather than multi-acre stands. Maintenance of viability these 

types of populations can often, though not always, be effectively managed through avoidance of 

occurrences during management activities using tactics such as control area and “flag-and-avoid” 

guidance. However, for certain management activities on LTBMU—especially those associated 

with high elevation portions of ski areas, it is infeasible to avoid entire whitebark pine stands due 

to its widespread distribution, its large physical size, and its relatively large average stand size.

The long life span of whitebark pine presents additional challenges for management. Cones are 

first produced at 20-30 years of age on good sites, but on most sites, trees do not reach full cone 

production until 60 to 100 years of age (McCaughey and Tomback 2001). Therefore, direct and 

indirect impacts to whitebark pine stands may have relatively long-term effects on the stand’s 

viability.

In addition, the majority of whitebark pine management guidance and strategic planning is 

focused on protecting and restoring lands with high white pine blister rust mortality, high 

mountain pine beetle mortality, or high fire danger (e.g.(Aubry et al. 2008, Greater Yellowstone 

Coordinating Committee Whitebark Pine Subcommittee (GYCC) 2011, Keane et al. 2012)). The 

conceptual models used to produce strategies for heavily pathogen-infested populations do not 

adequately address management of relatively uninfested populations, such as the LTBMU’s, and, 

for the most part, other populations throughout the Sierra Nevada.

Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata) 

This perennial forb is endemic to the shore zone of Lake Tahoe. It is typically found in back 

beach areas between elevations of 6,233 to 6,230 ft. Occurrences of Tahoe yellow cress fluctuate 

with lake water levels, which are related to dam regulation and climate. Besides high water 

levels, which reduce available habitat, potential threats include development, pier construction, 

and trampling from increasing recreational use on the beaches. During low lake levels of drought 

years, the population can swell substantially; 20,000 plants were counted in 2002, the second 

year of below normal precipitation. However, during high water years, many of the largenumbered populations are underwater and only small populations exist above water; in 2009,

only 24 occurrences were located. A Numerical Non-degradation Standard was adopted in the 

Conservation Strategy (2002), setting the minimum number of population sites for Tahoe yellow 

cress at 26, although this number may be revised down (A. Stanton, Pers. Comm.).

The Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress and its implementation provide a framework 

for the adaptive management of Tahoe yellow cress . The Conservation Strategy outlines goals 

to protect, improve, promote, monitor the species with the intent to preclude federal listing of the 

species by full implementation of the Strategy. The Strategy also includes instructions on when 

to perform annual surveys around the Lake—a data set that has been collected since 1979. In the 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-135
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

current Forest Plan, Tahoe yellow cress is managed through a”threshold” concept that mandates 

a preserving a minimum number of TYC-occupied sites.

R5 Sensitive Species

Because the discussion of effects to R5 Sensitive species will be aggregated by habitat type, 

narrative descriptions of the remaining 26 R5 Sensitive Species known to occur or have suitable 

habitat on LTBMU are reserved for the revised Forest Plan FEIS’s Biological Evaluation for 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (TEPCS) Plants Species.

Habitat condition

Below is a brief summary of habitat conditions that are particularly important for considering the 

effects to TEPCS plant species. An extensive description of the current condition of the various 

forest types included in General Forest can be found in the FEIS Forest Vegetation Specialist 

Report, an extensive description of the current condition of fire and fuels can be found in the Fire 

and Fuels Section of Chapter 3, and an extensive assessment of how climate change may impact 

forest planning and how forest planning may impact climate change can be found in the Climate 

Change section of Chapter 3. 

Across all habitat types, there are changes in temperature, precipitation, and fire behavior 

associated with climate change that are likely to impact TEPCS species. Mean annual 

temperature has risen by about two degrees Fahrenheit and precipitation has increased during the 

last century in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Safford 2010). Overall, there appears to be a strong 

upward trend in air and lake temperature, rainfall intensity, a shift from snow to rain, earlier 

seasonal snowmelt events, and increased inter-annual variability in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Coats 

2010). Since the 1980’s, the Sierra Nevada has been experiencing an increase in frequency and 

severity of forest fires, with increases in the mean and maximum fire size, total burned area, and 

fire severity (Westerling et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2009); in general, forest fire increases are 

attributed to the interaction between climate change and increased fuel loading (Flannigan et al. 

2000, Miller et al. 2009). 

Both latitudinal and altitudinal range shifts for plants have been documented and attributed to 

temperature changes associated with climate change (Walther et al. 2005, Parmesan 2006, Lenoir 

et al. 2008). Lenoir et al. (2008) found that two-thirds of the species they investigated in the Alps 

shifted up in elevation, with larger shifts in distribution for alpine species and species with faster 

life cycles. Changes in water availability may play a crucial role in vegetation shifts in 

California’s Mediterranean climate. In a study of 64 plant species in California, climate changes 

have resulted in a significant downward shift in species’ optimum elevations tracking regional 

changes in climatic water balance rather than temperature (Crimmins et al. 2011). Furthermore, 

individual species will respond differently to changing climate (Parmesan 2006, Hawkins et al. 

2008); this may result in the formation of novel vegetation communities. This illustrated that 

climate-related changes can interact in a variety of unusual ways that influence vegetation. 

Anticipating future effects of changing climate to ecosystems will be challenging, since climate 

projections are inherently uncertain and climate-related stressors are variable and complex. 

Even though the type, scope, and duration of climate-related effects are not yet well understood, 

climate change is still predicted to become a major threat to biodiversity in the 21st century 

3-136 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

(Dawson et al. 2011). Models of future plant distributions indicate that anywhere from a tenth to 

fully one-half of all terrestrial plants species will be threatened with extinction as a result of 

climate change (Thomas et al. 2004, Hawkins et al. 2008). An assessment of California’s plant 

taxa under four different climate models suggests that over two-thirds of California plant species 

are expected to experience range reductions of more than 80% over the next century (Loarie et 

al. 2008). Many of the factors that have made at-risk species currently vulnerable to 

extinction—such as a small geographic range, ecological niche, or elevation gradient—are likely 

to be exacerbated in a changing climate. 

General Forest 

The primary factors affecting forest conditions in the Lake Tahoe Basin remain the Comstock era 

logging that removed most of the Jeffrey pine forest in the late 19th century and the exclusion of 

fire for more than 100 years (see Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3). Analysis of forest 

structure and fire scars in the Lake Tahoe Basin suggest that its contemporary forests have more 

and smaller trees, more basal area, less structural variability, and trees with a more clumped 

spatial distribution than presettlement forests (Taylor 2004). Likewise, forests in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin are severely departed from historic fire conditions, with over 90% of the Basin 

characterized as moderately or severely departed from historic fire return intervals (i.e. expected 

number of years between fires) and 98% of its land area not experiencing any fire since 1910

(see Fire and Fuels section of Chapter 3). Higher stand densities have resulted in higher risk of 

bark beetle and fire mortality. While late-seral old-growth stands did not likely represent a large

portion of the presettlement vegetation in the Lake Tahoe Basin, their extent has decreased and 

they have denser understories, more firs and incense cedar, and a higher incidence of pathogens

(Manley 2004). This has resulted in a higher than expected quantity of mid-seral stands, with 

white and red fir—shade tolerant, low fire-tolerant conifers—dominating large areas that might 

otherwise be dominated by pines (see Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3). The dense, 

homogenous and simplified structure of forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin has likely reduce the 

potential to support diverse species assemblages. As a result, there is likely less suitable habitat 

for both early seral plant species—such as Galena Creek rock cress—and late-seral species—

such as branch collybia. 

Subalpine 

Subalpine forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin do not exhibit as severe a departure from historic 

conditions as forests at its lower elevations, though there are emerging risks for these habitats. 

There has been virtually no entry for logging (Manley et al. 2000). Modern stand composition 

was indistinguishable from historical composition, though there has been a noted increase is 

small diameter trees (Dolanc et al. 2013). The fire return interval is so long—estimated at 400 

years—that a century of fire suppression has not yet missed a single fire cycle (see Fire and 

Fuels section of Chapter 3). 

Subalpine and mountaintop communities are considered at particular risk to climate change. 

Because of the physical limitations for range shifts, species already restricted to the tops of peaks 

have no space to migrate upward (Hawkins et al. 2008). Mountain top species are also at risk of 

displacement by plants from lower elevations that shift upwards in response to higher 

temperatures (Walther et al. 2005). Furthermore, in the past decade, select subalpine forest

stands in the Sierra Nevada have been severely affected by mountain pine beetle outbreaks with 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-137
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

increased mortality attributed to extended drought conditions associated with climate change

(Millar et al. 2004a, Forest Health Protection (FHP) 2012). 

Aspen 

In the Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, aspen forest types were prioritized as one of nine 

Ecologically Significant Areas due to their high associated biological diversity and rarity on the 

landscape ((Manley et al. 2000). Plant diversity associated with aspen stands is often 

substantially higher than other surrounding forest types (Kuhn et al. 2011, McCullough et al. 

2013). While it is likely that aspens stands have consistently represented only a very small 

portion of the land area of the Lake Tahoe Basin, their extent may also be restrict by advancing 

conifer succession (Shepperd et al. 2006). Aspen stands rely upon moderate disturbance (e.g. 

wildfire, avalanches) to create forest openings with sufficient sunlight for suckers to grow; 

eventually more stand tolerant trees—namely conifers in the Sierra—colonize the stands and 

begin to overtop the aspen, leading to their eventual decline and also severely limit the 

possibility of aspen suckering (Shepperd et al. 2006). Due to the high level of development in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin, there are limited tools for attaining the necessary level of disturbance 

(Shepperd et al. 2006) .

Meadows 

Past land use and recurrent droughts have impaired natural function and processes of many 

meadows in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Approximately half of the Basin’s meadows have been 

permanently lost, fragmented, or altered (Manley et al. 2010). Urbanization in the mid- to late20th century resulted in the filling and nearly permanent alteration of critical wet meadows and 

marshes; the Tahoe Keys development, for example, filled, fragmented, and highly altered 750 

contiguous acres of the once intact Rowland’s Marsh (Manley et al. 2000). Although grazing is 

no longer prevalent in meadows in the Lake Tahoe Basin, there are often substantial legacies—in 

particular, altered species composition and altered hydrology—in areas formerly open to grazing

in the Sierra Nevada (Dull 1999). Ongoing recreation activities represent a substantial threat to 

meadows through soil compaction, erosion, muddiness, loss of vegetative groundcover and 

changes in species composition (Leung and Marion 1999). Furthermore, certain meadow 

types—namely high elevation or alpine meadows—have extremely low resource recovery rates, 

requiring long periods to recover from even limited degradation (Leung and Marion 1999). There 

is also concern that conifer encroachment—mainly from lodgepole pine—and non-native species 

invasion may impact meadow species diversity in the Sierra Nevada (Manley et al. 2010, 

California Invasive Plant Council 2011, McCullough et al. 2013). Montane meadows have been 

identified as one of the most vulnerable and impacted habitat types of the Sierra Nevada, and 

meadow ecosystems are an important focus area for restoration efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Montane Riparian 

Many of the forested SEZs in the Lake Tahoe BAsin—which includes the montane riparian 

areas—are currently overstocked with small diameter trees and have increased fuel loads as a 

result of fire suppression activities. Furthermore, because SEZs were frequently avoided during 

fuels treatments over the past several decades, overstock may have been exacerbated. Similar to 

meadows, montane riparian areas have been degraded by decades of grazing and recreation 

(Manley et al. 2000); associated impacts include water diversion, water storage structures, 

3-138 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

denudation of vegetation, and erosion. Concerns over the clarity and water quality of Lake Tahoe 

have made SEZs a focus area for restoration activities (see Water Quality section of Chapter 3).

Shoreline 

Most shorelines along large lakes in the Lake Tahoe Basin have been extensively developed as 

recreation sites (Pavlik 2002). Few shorelines—especially sandy shores that are the primary 

habitat for Tahoe yellow cress—remain undeveloped and available for use as habitat.

Rocky habitats 

In general, rocky habitats have not been the focus of intensive management activities, such as 

timber harvesting, grazing, or recreation. Most remain relatively undisturbed, though some 

areas—especially popular mountain tops and trailside areas—have been denuded by visitor use.

Vulnerability of Analyzed Species

While rarity by itself does not indicate a species risk of extinction,it is often related to a species 

vulnerability to extirpation or extinction, given that many of the factors attributing to a species 

rarity—such as uncommon habitat, limited dispersal mechanisms, highly specialized pollination 

syndromes—may be disrupted by small changes resulting in vulnerability. Except for whitebark 

pine, the species analyzed fall into three general categories of rarity: a) plants restricted to 

uncommon habitats; b) plants with narrow geographic ranges; and c) plants that have broad 

distribution in more common habitats, but are seldom seen or occur in such low numbers as to be 

considered rare. Whitebark pine doesn’t fit these categories, as it is widely distributed across 

Western North American mountain ranges. It is considered at risk due to an idiosyncratic 

combination of climate change, fire suppression and pathogen outbreak, mainly in the Rocky 

Mountain sections of its range (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a, Keane et al. 2012). Species 

with uncommon habitats include climatic relics—species that require habitat conditions that are 

no longer prevalent due to changes in climate—such as long-petaled lewisia—as well as plants 

occur only in highly restricted habitats that are of a more recent origin and may never become 

common. The majority of the species analyzed fall into this category: all of the species 

associated with wet habitats—aspens, meadows, riparian area; Tahoe yellow cress which is 

restricted to the shoreline of Lake Tahoe; and Tahoe draba and Cup Lake draba which are found 

only above 8,000ft on rocky or gravelly slopes (Halford and Nowak 1996, Pavlik 2002). These 

plants have specific needs met by a unique combination of habitat factors not often duplicated 

and which are highly vulnerable to changes in environmental conditions. Plants with a narrow 

geographic range—such as Galena rock cress, Tiehm’s rock cress, and Orthotrichum 

praemorsum—are less vulnerable to small changes in environmental conditions, but are 

vulnerable to regional climatic changes. For plants that have broad distribution in more common 

habitats, but are seldom seen or occur in such low numbers as to be considered rare, such as 

moonworts or Goward’s water fan, the reasons for their rarity are not clearly evident, though 

uncommon reproductive strategies may play a role in limiting occurrence size (Peterson 2010, 

Farrar 2011). 

The primary threat to biodiversity across North America is habitat destruction and degradation 

(Wilcove et al. 1998). Activities that can destroy and degrade habitat include but not limited to: 

utility, road, facility, and home construction and maintenance; motorized vehicle use; livestock 

grazing; mining; timber management; fire suppression; and non-motorized recreation such as 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-139
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

camping, hiking, biking, and horseback riding. While several of these activities are considered 

under the revised Forest Plan, they can also occur on adjacent lands that are not subject to Forest 

Service management direction. As such, they may increase the risk of endangerment for TEPCS 

plants on NFS lands.

Nearly all 28 species have experienced a loss or degradation of habitat to human development or 

anthropogenic interventions, such as fire suppression, though the degree of habitat alteration 

varies substantially. Among the highest impacted, Tahoe yellow cress habitat has been severely 

reduced by recreation and residential development along the shoreline of Lake Tahoe(Pavlik 

2002). Conservsely, there has been relatively minimal habitat loss for the subalpine and 

mountain top species found predominantly in wilderness areas, such as the lewisias, the drabas, 

Tiem’s rock cress, and Donner Pass buckwheat. While some anthropogenic habitat degradation 

is irreversible (e.g shoreline home and pier construction), the effects of some anthropogenic 

stressors—such as fire suppression or invasive species introduction—may be reversed or reduced 

through active conservation and restoration.

In addition to habitat alteration, climate change presents risks to already vulnerable species. If 

conditions for pollinators do not keep pace with those for their host plants, there may be a

disruption in synchrony between plants and pollinators, leading to further species declines across 

the food chain (Hawkins et al. 2008). Decline of certain key species (e.g. canopy species, 

pollinators) may trigger a cascade effect of local extinctions among associated species and could 

lead to larger changes in ecosystems. In the face of changing environmental conditions, plants 

have two options—migrate to more suitable habitat or adapt to new conditions. Species with fast 

generation times and wide ecological tolerances—traits often associated with early-seral and 

invasive species—are more likely to survive than species with specific habitat requirements or 

long generation times (Hawkins et al 2008, Willis et al 2010). Rare species often have small 

ecological tolerances, which suggest these species may be less successful in adapting to climate 

change.

3.4.4.3 Environmental Consequences 

Species Conservation Strategies

If the general species and habitat guidance provided in the LRMP is considered sufficient to 

maintain viability, then the species is considered secure and was not addressed specifically in the 

EIS. If the general guidance was considered insufficient, then the species was considered not 

secure and species specific management direction guidance was developed. This process is 

outlined more extensive in Appendix E—Species Diversity. Tahoe yellow cress and whitebark 

pine were the only species considered not secure and species-specific conservation strategies for 

each species were incorporated into the revised Forest Plan. 

Under Alternative A, the current Forest Plan addresses species conservation through a threshold 

concept—mandating a minimum number of sites be preserved for each species. In the action 

alternatives (B, C, D, and E), species conservation is managed through a species conservation 

area (SCA) concept—conserving and enhancing suitable habitat for species, albeit currently 

occupied or not. This shift in focus allows greater flexibility for managing species in changing 

climate conditions as it is not tied to a specific number or location of TEPCS occurrences, but 

3-140 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

rather to the provision of suitable habitat which offers greater opportunities for species to migrate

as necessary. For a species like Tahoe yellow cress, in which the extirpation of certain 

occurrences and creation of new occurrences is an expected result of the species metapopulation 

dynamics, the establishment of species conservation areas again provides a greater ability to 

adapt with changing conditions. As such, the action alternatives represent a more adaptive and 

active approach to species conservation. 

The current Forest Plan (Alternative A) does not provide a species-specific strategy for 

whitebark pine. In Alternative B, C, and D, whitebark pine is addressed as a component of the 

subalpine forest, but the strategy, objectives, and design features do not specifically address the 

threats that have bought whitebark pine under consideration for listing under ESA—namely 

climate change, fuels management, white pine blister rust, and mountain pine beetle. Alternative 

E provides a more comprehensive strategy for whitebark pine conservation, including:

development of a unit-wide conservation strategy, a proactive approach to managing whitebark 

pine stands of high conservation or restoration priority to improve resilience after disturbance 

and resistance to pathogens, assessment of management activities for the risk of establishment or 

spread of white pine blister rust (WPBR) among whitebark pine stands, and conservation of 

whitebark pine genetic diversity. As such, Alternative E represents a more adaptive and active 

approach to whitebark pine conservation. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow for an active restoration approach to whereas Alterative D 

relies on natural processes. This has implications for invasive plant management (discussed in 

the Invasive Plants Section), habitat restoration, and species conservation. For many species, 

past management activities have altered or reduced their habitat so substantial that 

conservation—or eventually recovery—is unlikely without active interventions, such as out 

planting, habitat improvement, habitat recovery, invasive plant control, or protection from 

ongoing managed activities (e.g. beach recreation near Tahoe yellow cress occurrences). As 

such, Alternatives A, B, C, and E are more likely to promote species conservation.

Vegetation Management 

Vegetation management across all alternatives focuses on fuels reduction, early seral forest 

creation, type conversion (fir to Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer), and stand resiliency. 

Treatments are focused in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) for the first ten years of the 

Forest Plan. Across all habitat types, under all of the alternatives, there are risks associated with 

vegetation management for the introduction and spread of invasive plants; these risks are 

outlined in the Invasive Plants section. Invasive plants are the second leading cause of species 

decline and extinction in North America (Wilcove 1999). Across treatment types, vegetation 

management present risks of trampling TEPCS plants resulting in reduced vigor or mortality; 

these risks are greater with mechanical treatments that utilize heavy equipment. Indirectly, 

vegetation treatments can have substantial effects on TEPCS habitat: they can remove desirable 

vegetation and compact soil, degrading suitable habitat; enhance suitable habitat for early seral 

species; or protect suitable habitat from high severity fire in areas with excessive fuel loads. 

Across all habitat types under all alternatives, fire—prescribed, managed, or wild—can destroy

TEPCS plants and suitable habitat, though the alternatives differ in how much they are predicted 

to modify fire behavior. Prescribed and managed fires are expected to be of lower intensity and 

severity than wildfires. High intensity and high severity fires present a greater risk to TEPCS 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-141
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

species for several reasons: greater likelihood of fatal damage to TEPCS plants; greater risk of 

habitat destruction; longer timeframe to suitable habitat recovery due to canopy plant mortality, 

burning of soil organic material, post-fire erosion; and larger fires and unplanned ignitions may 

affect greater range of habitats that would not carry smaller intensity fires—rocky habitats, 

aspens, meadows, riparian areas, subalpine areas. Within the WUI, all alternatives allow for 

comparable rates of thinning and burning treatments to modify fire behavior. Outside the WUI, 

Alternative C would provide the most treated acres followed by Alternatives A, B, and E, and 

Alternative D would provide the least. Alternative D would have the greatest potential for habitat 

and plant loss from high severity wildfire. 

General Forest 

Because vegetation treatments are focused in the general forest type, they would have the 

greatest impact on TEPCS plants dependent on these habitats. Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow 

for active management of the general forest; this is likely to reduce fuel loads and increase 

resiliency after fire, potentially benefitting TEPCS species with a low to moderate fire tolerance. 

In alternative C, there is the potential for more and faster conversion of mid-seral stages to earlyseral stages; this would also occur in Alternatives B and E but at a slower rate. Alternatives B, C, 

and E promote a more diverse forest structure, creating a greater diversity of microhabitats, 

which could potentially benefit a greater diversity of species. Alternative C would likely involve 

the least amount of repeated treatments in the same area, which may reduce the direct risks to 

plants as well as indirect risk to habitat. Alternatives A and D provide more focus on late seral 

forest structure—through active management or natural processes, respectively—and may 

provide more habitat for TEPCS species reliant upon this habitat type, such as branched collybia. 

Subalpine 

Alternative A does not focus vegetation management in this habitat type and would have little to 

no effect on the associated species. Alternatives B, C, and E would allow vegetation 

management in subalpine areas, including prescribed fire, thinning for fuels reduction, and active 

conservation treatments to benefit whitebark pine (e.g. thinning, pathogen treatment, planting of 

blister rust resistant whitebark pine); during the life of the Forest Plan, Alternative C is expected 

to treat the most acres of subalpine forest. These proposed actions would likely improve the

health and resilience of whitebark pine stands. Indirectly, improvements to whitebark pine 

stands—a major component of subalpine vegetation—may also improve habitat for other 

subalpine TEPCS plants. In Alternative D, there would be decreased emphasis on mechanical 

thinning and a limitation on cutting trees for forest health objectives; instead the preferred tools 

for vegetation management would be underburning and management of natural ignitions. This 

may increase the timeframe required to meet forest health desired conditions, including desired 

conditions for whitebark pine. 

Aspen 

All alternatives allow for the implementation of aspen community restoration projects. After 

these initial treatments are completed, the alternatives will differ in their approach to aspen 

restoration. Alternatives A, B, C, and E would continue to actively restore communities, with 

Alternative C would treat more acres than Alternatives A, B, or E; these alternatives would likely 

provide the greatest benefit to aspen communities and their TEPCS associates. Alternative D 

would allow natural process to drive aspen restoration. Given the shift in species composition 

3-142 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

towards conifers and the increased fuel load that has accumulated from years of fire suppression, 

untreated aspen stands—and the TEPCS plants that depend upon this habitat type—may be more 

susceptible to high severity fires. In high severity fires where the litter layer is more likely to be 

consumed, moonworts in particular are more likely to perish; moonwort spores are generally 

concentrated in the litter layer and require appreciable moisture at the soil surface—often held in 

the litter layer—for sexual reproduction (Farrar and Johnsongroh 1990, Farrar 2011). 

Furthermore, given the legacy of effects associated with fire suppression—conifer encroachment 

and increased fuel loads are likely to persist without active interventions— passive restoration 

may be insufficient to sustain the quantity and distribution of aspen communities necessary to 

support viable populations of aspen-dwelling species. 

Meadows 

Vegetation treatments prescribed in Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow for treatment of 

conifers encroaching in meadows. If more meadows are maintained, this would likely provide 

more habitats for meadow-associated TEPCS plants. In Alternative D, conifers would be allowed 

to encroach upon meadow habitats, potentially decreasing habitat for meadow-associated TEPCS 

plants. 

Montane Riparian 

Vegetation treatments would likely have minimal effect on montane riparian habitats because 

design criteria targeted at protecting SEZs would encompass these habitats; SEZ design criteria 

are similar across all alternatives. 

Shorelines 

Vegetation treatments are not expected to occur along the shorelines and would therefore have 

minimal effect on this habitat type and its associated TEPCS plants. 

Rocky Habitats 

Vegetation treatments are not expected to occur—in fact they are often infeasible—in rocky 

habitat and would have minimal effect on this habitat type and its associated TEPCS plants.

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration

General Forest 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is not focused on this habitat type and would have little 

to no effect on the associated TEPCS species. 

Subalpine Forest 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is not focused on this habitat type and would have little 

to no effect on the associated TEPCS species. 

Aspen 

A critical component of improving conditions in Lake Tahoe watersheds is implementation 

of watershed and aquatic habitat restoration, in particular stream channel restoration projects. 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is geographically focused in SEZs—which includes 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-143
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

some portions of wet aspen stands—and has substantial potential to affect aspen-associated 

TEPCS species. Under current conditions, some stream channels exhibit unstable channel banks 

and have eroded and incised to the point that they are no longer hydrologically connected to 

adjacent floodplains. Restoration projects currently in progress would be implemented under all 

of the alternatives and would address the bulk of the unstable channel reaches that have been 

identified on NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin; these projects are expected to be completed 

within the next 15 years. 

Beyond the currently planned restoration projects, under Alternatives A, B, and C, and E, 

LTBMU would continue planning for implementation of both large and small scale restoration 

projects to remove existing active stressors in degraded stream channels (e.g. poorly designed 

stream channel crossings, hydrologic diversions) and address systems that are out of 

equilibrium—as exhibited by headcuts, incision, accelerated bank erosion—as a result of past 

land use practices, climate change or other stressors not under the control of the USFS 

management. Under Alternative D, future projects would not be planned to actively restore 

degraded stream channels and systems that are out of equilibrium would be allowed to adjust 

through natural processes. As a result, it may take several decades longer to achieve geomorphic 

equilibrium and subsequent improvement to suitable habitat for TEPCS plant species.

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration can involve substantial ground disturbance. While all 

alternatives provide design criteria targeted at minimizing impacts to TEPCS from ground

disturbance, there may be sub-lethal damage or mortality of individual TEPCS plants or 

degradation of habitat as a result of activities associated with restoration. Conversely, since these 

activities are targeted at improving aquatic habitat or stream function, they are likely to benefit 

TEPCS plants through the provision of more and/or higher quality aspen habitat in the long term. 

Because the revised Forest Plan does not authorize site-specific activities, it is difficult to 

evaluate the magnitude of the risks and benefits associated with watershed and aquatic habitat 

restoration on any given TEPCS plant occurrence or a given species in total. 

Alternative A would continue to provide for watershed and aquatic habitat restoration, but with 

the emphasis on water quality. Alternatives B, C, and E would likely provide the greatest benefit 

to aspen habitats because they allow for active restoration emphasizing aquatic habitat 

improvement, but they would also present risks associated with ground-disturbance. Alternative 

D would likely be the least beneficial because no further watershed or aquatic habitat restoration 

would occur after current projects are implemented; if natural processes are allowed to drive 

restoration, the timeframe to achieve high quality habitat may likely be extended beyond the life 

of this Forest Plan, which could negatively affect TEPCS through the long-term persistence of 

marginal/lower quality habitat. 

Meadows 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is geographically focused in SEZs—which includes 

most meadows—and has substantial potential to affect meadow-associated TEPCS species. The 

effects to meadow habitat are expected to be the similar to those for aspen stands, which are 

discussed above. 

3-144 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Montane Riparian 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is geographically focused in SEZs—which includes 

almost all montane riparian habitat—and has substantial potential to affect riparian-dependent 

TEPCS species. The effects to riparian habitat are expected to be the similar to those for aspen 

stand, which are discussed above. 

Shorelines 

While watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is not focused in this habitat type, there may be 

opportunities for restoration associated with lagoons, back bays, or riparian areas that extend to 

the water edge. In these select cases, effects to shoreline habitat are expected to be the similar to 

those for aspen stands, which are discussed above.

Rocky Habitats 

Watershed and aquatic habitat restoration is not focused on this habitat type and would have little 

to no effect on the associated TEPCS species. 

Recreation / Access and Travel Management

Recreation use levels are expected to increase under all alternatives. Increased visitor use can 

increase the risk of direct and indirect effects to TEPCS plants species. Visitors may trample

plants resulting in reduced reproductive potential or mortality (Liddle 1991). They may collect 

TEPCS plant, intentionally for collections or incidentally (Schemske et al 1994). There are also 

substantial indirect effects from increase visitor use—namely the degradation of suitable habitat. 

Visitors may trample vegetation associated with TEPCS habitat. Creation of unauthorized trails 

by cyclists and OHV riders results in compacted surfaces that are highly susceptible to erosion 

because they are not designed to control runoff. Visitors can create new use trails that cut 

through meadows, altering meadow and fen hydrology(Leung and Marion 1999). 

In addition to increased visitor use, the proposed recreation site expansion also presents risks to 

TEPCS plants. Recreation site development may result in destruction of some individual plants. 

There are also substantial indirect effects from recreation expansion including, but not limited to, 

destruction of habitat during facility construction; degradation of suitable habitat through 

reduced vegetation cover, soil compaction, and increased erosion from increased foot and vehicle 

traffic. Across all habitat types, under all of the alternatives, there are also substantial risks for 

the introduction and spread of invasive plants associated with recreation; these risks are outlined 

in the Invasive Plants section of Chapter 3. The location of recreation sites as well as the 

intensity of their use can substantially influence the amount of associated damage and 

disturbance. But since the revised Forest Plan does not provide specific locations for recreation 

expansion, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty regarding the risk associated with new 

recreation sites.

Alternatives A, B, and C would allow for recreation expansion up to 10%, 5%, 15%, 

respectively, whereas Alternative D would allow up to a 15% reduction. Alternative E would 

allow a 5% increase in developed site acres, day use parking, and ski area operational footprint 

acres, and a 10% increase in overnight accommodation units. Therefore, Alterative C presents 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-145
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

the highest risk to TEPCS plants and habitat associated with recreation, whereas Alternative D 

presents the lowest risk, and Alternatives A, B, and E are relatively comparable. 

Across habitat types, designation of wilderness could afford TEPCS species that occur within 

them additional protection from disturbance by drastically restricting the type of allowed 

management activities; this can be highly beneficial to species conservation. Designation of the 

backcountry land management area would offer similar protection from disturbance, since 

permanent roads would not be a suitable use and management activities to support administration 

and dispersed camping would be minimal. The Dardanelles and Freel Peak areas have not been 

extensively floristically inventoried; there could be additional suitable habitat for TEPCS. 

However, because wilderness designation restricts the available management techniques allowed 

in the designated area, it may also slow species conservation actions. For example, if thinning is 

needed to increase the resistance of a high priority whitebark pine stand to mountain pine beetle 

and the stand is in wilderness, power tools cannot be utilized without the Regional Forester’s

consent. This could substantial delay or even halt treatment; in the interim, plants or habitat may 

be adversely affected. Alternative D allows for the largest area of potential wilderness

designation, followed by Alternative C and then Alternatives A, B, and E. However, in 

Alternative E, the total amount of backcountry is comparable to the amount of proposed 

wilderness. The number of TEPCS occurrences known within the proposed backcountry plus 

proposed wilderness is comparable across alternatives, with 117 known occurrences received 

additional protection in Alternatives A, B, C, and E and 124 known occurrences in the 

Alternative D. 

None of the alternatives propose a programmatic expansion of the LTBMU’s road system. 

However, the alternatives differ in the quantity and type of trails allowed. In terms of hiking and 

equestrian trails, Alternatives C allows for the least miles, while Alternative A, B, D, and E all 

allow more in equal quantity. For mechanized trails, Alternatives A, B, and E allow for the most 

miles, followed by Alternative C, with Alternative D having the least amount of mechanized 

trails. For motorized trails, Alternatives D allows for the most trails while Alternative A, B, C, 

and E all allow less in equal quantity. The location of access routes can substantially influence 

their potential for damage and disturbance. For example, routes located upstream of fens may 

divert water, alter fen hydrology, and the area may no longer support fen-associated TEPCS 

plants. Many potential impacts to TEPCS species can be controlled through design features, but 

some may be associated with dispersed recreation or unauthorized trail development which is 

difficult to preempt. Since the revised Forest Plan does not provide specific locations for added

access routes, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty regarding the risk these new routes 

present.

Over snow recreation is a component of all alternatives. In general, TEPCS are both spatially 

and temporally shielded from direct effects from over snow recreation by current management 

direction specifying required snow depths and limiting season of use. However, TEPCS may be 

affected indirectly if over snow activities result in changes to soil productivity or hydrology 

substantial enough to degrade suitable habitat. Over-snow recreation can compact snow and 

increase spring runoff. Potential expansion of the season of use earlier into spring or later into 

fall would increase the potential for direct plant damage as well as indirect habitat alteration. 

However, as outlined in the Soils and Water Quality and Water Quantity sections of Chapter 3, 

3-146 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

effects from over snow recreation are likely to be minimal—without substantial variation by 

alternative—and therefore do not present a substantial risk to TEPCS plants. 

General Forest 

The effects to general forest habitat types are expected to be similar to those described in the 

general discussion of recreation effects provided above. 

Subalpine 

Ski resort expansion presents the greatest risk to TECPS plants found in subalpine areas of all 

proposed activities. There are few other proposed activities with as great a potential to directly 

impact subalpine TEPCS plants. While over snow recreation is not likely to directly affect 

plants, the construction of ski runs, ski lifts, and summer use facilities can result in considerable 

damage and destruction of plants. The expansion of the season of use to include more summer 

activities increases the risk of direct effects, as summer visitors may trample or collect TECPS 

plants whereas winter visitors are both temporally and spatially distanced from TECPS plants 

(other than whitebark pine) Indirect adverse effects to their suitable habitat can also occur 

through habitat degradation or destruction. These effects are compounded by the potential 

effects of climate change. Subalpine species are probably the most susceptible to habitat loss 

through climate change, as some species have a narrow elevation range, situated at the top of the 

Sierra Crest. There is no place for these species to migrate, if their habitat is reduced by upslope 

shifts in vegetation or changes in water availability. At particular risk are Tahoe draba, Galena 

rock cress, and whitebark pine, which have documented occurrences on and near the operational 

footprints of LTBMU’s ski resorts. Alternatives A would allow for the most expansion—an 

almost two-fold increase above the other alternative. Of the action alternative, Alternative C 

allows for more expansion than Alternatives B and E, while Alternative D would not allow any 

new ski area development. As such, Alternative A presents the greatest risk, while Alternative D 

presents the lowest risk. 

Aspen 

The effects to aspen habitat types are expected to be similar to those described in the general 

discussion of recreation effects provided above. 

Meadows 

Because their hydrology is highly susceptible to erosion, meadow habitats are at the greatest risk 

from dispersed recreation. The types of impacts generated from dispersed recreation activities 

will be similar in all alternatives but the intensity can vary with increased visitation. More 

access—as measured by miles of trails—will create more opportunities for dispersed activities. 

In terms of hiking and equestrian trails, Alternatives C allows for the least miles, while 

Alternative A, B, D, and E all allow more in equal quantity. For mechanized trails, Alternatives 

A, B, and E allow for the most miles, followed by Alternative C, with Alternative D having the 

least amount of mechanized trails. For motorized trails, Alternatives D allows for the most trails 

while Alternative A, B, C, and E all allow less in equal quantity. Because Alternatives A, B, and 

E allow for the most amount of trails and therefore the higher likelihood of dispersed recreation, 

they present a higher risk to TEPCS plants associated meadow habitat. 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-147
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Montane Riparian 

The effects to montane riparian habitat types are expected to be similar to those described in the 

general discussion of recreation effects provided above. 

Shorelines 

The shoreline habitat type would be impacted by beach going activities, for the most part 

trampling. There would be no difference among the alternatives for dispersed recreation. 

Alternative C would allow the most expansion of developed recreation and would therefore 

negatively impact species in this habitat type. Alternative A would not change the amount of 

recreation currently allowed in this habitat type. TEPCS species locations would be protected, 

but conflicts with developed recreation areas would still occur. Alternatives B and E would allow 

expansion of developed recreation sites but included standards and guides to protect TESP 

species and their suitable habitat. Alternative D would not allow any further recreation 

development and so would have the least amount of affects to this habitat type. 

Rocky Habitats 

The effects to General forest habitat types are expected to be similar to those described in the 

general discussion of recreation effects provided above.

3-148 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.4.4 Analytical Conclusions

Table 3-26. Comparison of Consequences by Alternative, Threatened or Endangered Plant 

Species

Threatened or Endangered Plant Species

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Trend in 

abundance 

(TYC only)

Trend in 

habitat 

condition

Stable or 

increasing 

abundance 

and similar or 

improving 

habitat 

condition due 

to active 

management 

of 

occurrences 

and habitat

(restoration, 

invasive 

species 

treatment).

Similar to 

Alternative A. 

Compared to 

Alt C, 

potentially 

greater 

abundance 

and more 

high quality 

habitat due to 

less 

recreation 

development. 

Stable or 

decreasing 

abundance 

and stable or 

decreasing 

habitat 

condition due 

to the most 

amount of 

recreation 

development 

of all 

alternatives

(higher risk of 

trampling 

and/or, 

habitat 

degradation; 

increased 

vectors for 

invasive 

plants). 

Stable or 

decreasing 

abundance 

and stable or 

decreasing 

habitat 

condition due 

to no active 

habitat 

restoration 

and less 

invasive plant 

treatment 

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Trend in 

abundance

Stable to 

increasing

due to active 

management 

of 

occurrences 

and habitat

(restoration, 

invasive plant 

treatment).

Similar to 

Alternative A. 

Compared to 

Alternative C, 

potentially 

greater 

abundance 

due to less 

recreation 

development.

Stable or 

decreasing 

due to the 

most amount 

of recreation 

development 

of all 

alternatives

(higher risk of 

trampling 

and/or, 

habitat 

degradation; 

increased 

vectors for 

invasive 

plants).

Stable or 

decreasing 

due to no 

active habitat 

restoration

and less 

invasive plant 

treatment.

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-149
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternatives

Species Conservation Strategy 

Species Conservation Strategy

 Passive Active 

  

Alt D Alt A Alt B, C, E

The alternatives vary substantial in their ability to adaptively manage TEPCS plant conservation 

efforts. Alternatives B, C, and E allow for an active management approach to invasive plants 

and habitat restoration, more flexibility to respond to climate change and other substantial 

changes in habitat conditions such as wildfire, and the ability to conserve unoccupied suitable 

TEPCS habitat. Alternative A allows for an active approach to restoration and invasive plant 

management, but is primarily focused on water quality objectives and manages TEPCS 

occurrences for a certain threshold quantity instead of managing suitable habitat to allow 

populations to respond to change. Alternative D relies on natural processes for restoration and

markedly limits invasive plant management, though it does provide the same flexibility to 

respond to change and to conserve unoccupied suitable habitat.

Trend in species abundance 

Relative trend in abundance

 Decrease Stable Increase 

  

Alt C, D Alt A, B, E

In terms of relative abundance compared to the no-action alternative (Alternative A) as 

estimated by number of occurrences, Alterative B is likely to be similar to Alternative A—with 

abundance remaining stable or increasing slightly due to active conservation of known 

occurrences and a moderate risk of adversely impacting occurrences through recreation 

expansion and vegetation treatments. In Alternative C, abundance is likely to be stable to slightly 

decreasing due to risk of losing occurrence through greater amount of recreation expansion and 

the higher rate of mechanical vegetation treatments. In Alternative D, abundance will likely be 

stable to slightly decreasing due to the increased risk of high severity wildlife which could 

destroy occurrences. Alternative E is similar to Alternative B. 

Trend in habitat condition 

In terms of the condition of suitable habitat for TEPCS plants, when compared to the no-action 

alternative (Alternative A), Alternative B is likely to be very similar, within stable to improving 

habitat conditions resulting from a combination of improvements through active habitat 

restoration, invasive pant management, and continued vegetation treatments structure that may 

be countered by a degradation or destruction resulting from recreation expansion and less focus 

on late seral enhancement. Habitat conditions in Alternative C are likely to be stable to slightly 

decreasing due to the greater level of recreation development (higher risk of trampling; habitat 

3-150 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

degradation; increased vectors for invasive plants). Habitat conditions in Alternative D would 

likely be stable to slightly decreasing due to a lack of an active restoration and invasive plant 

treatment program, though this may be countered by a creation of disturbed habitats through 

restoration or mechanical fuels treatments.

Relative trend in habitat condition

 Degrade Stable Improve 

  

Alt C, Alt D Alt A, B, E

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All of the alternatives provide for the conservation of known botanical resources in their current 

locations through the assessment of resource impacts during the project planning process and the 

inclusion of design criteria during all management activities. 

Alternative A 

Short-term achievement of desired conditions would result from active management of TEPCS 

species occurrences and the conservation and restoration of habitat through active restoration, 

invasive species treatment, and avoidance measures. However, long-term species viability may 

be affected by static occurrence-based conservation areas and the extensive future expansion of 

recreation infrastructure proposed in this alternative. Specifically, the expansion of ski areas—

both spatially (larger permit areas) and temporally (more summer uses)—in combination with 

the likely reduction of habitat due to climate change may affect whitebark pine, Tahoe draba, and 

other subalpine plant species, and increased recreation use of shoreline areas may affect Tahoe 

yellow cress. 

Alternative B 

Short-term achievement of desired conditions would result from active management of TEPCS 

and the conservation and restoration of habitat through active restoration, invasive species 

treatment, and avoidance measures. The use of species refuge areas would also provide for 

conservation and active restoration of habitat in the longer term, resulting in the long-term 

achievement of desired conditions. 

Alternative C 

This alternative may help achieve the desired condition for some botanical resources, but not for 

all botanical resources. Those botanical resources with suitable habitat that intersects proposed 

fuels treatment areas may benefit from the increased thinning proposed in this alternative, as 

their habitat may be more resistant to stand-replacing fire and beetle kill; this would be 

particularly beneficial to whitebark pine. However, this alternative may not achieve the desired 

condition for other botanical resources. Specifically, Tahoe yellow cress and subalpine may be 

negatively affected due to degradation of shoreline and subalpine that may result from the more 

extensive recreation expansion allowed in this alternative. 

Chapter 3 | Botanical Resources ■ 3-151
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Alternative D 

This alternative would not meet the desired condition for most botanical resources because it 

does not provide opportunities for active management of some substantial threats to botanical 

resources—namely climate change, wildfire, and invasive species. However, this alternative 

may be superior in addressing the desired conditions for Tahoe draba by creating a Freel Peak 

Wilderness and keeping ski resorts at current acreage.

Alternative E 

Similarly to Alternative B, short-term achievement of desired conditions would result from 

active management of TEPCS and the conservation and restoration of habitat through active 

restoration, invasive species treatment, and avoidance measures. The use of species refuge areas 

would also provide for conservation and active restoration of habitat in the longer term, resulting 

in the long-term achievement of desired conditions. Furthermore, it provides additional 

conservation measures for important whitebark pine stands, which may improve their long-term 

viability. 

3-152 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.5 Terrestrial Invasive Plants

3.4.5.1 Introduction

In 2003, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service identified invasive species—including terrestrial 

invasive plants—as one of four critical threats to the National Forest System (NFS) (Bosworth 

2003). Invasive plants pose a serious threat to ecosystem function because of their ability to 

displace native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, decrease the availability of forage for 

wildlife, and degrade soil structure (Bossard et al. 2000). Invasive plants are considered the 

second leading cause of native species decline and extinction in North America (Wilcove et al. 

1998). Invasive plants can also greatly reduce the recreational and aesthetic values of forestlands. 

Many of the activities managed by the Forest Service have the potential to introduce or spread 

invasive plants. Both national and regional Forest Service management direction prioritize 

prevention of invasive plant introduction and spread on NFS lands by considering invasion risks 

during project planning and—to the extent feasible—incorporating invasive plant prevention 

measures into all activities (Exec. Order No. 13112, (USDA Forest Service 2000, 2011). In the 

Sierra Nevada, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment directs national forests to conduct 

invasive plant risk assessments during project planning (IPRA; formerly known as ‘Noxious

Weed risk Assessment’ until terminology was clarified by national direction) (USDA Forest 

Service 2004b). The follow section is a summary of the methodology used to produce the 

Invasive Plant Risk Assessment for the revised Forest Plan and the risks detailed in the IPRA. 

Methodology

Invasive Plant Risk Assessment Process 

Potential effects from invasive plants in presented in the context of the risk of introduction and 

spread associated with proposed activities, rather than effects to specific resources; these 

resource-specific effects are addressed in other resource sections, as appropriate. For a 

programmatic document at the unit level that does not authorize site-specific activities, the risks 

for introduction and spread as well as the ecological impacts associated with each invasive plant 

species of management concern are similar enough to be analyzed collectively, rather than 

individually. Detailed species accounts are included in the FEIS’s Invasive Plant Risk 

Assessment.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-153
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

On LTBMU, an established invasive plant risk assessment process has been used to evaluate 

projects involving ground-disturbance activities since 2004—when the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment required national forests in the Sierra to conduct such assessments(USDA 

Forest Service 2004b) . That process has been adapted—with very little modification—to 

evaluate the five alternatives of the revised Forest Plan. Invasive plant risk is assessed by 

examining the following seven factors:

1. Inventory 

2. Known infestations in the analysis area

3. Vectors not-dependent on proposed action

4. Habitat vulnerability

5. Vectors expected to result from proposed action

6. Habitat alteration expected to result from proposed action

7. Invasive plant management strategy

Factors 1-3 are not dependent on the management activities proposed by each Alternative; rather, 

they address the context within which risk of each Alternative are evaluated. Factors 3-6

specifically address the risks associated with each Alternative. Factor 7 is not included in the 

LTBMU’s project-specific IRPA, but has been added to address differences between the revised 

Forest Plan alternatives in how known invasive plant infestations will be managed.

Indicators 

Based upon the existing IPRA process, the following indicators have been selected to summarize 

the relative risks associated with each Alternative:

• Trend in abundance of invasive plant infestations

• Risk of new introductions and risk of spread from known infestations

Because the revised Forest Plan does not authorize project-level actions, it is difficult to assess 

invasive plant risks in quantitative terms. There are not set criteria for the indicator categories 

used in this analysis, though the criteria used to assess factors at the project-level are followed to 

the extent possible; they are detailed in the FEIS’s Invasive Plant Risk Assessment. Rather, 

using the six risk factors, a qualitative assessment of invasive plant risk is produced for each 

Alternative as well as an assessment of the risk of each Alternative relative to the other 

alternatives. 

Assumptions 

In addition to the common assumptions listed in Section 3.3, the following assumptions have 

been made:

• All Alternatives will authorize ground-disturbing activities, therefore requiring a risk 

assessment

• LTBMU will continue to coordinate invasive plant management activities with MOU 

partners and agencies.

• Existing infestations will continue to spread without active treatment.

3-154 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• High priority infestations will continue to be treated on NFS lands, through the quantity 

will depend on funding.

3.4.5.2 Overview of the Affect Environment

Inventory

No surveys were conducted specifically to address the invasive plant risk associated with the 

revised Forest Plan. Current inventory for the invasive plants of management concern on 

LTBMU was derived from the Forest Service’s Natural Resource Inventory System (NRIS)—

which is the database of record for invasive species data. The data set includes all invasive plant 

infestations documented on NFS lands through project surveys and invasive plant treatments as 

well as incidental reports. NRIS data is quality controlled by the unit’s data steward and is 

considered the best available information for NFS lands. Data for non-NFS lands in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin was obtained from the Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group (LTBWCG)—

a bi-state coalition of 20+ partners formed to stop the introduction and spread of invasive weeds 

in the Lake Tahoe Basin. LTBWCG was deemed the most reliable and comprehensive repository 

of non-NFS invasive plant data within the Lake Tahoe Basin because of its 10+ years of 

coordinated invasive plant tracking. 

Invasive Plants of Management Concern on LTBMU

There are at least 200 non-native plant species known to occur on LTBMU—many of which are 

not actively managed on LTBMU and are not addresses in this analysis. This analysis focuses on 

those invasive plant species that pose a substantial risk to resource and are prioritized for 

management; currently, the LTBMU maintains a list of 35 invasive plants of management 

concern (Appendix E). Methodology for species selection for inclusion and their subsequent 

prioritization for treatment are detailed in Appendix E—Species Diversity. In general, species 

are prioritized for management based upon invasion potential, potential resource impacts, and 

effectiveness of available management and control methods (USDA Forest Service 2010, Gross 

and Olin 2011).

Species Known on LTBMU 

Of the approximately 154,850 acres of NFS lands comprising the LTBMU, only a very small 

percentage is infested with invasive plants. After the 2012 field season, a total of 574 infested 

acres—0.003% of LTBMU—were mapped (Table 3-27). However, this is likely a substantial 

underestimate, as three species—cheatgrass, Eurasian milfoil, and wooly mullein—are not 

mapped and several others are likely under-mapped. 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-155
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-27. Acreage, quantity, and relative percentages of known mapped invasive plants 

infestations

Scientific Name

Common Name Number of 

Infestations Acres Percentage

Acroptilon repens Russian thistle 1 0.04 0.01%

Cardaria draba heart-podded hoary cress 1 0.03 0.00%

Cardaria pubescens globe-podded hoary cress 1 0.37 0.06%

Carduus nutans musk thistle 2 0.63 0.11%

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 2 0.04 0.01%

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed 2 0.04 0.01%

Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed 1 0.04 0.01%

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 20 1.67 0.29%

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 283 432.92 75.39%

Conium maculatum poison hemlock 1 1.48 0.26%

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom 4 0.13 0.02%

Hypericum perforatum St. Johns wort 31 67.60 11.77%

Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad 1 0.38 0.07%

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed 17 3.42 0.59%

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 37 47.81 8.33%

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax 16 10.64 1.85%

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 11 2.76 0.48%

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle 1 0.33 0.06%

Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil 4 3.95 0.69%

Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry 1 0.00 0.00%

Grand Total 437 574.27 100.00%

Derived from 2012 NRIS data

Non-NFS lands constitute approximately 22% of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In this area, there are an 

additional 224 infestations of species on the LTBMU invasive plant list documented by 

LTBWCG members (Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group 2013). The LTBWCG list 

contained only 18 of the species on the LTBMU list. As such, for 17 species, there is a data gap

for non-NFS lands and there are likely undocumented infestations. Furthermore, there may be 

additional infestations within the Lake Tahoe Basin that have not been documented and reported 

by the LTBWCG, especially on private lands. 

3-156 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-28. Infestations on Non-NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin

Scientific name Common name Number of 

infestations

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed 2

Cardaria pubescens hoary cress 3

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 16

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed 70

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 8

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad 2

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed 71

Linaria spp. Toadflax (combined) 34

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 18

224

Derived from LTBWCG 2012 invasive weed data

Bull thistle and cheatgrass present the greatest risk for introduction and spread due to their 

pervasiveness across the Lake Tahoe Basin. Of the mapped invasive species, bull thistle

(Cirsium vulgare) is by far the most common invasive plant species treated on LTBMU with 283 

sites totaling ~433 acres. Most infestations are less than 0.5 acres and manual treatment has 

proven effective at these small sites (Olin 2010). As of the last systematic prioritization of 

invasive plant species on LTBMU in 2011, bull thistle was still considered a moderate priority 

species for treatment (Gross and Olin 2011). 

While bull thistle is the most extensively mapped invasive plant, cheatgrass represents the 

greatest threat to ecosystem function and native species habitat on LTBMU. Though not mapped 

in NRIS, it is known to occur in every USGS quad within LTBMU and has spread exponentially 

since 2009 (Engelhardt, personal communication). The conversion of Great Basin rangeland 

from native perennial grasses to cheatgrass is one of the most severe ecological degradations in 

the United States (Mack 1981, Dantonio and Vitousek 1992). Cheatgrass invasion shortens fire 

return interval and alters nutrient cycling, resulting in increased fire hazard and the displacement

of native plant communities, particularly those dominated by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) (Evans 

et al. 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). Most available treatment methods have proven ineffective for 

control of cheatgrass on a large scale (Bossard et al. 2000). Therefore, prevention is considered 

critical in cheatgrass management.

While not as pervasive as bull thistle or cheatgrass, the 19 other invasive plant species known on 

LTBMU also present a substantial invasive risk and threat to resources. Species accounts, 

including current inventory and treatment, are detailed in the FEIS’s Invasive Plant Risk 

Assessment. 

Species Listed but not Currently Known on LTBMU 

Only 21 of the 35 species on the LTBMU invasive plant list have been found on NFS lands in 

the Basin. The other species are included because they have been found elsewhere in the Basin

or are suspected to be within 25 miles of the LTBMU administrative boundary. Proximity of 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-157
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

these species increases the likelihood of introduction on LTBMU. They are: tree of heaven 

(Ailanthus altissima), purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis), squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa), teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), 

stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Medusahead 

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae), and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.)

Vectors Not Dependent on Proposed Action 

Invasive plant introduction occurs when plant propagules are moved from one infestation—the 

“seed source”—to new and often uninvaded habitat. In general, any activity that moves soil or 

plant parts—especially seeds—from one location to another has the potential as a vector for 

invasion (Radosevich 2002). There are many vectors that will continue to present a risk of 

invasion, regardless of which Forest Plan Alternative is selected. These include natural vectors—

such as wind, water, and wildlife movement—as well as human-generated vectors including but 

not limited to: interstate commerce; utility, road, facility, and home construction and 

maintenance; horticultural sales; motorized vehicle use; livestock grazing; mining; timber 

management; fire suppression; and non-motorized recreation such as camping, hiking, biking,

and horseback riding. While several of these activities are considered under the revised Forest 

Plan, they can also occur on adjacent lands that are not subject to Forest Service management 

direction. As such, they aid in the dispersal of invasive plants to NFS lands.

Habitat Vulnerability

Whether they originate from human causes (e.g. road construction, thinning) or natural causes 

(e.g. wildfire, windfall), disturbed habitats often have a higher susceptibility to invasions than 

those with long periods in late successional phases (Radosevich 2002). Plant introduction may 

be the direct result of destruction of vegetation, or it may indirectly result from changes in 

resource levels, such as light or moisture, or other conditions (Parendes and Jones 2000, Kuhn 

and Klotz 2007). Either way, previously disturbed areas are at greatest risk for invasion. On 

LTBMU, disturbed areas are largely comprised of developed and dispersed recreation sites;

established and unauthorized access routes; vegetation treatment units; areas adjacent to 

developed areas, such as urban lots; and wildfire areas. As there are no active grazing 

allotments, no active mining operations, and no timber sales on LTBMU, these activities pose a 

low risk of habitat degradation. While disturbed areas are found in most plant communities on 

LTBMU, they are concentrated at lower elevations—below 8,000 feet—in relatively xeric 

communities dominated by grasses and forbs. These areas often provide seed sources for weeds 

moving into the less-invaded parts of the unit.

Over the past decade, a number of large wildland fires have occurred on the Forest—namely the 

Angora and Gondola Fires. Wildfires can expose soil surfaces, reduce shade, decrease 

competition from native species, and contribute to soil nutrient pulses; all of these factors create 

conditions favorable to the establishment and spread of invasive plants (Zouhar et al. 2008). 

Monitoring conducted after the Angora fire revealed a three-fold increase in the area infested 

with bull thistle and a 25-fold increase in the area infested with perennial pepperweed, indicating 

that wildlife areas are highly susceptible to invasion on LTBMU (Olin 2009). However, fire 

alone will not necessarily result in increased rates of invasion into burnt areas (Klinger et al. 

2006). Non-fire disturbances associated with fire management, such a fireline construction, 

present substantial risks for invasion (Benson and Kurth 1995, Merriam et al. 2006). In some 

3-158 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

cases, the risks from suppression and fuels management activities may exceed the risk presented 

by the fire itself. 

Other than these recent events, the effect of specific past activities on invasive plants on 

LTBMU is largely unknown. While it is often difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding 

the effects of past activities, the high level of past activity combined with the current level of 

infestation, suggest that past activities have contributed significantly to the introduction and 

spread of invasive plants on LTBMU and that present activities will continue to pose a high risk

of habitat alteration. The implications of climate change for habitats and invasive species is 

discussed in the Climate Change section of Chapter 3.

3.4.5.3 Environmental Consequences

Vectors Expected to Result from Proposed Action

Vegetation Management 

Fuel treatments can create disturbance that may promote invasion by invasive plant species. 

Depending on the intensity, severity, size, and seasonality of a fuel treatment, increased 

availability of light, water, and nutrients may result (Covington et al. 1997, Gundale et al. 2005); 

these conditions can favor spread of non-native plants (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Brooks 

2003). Response of invasive plants to fuel treatments may also vary by treatment method, such 

as prescribed fire or use of heavy equipment, hand tools, or chemicals(Brooks 2007). For 

example, invasive seed may be carried by humans and mechanical equipment used in some types 

of fuel reduction treatments. This can increase propagules pressure of invasive species, which is 

an important factor in predicting the likelihood of invasion (D’Antonio et al. 2001, Lockwood et 

al. 2005). Proximity of access routes to treated areas can increase the likelihood of invasion 

(Birdsall et al. 2012).

In post-implementation inspections of 46 project implemented on LTBMU since 2005, new and 

expanding invasive plant infestations were highest in mechanically thinned fuels treatments 

(Rowe et al. 2013). While this monitoring did not address the specific mechanisms that 

facilitated invasion, it is probable that the off-road use of heavy equipment was at least in part a 

factor. Soil containing invasive plant propagules can adhere to machinery, be dispersed to 

uninfested areas, and result in new infestations (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). The use of 

infested machinery is considered a substantial vector for incidental introduction (USDA Forest 

Service 2001, Kowarik and Von der Lippe 2007, van der Meulen and Sindel 2008). On LTBMU, 

machinery is often imported from lower elevations (e.g. Sacramento Valley, MindenGardnerville area). In California, invasive plant species richness is generally greater at lower 

elevations (Randall et al. 1998, Dark 2004). So, use of imported equipment presents a high risk 

of introduction. 

The rate and type of fuels treatments varies by alternative and are discussed in detail in the Fire 

and Fuels Section. Alternative D allows for the highest annual rate of prescribed burning, 

followed by Alternative C, with Alternative A, B, and E all allowing comparable rates. In the 

Wildland Urban Interface, the rate of thinning and fuels reduction is the same for Alternatives A, 

B, C and E, but Alternative D allows for substantially less mechanical thinning—250 acres/year 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-159
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

(ac/yr) compared to 500 ac/yr for other alternatives. For other management areas, Alternative C 

allows for a nearly two-fold increase in the number of acres per year treated mechanically

compared to Alternatives A, B, and E, though Alternative C is designed to meet forest vegetation 

objectives with fewer entries at a given stand. No mechanical treatments are allowed in other 

management areas in Alternative D. Based upon the substantially higher rate of mechanical 

thinning, Alternative C presents the greatest risk of increasing vectors as a result of vegetation 

management.

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Active stream channel restoration often necessitates the use of heavy equipment to reshape the 

stream channel or place large woody debris. The use of heavy equipment in restoration presents 

the same risks associated with its use in vegetation management. Habitat restoration projects 

often import materials—namely gravel, top soil, fill, erosion control products, and seed for 

revegetation. If these materials originate in infested areas, invasive plant propagules may be

incorporated into the materials and then dispersed to uninfested areas when the materials are 

used (Kowarik and Von der Lippe 2007). The use of imported materials is considered a 

substantial vector for the introduction and spread of invasive plants (USDA Forest Service 2001, 

2004a, 2011, Nevada Department of Agriculture 2013). In Alternatives A, B, C, and E, 

watershed and aquatic habitat restoration would occur at roughly the same level, whereas it 

would be greatly reduced in Alternative D. As such, Alternative D presents a lower risk of 

increasing vectors as a result of watershed and aquatic habitat restoration.

Recreation 

The primary vectors associated with recreation activities are the movement of invasive 

propagules along access routes by visitors, vehicles, livestock, and bicycles; these risks are

discussed in the next section—Access and Travel Management. Materials—namely gravel, top 

soil, fill, erosion control products, and seed for revegetation—are often imported during the 

construction on new recreation sites. If these materials originate in infested areas, invasive plant 

propagules may be incorporated into the materials and then dispersed to uninfested areas when 

the materials are used. 

On LTBMU, grazing is primarily an incidental use associated with recreation activities, such as

outfitter-guide activities and other equestrian recreation. There are no active grazing allotments 

on LTBMU and none are expected to become active under any alternatives. Fredrick’s Meadow 

is currently under special use permit and the permittee may be allowed to rest, confine, or graze

stock. The greatest risk from equestrian recreation is the use of imported forage (e.g. straw, hay, 

silage). Propagules from invasive plants growing in or near cultivated fields can be harvested 

with the fodder and dispersed to uninfested areas with its use (Brooks 2007, Kowarik and Von 

der Lippe 2007). Due to the high level of risk associated with forage, numerous federal and state 

agencies had adopted weed-free forage programs, including the Nevada Department of 

Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (West 2012, Nevada 

Department of Agriculture 2013). Horse feces can also transport invasive propagules, though the 

likelihood is relatively low (Campbell and Gibson 2001, Gower 2008). 

The risk from vectors will increase with increased recreation expansion. Alternatives A, B, and C 

would allow for recreation expansion up to 10%, 5%, 15%, respectively, whereas Alternative D 

3-160 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

would allow up to a 15% reduction. Alternative E would allow a 5% increase in developed site 

acres, day use parking, and ski area operational footprint acres, and a 10% increase in overnight 

accommodation units. Therefore, Alterative D presents the lowest risk of vectors associated with 

recreation, whereas Alternative C presents the highest risk, with Alternative A, B, and E being 

relatively comparable.

Access and Travel Management 

Access routes—whether they are major highways, general forest roads, motorized vehicle trails, 

non-motorized trails, or utility corridors—are often the primary conduit for introduction and 

establishment. Access routes contribute to dispersal of invasive plants because they (1) create 

suitable habitat by altering environmental conditions, (2) make invasion more likely by stressing 

or removing native species, and (3) allow for easier movement by wild or human vectors (e.g. on 

clothes, shoes, hooves, and tires) (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Route density is highly variable 

on LTBMU, but in general there are more routes near developed area and in the Wildland Urban 

Interface. Trails are of particular concern to managers because they may provide a route for 

invasive plant dispersal into wildlands by linking the front country to the backcountry. Areas 

next to trails often include more non-native species and higher non-native cover the surrounding 

vegetation ((Dickens et al. 2005, Potito and Beatty 2005, Wells et al. 2012). Visitation rates have 

been positively correlated to the presence of non-native plants (Lonsdale 1999). Use of both 

motorized access routes and non-motorized trails has been a component of recreation on 

LTBMU for many years and is expected to increase. As recreational use increases, the number of 

invasive plants and the area they occupy can also be expected to increase.

None of the alternatives propose a programmatic expansion of the LTBMU’s road system. 

However, Alternative C would allow increased access for passenger vehicles by improving road 

surfaces and opening some currently closed routes, thereby increasing the vectors for invasion. 

All alternatives allow for some increase in the quantity of trails open to hiking and equestrian

use, though most additions are currently in use as unauthorized routes, so there would not likely 

be an increase in vectors. Alternative A, B, and E allow for the additional motorized trails. The 

location of access routes can substantial influence their potential as vectors; access routes that 

connect infested areas (e.g. existing recreation sites, trailheads, developed area) to uninfested 

areas represent the highest risk. But since the revised Forest Plan does not provide specific 

locations for added access routes, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty regarding the risk 

these new routes present. Overall, the differences among alternatives in trail quantity and type 

are small—less than 10% difference between alternatives. Nonetheless, since access routes 

represent the primary vector for infestation, any increase in access routes represents an increased 

risk for invasive plant introduction and spread. 

Habitat Alteration Expected to Result from Proposed Action

Vegetation Management 

Use of mechanical equipment and prescribed burning can result in soil disturbances that favor 

nonnative plant establishment (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Lonsdale 1999, Brooks 2007, Zouhar 

et al. 2008). The difference in quantity and type of vegetation treatments between alternatives is 

discussed in the previous section—Vectors Expected to Result from Proposed Action. Because 

high severity wildfires can produce large disturbance areas with conditions favorable to invasion, 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-161
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

proposed activities that modify fire behavior—promoting lesser severity fires—may also reduce 

the risk of larger scale habitat alteration and reduce the probability of invasion. 

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Active stream channel restoration often necessitates the use of heavy equipment to reshape the 

stream channel or place large woody debris. The use of heavy equipment in restoration presents 

the same risks associated with its use in vegetation management. The difference in quantity of 

watershed and aquatic habitat restoration activities between alternatives is discussed in the 

previous section—Vectors Expected to Result from Proposed Action.

Recreation 

The most substantial risks from recreation are associated with high vector potential of roads and 

trails. However, dispersed recreation— activities that occur outside of developed recreation sites 

in more remote areas of NFS lands, including off-trail hiking, camping, motorized and nonmotorized vehicle use, and horseback riding—can trample plants, reduce native vegetation cover,

and result in degraded habitat (Liddle 1991). The types of impacts generated from dispersed 

recreation activities will be similar for all alternatives but the intensity can vary with increased 

visitation. More access—as measured by miles of roads and trails—will create more 

opportunities for dispersed activities. Differences among alternatives in amount of roads and 

trails is discussed in the previous section— Vectors Expected to Result from Proposed Action.

Construction and maintenance of new recreation sites can result in disturbed conditions that 

favor invasive plant introduction and spread. Differences among alternatives in amount of 

recreation expansion are discussed in the previous section—vectors expected to result from 

proposed action. The location of recreation sites as well as the intensity of their use can 

substantial influence amount of associated habitat alteration. Recreation use levels are expected 

to increase under all alternatives. But since the revised Forest Plan does not provide specific 

locations for recreation expansion, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty regarding the 

risk associated with new recreation sites. 

Access and Travel Management 

While the primary risk from access routes is their role as vectors introducing invasive plants to 

uninfested areas, construction and maintenance of roads and trails can remove native vegetation, 

resulting in disturbed conditions that favor invasive plant introduction and spread. The 

differences between alternatives in the quantity and location of access routes is discussed in the 

previous section— Vectors Expected to Result from Proposed Action.

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Management Strategy

Coordination 

In all alternatives, LTBMU will continue to coordinate invasive plant management activities 

with MOU partners and agencies and, to the extent feasible, support invasive plant research.

Prevention 

All alternatives include standards and guidelines targeted at reducing vectors for introduction and 

spread. These standards and guidelines include screening materials and equipment for invasive 

3-162 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

plants; required use of weed-free straw; required use of invasive-free gravel, fill, topsoil, mulch, 

and other materials; cleaning of equipment used off-road during project implementation; 

avoidance of infestations when selecting staging areas and landing. Additional invasive 

prevention measures may be employed on a project-by-project basis, depending on the risks 

presented by proposed activities and the feasibility of implementation. Risk will continued to be 

evaluated through the IPRA process. The current Forest Plan does not include invasive plant 

prevention standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1988); rather, these standards and 

guidelines are derived from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plant Amendment and national Forest 

Service manual direction (USDA Forest Service 2004b, 2011). In Alternatives B, C, D, and E, 

invasive plant prevention standards and guidelines are included in the revised Forest Plan. 

Regardless of the associated management direction, the general prevention strategy is consistent 

across all alternatives.

Control 

All alternatives allow for an integrated invasive species management approach that evaluates all 

available control methods, including biological, cultural, mechanical/physical, and chemical 

techniques, as well as addresses potential adverse effects to native species, human health, 

ecosystem processes, or other resources on NFS lands.

Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow for an active approach to terrestrial invasive plant management 

whereas Alterative D promotes a passive approach. In alternative A, B, C, and E, both moderate 

and high priority infestations would be considered for treatment. Funding may dictate that only a 

portion of these infestations are treated, but they would all be considered. In alternative D, only 

high priority infestations would be considered for treatment. This would result in an increase in 

the quantity and size of moderate priority infestations which could adversely impact native 

species, ecosystem function, and other resource values.

In alternatives A, B, C, and E, active restoration techniques—namely revegetation with native 

plants—would be considered for post-treatment management of infestations. In alterative D, 

restoration would rely on natural processes—namely seed bank germination and natural 

recruitment from nearby seed sources. Revegetation with native plants can improve the structure 

and function of habitats previously infested with invasive plants (DiTomaso 2000, Masters and 

Sheley 2001). As such, the recovery time of previously infested areas may be extended or 

retreatment of reestablished infestations may be required, which may adversely impact resources 

as well as cost more than active restoration.

While Alternative A allows for an active management approach, the current Forest Plan does not 

provide any guidance on how to prioritize invasive plants species and infestations for 

management whereas Alternatives B, C, D, and E emphasize Early Detection and Rapid 

Response (EDRR). EDRR focuses on finding new, small, or previously unknown infestations 

prior to or in the initial stages of its establishment and then taking quick and immediate actions 

taken to eradicate, control, or contain infestations within a relatively short time (USDA Forest 

Service 2011). This is a priority management technique for the Forest Service because it reduces 

the costs and impacts of treating larger infestations (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-163
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.5.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternatives

Relative trend in invasive plant infestation abundance 

For Alternative A, the relative trend of infestations is expected to remain stable or increase 

slightly because the proposed activities present a moderate risk of creating new infestations, 

while an active invasive plant treatment and restoration program is expected to reduce or eradiate 

some infestations. Alternative B and E are similar to alternative A, in that they allow for an 

active invasive plant treatment and restoration program while having a similar level of risk of 

new infestations due to proposed activities. Alternative C would likely result is an increased 

abundance on infestations—though still moderate—due to more mechanical fuels treatment 

(more habitat alteration) and more recreation expansion (more habitat alteration, more vectors 

for spread). Alternative D would likely result in an increased abundance of infestations due to the 

limitation of invasive plant treatment to high priority species and the reliance on a passive 

approach to restore those areas impacted by invasive plants.

Relative trend in infestation abundance

 Decrease Stable Increase 

   

 Alt A, B, E Alt C Alt D

 

Relative Risk of Invasive Plant Introduction and Spread 

For Alternative A, the relative risk of invasive plant introduction and spread is moderate, but the 

risk would be somewhat reduced by an active prevention program. Alterative B is similar to 

Alternative A, but the risk of introduction and spread may be greater due to more recreation 

expansion (more habitat alteration, more vectors) or lower due to less mechanical fuels treatment 

(less habitat alteration). Alternative C has slightly more risk than Alternative A due to more 

mechanical fuels treatment (more habitat alteration) and highest level of recreation expansion

(more habitat alteration, more vectors). Alternative D has slightly less risk than other alternatives 

due to the expectation that there will be less ground disturbance if there are fewer mechanical 

vegetation treatments and restoration projects (less habitat alteration, fewer vectors). Alternative 

E is similar to B, but risk may be greater due to more recreation development (more habitat 

alteration, more vectors). 

Relative risk of invasive plant introduction and spread

 Lowest Moderate Highest 

    

Alt D Alt A Alt B Alt E Alt C

3-164 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All alternatives include standards and guidelines for the prevention of new invasive plant 

infestations and treatment of high priority invasive plant species and infestations. Under all 

alternatives, projects involving ground-disturbance will continue to be assessed for invasive plant 

risks and invasive plant management measures will be incorporated into all management 

activities. As such, all alternatives are within acceptable levels of risk and meet the desired 

conditions for the prevention and prioritized control on invasive plants on NFS lands.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Invasive Plants ■ 3-165
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.6 Built Environment

3.4.6.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the built 

environment that may result from the alternatives. The built environment includes administrative 

buildings, developed recreation facilities, dams, water systems, and other facilities.

Methodology

The built environment was analyzed by reviewing existing facilities, needs, and funding and 

comparing those facilities to the desired conditions per all alternatives. Data was collected from 

Infra databases, the existing forest plan, the Facility Master Plan, and from the accessibility 

Transition Plan. 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• Opportunities for BMPs will be identified and prioritized for funding, analysis and 

implementation.

• Facilities will be managed to achieve recreation and administrative management goals.

• Facilities will be managed to achieve resource management goals.

3.4.6.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The 1988 Forest Plan defined the following goals:

1. Facilities Goal: To provide administrative facilities such as offices, shops, storage, 

housing, and communication to support the work force.

2. Energy Goal: Improve energy efficiency related to national forest activities in 

support of national policy. 

The overarching theme is to provide for a sustainable built environment that supports the forest’s 

mission. Sustainability refers to the ability to operate and maintain the facility through changing 

needs and funding levels. Adaptability and purpose of the built environment are important 

considerations for design, construction, and operation. 

Current Conditions and Trends 

There are 12 administrative sites containing 32 buildings and 13 trailer pads. Many structures 

need replacement or reconstruction, and some sites need additional application of water quality

BMPs.

There are 15 dams on the LTBMU. Fallen Leaf dam has been owned and operated by the Forest 

Service since 1951. Nine small dams were built by the California Department of Fish and Game 

in the 1940's to enlarge existing lakes in order to maintain stream flows and improve fish habitat. 

3-166 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Management responsibility for these nine dams has recently been transferred to the Forest 

Service. Heavenly Valley Creek dam is under Forest Service jurisdiction, although managed by 

the ski area for domestic, dust control, irrigation, and snowmaking uses.

The Echo Lake Dam was built in the 1890s and is operated by the El Dorado Irrigation District. 

It diverts water into the American River system to generate electricity and supply water for 

irrigation.

There are three other privately owned dams on national forest land but they do not affect 

management activities. Although physical conditions are suitable, new hydroelectric 

development is unlikely because of environmental protection requirements.

The LTBMU Facilities Master Plan (USFS 2004f) identifies buildings for decommission,

reconstruction or replacement. Several facilities are in need of rehabilitation or 

decommissioning, including the cabin at the Old Mill site at Fallen Leaf Lake, Meeks Fire 

Station, Round Hill Pines Resort, Camp Richardson Resort cabins and several other buildings 

throughout the basin. 

The LTBMU is in the process of exploring partnerships with local organizations to co-locate 

administrative facilities, such as fire stations, barracks, and office space. In addition, 

partnerships are being explored to facilitate redevelopment and improved utilization of recreation 

facilities.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be 

installed on developed parcels in South Lake Tahoe by October 15, 2006. While the 

Supervisor’s Office and Spooner Summit station are in compliance, currently other 

administrative facilities are not.

In 1998, the LTBMU completed the first of two plans needed to bring the unit into compliance 

with universal accessibility standards. The Transition Plan identifies and prioritizes sites where 

there are obstacles to accessibility associated with activities, programs or services offered at 

certain facilities. This is of particular relevance to special use permitting because private 

businesses permitted to operate on Forest Service Lands are required to comply with the “higher 

level of the two accessibility standards” (Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Guidelines and Architectural Barriers Act). The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) 

requires that facilities that are built, bought, rented, or leased by, for, or on behalf of a Federal 

agency must comply with the accessibility guidelines. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 requires that no person can be denied participation in a federally conducted or assisted 

program or activity solely because that person has a disability. Universal access defines those 

programs and facilities in which barriers to participation or access are not present. 

The 1999 Accessibility Action Plan, the second LTBMU accessibility report, focused on 

identifying and prioritizing facility renovation projects to bring them up to ABA standards. 

Forty upgrades projects were identified in the plan including campgrounds, administrative sites, 

trail heads, parking and bathroom facilities, lookout areas, beaches, picnic areas, visitor centers 

and special use permit areas. 

Chapter 3 | Built Environment ■ 3-167
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Major Changes Since 1988

The Supervisor’s Office was completed in May 2003. It was built to save money on high lease 

costs, improve employee efficiency, and to provide managed parking. This facility was built 

using the best available energy conservation, landscaping, security, and building resources. It is 

located in central South Lake Tahoe on land owned by the Lake Tahoe Community College, and 

is accessible to public transportation. Most LTBMU employees’ work stations are now in this 

facility, although some remain at the Meyers Work Center and other facilities such as fire 

stations. 

Spooner Fire Station was completed in 2011, Meyers work center buildings A, B and C are 

undergoing remodel, and the William Kent House and garage have been decommissioned. The 

Nevada Beach campground and day use areas have been upgraded with current BMPs. 

Upgrades at the Fallen Leaf Campground have been systematically completed and include 

restroom replacements and relocation of camp sites out of sensitive areas. Currently 21 out of 53 

restrooms (with sewer connections) have been replaced around the LTBMU. The remaining 32 

restrooms are not to standard.

National, regional and local codes and regulations continue to be established and upgraded for 

buildings, dams, and utility systems (e.g., water, sewage, solid waste, electrical, and plumbing 

facilities and systems). Many of the Forest Service’s facilities are developed for outdoor 

recreational use, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and hiking trails. ABA guidelines 

pertaining to the built environment do not provide adequate guidelines and design criteria for 

outdoor recreational facilities. For this reason the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation 

Accessibility Guidelines and the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines were developed to 

establish design criteria specific to outdoor recreation environments and accessibility guidelines. 

3-168 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.6.3 Environmental Consequences 

Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration

Built Environment

Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration 

 Least removal of facilities Greatest 

   

Alt. A Alt. B, E Alt. C Alt. D

The effects upon the built environment from stream channel and habitat restoration management 

activities could result in removal of facilities in areas identified for restoration. Removal of 

facilities could occur in concert with removal of access and primary parking. 

Alternative D would result in a net loss of facilities, primarily because facilities that were 

removed for ecological restoration would not be replaced. Alternatives A, B, C, and E would 

result in less facility removal, would have a potential for a net increase in recreation facilities, 

and would have similar consequences. 

Vegetation and Fuels Management

Built Environment

Vegetation and Fuels Management 

 Least number of entries for treatment Greatest 

   

Alt. C Alt. A, E Alt. B Alt. D

Effects from vegetation and fuels management would likely have a long term beneficial impact 

upon the built environment due to the creation of defensible space. Alternative C would achieve 

the desired condition for fuels the quickest, followed by Alternatives B and E, then Alternative A 

and finally Alternative D. 

Chapter 3 | Built Environment ■ 3-169
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Developed Recreation Sites

Built Environment

Developed Recreation Sites 

 Least infrastructue increase allowed Greatest 

    

Alt. C Alt. E Alt. B Alt. A Alt. D

Alternative D would result in less developed recreation sites and consequently less built 

environment, primarily because sites that are removed would not be replaced. Alternative C 

would allow the increase of developed recreation infrastructure to meet demand. Alternative A 

would maintain existing levels and Alternatives B and E would allow for an increase in the built 

environment compared to existing levels of developed recreation infrastructure, although not the 

extent of Alternative C.

Road and Trail Management

Built Environment

Road and Trail Management 

 Least managed parking provided Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. A Alt. E Alt. B Alt. C

All Alternatives manage a similar number of miles of roads with minor differences between road 

maintenance levels and anticipated authorized motorized use, as well as a similar number of 

miles of trails within the designated trail system. Alternatives B, C, D, and E provide for 

management of currently un-managed parking. Alternative C provides for the greatest increase 

in managed parking compared to Alternative A, while Alternative D provides for less overall 

managed parking than Alternative A. Development of managed parking has the potential to 

increase the built environment, specifically with regard to restrooms and public information 

stations associated with developed parking areas.

Transit services are common to all Alternatives. These have been evaluated, tested and tried, and 

additional bicycle facilities are being developed. In the future additional facilities are anticipated 

to support public transit as an alternative to the private automobile. 

3-170 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Allocation Changes

Built Environment

Land Allocation Changes 

 Least effects on built environment Greatest 

  

Alt. A, E Alt. B, C Alt. D

Land allocation changes within each alternative would likely have little effect upon the built 

environment with the exception of Alternative D which would propose new wilderness areas and 

which may affect the Meiss Historic Cabin. If a wilderness were established the historic cabin 

may be kept, moved, exempted from wilderness requirements, or removed. If the cabin were 

kept, maintenance activities would have to meet wilderness requirements.

3.4.6.4 Analytical Conclusions

Effects upon the built environment between alternatives are for the most part minor. Alternative 

D would have the greatest reduction of the built environment, while Alternative C would have 

the greatest potential increase in the built environment. 

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Alternative A 

This alternative would continue the existing trends of restroom replacement, installation of site 

BMPs and addressing deferred maintenance through decommissioning or capital improvements. 

Alternative B 

Similar to Alternative A, this alternative would continue along existing trends of restroom 

replacement, installation of site BMPs and addressing deferred maintenance through 

decommissioning or capital improvements. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would allow for a potential increase in the built environment over all of the other 

alternatives. 

Alternative D 

This alternative would result in the greatest decrease in the built environment over other 

alternatives. While this alternative would most effectively reduce deferred maintenance, 

unmanaged conditions may result in resource impacts and not meet public expectations.

Chapter 3 | Built Environment ■ 3-171
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Alternative E 

Similar to Alternative B, this alternative would continue along existing trends of restroom 

replacement, installation of site BMPs and addressing deferred maintenance through 

decommissioning or capital improvements. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All alternatives would meet the desired conditions; however, there are differences in timing, 

economics, and the extent to which the desired conditions for the built environment would be 

met. 

Alterative A is trending towards meeting desired conditions.

Alternative B would meet the desired conditions in a relatively short time frame.

Alternative C would meet the desired conditions for the built environment the quickest.

Alternative D would meet desired conditions but would result in the least amount of built 

environment. 

Alternative E would meet the desired conditions in a relatively short time frame.

3-172 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.7 Climate Change

3.4.7.1 Introduction

The topic of climate change has emerged, in part, as an issue raised during public scoping and 

collaboration. This section evaluates the environmental consequences from climate change on 

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

There are three primary documents that are currently guiding the Forest Service regarding 

Climate Change. The Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change is a guiding 

document on how the Forest Service aims to sustain health, diversity, and productivity of forest 

and grasslands in the present and future (USDA 2008.). The National Roadmap for responding to 

Climate Change provides an overview of the strategies that National Forests are working on to 

adjust and prepare for climate change adaptation and to reduce greenhouse gas mitigation 

(USDA 2011a). The Climate Change Performance Scorecard is a 10 point scorecard that 

addresses four dimensions (organizational capacity, engagement, adaptation, and mitigation) that 

every National Forest and Grassland reports their progress on, on an annual basis (USDA 

2011b). This provides a method for Forests to track their accomplishments in incorporation of 

climate change into management actions. The 10 scorecard elements are: Employee Education, 

Designation of a Climate Change Coordinator, Program Guidance, Science and Management 

Partnerships, Assessing Vulnerability, Adaptation Actions, Monitoring, Carbon Assessment and 

Stewardship, and Sustainable Operations. Examples are provided for addressing each element in 

the scorecard guidance document.

Methodology

We qualitatively evaluated the five alternatives and the environmental response from climate 

change using headers linked to the four issue areas (watershed health, aquatic ecosystems, 

terrestrial ecosystems, and recreation-access-and travel management).

The current climate trends were compared to future predicted trends. This provided information 

on future implications for the LTB in regards to climate change. The effects of the alternatives 

were synthesized based on the following six adaptation and/or mitigation strategies: (1) building 

adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological restoration, (2) enhancing watershed 

function, (3) sequestering forest carbon, (4) reducing existing stresses, (5) sustainable operations, 

and (6) fostering science-management partnerships and public education. The four issue areas 

are found in all of these adaptation and mitigation strategies. Watershed Health and Aquatic 

Ecosystems are primarily discussed under 2 and 4. Terrestrial ecosystems are primarily discussed 

under 1, 3, and 4. Recreation and Access and Travel Management are primarily discussed 

under 5.

Assumptions

The Affected Environment section discusses climate trends expected in the LTBMU. These 

general trends were used to analyze the environmental consequences. We used the best available 

science and scenarios most relevant to the Lake Tahoe Basin for this analysis. The six adaptation 

and/or mitigation strategies discussed are based on current literature. We are making the 

assumption that these actions will have positive rather than adverse effects, however given the 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-173
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

high degree of uncertainty from the complexity of ecosystem and climate interactions this 

assumption may be false. The FS Plan includes a strategy for addressing the risk and 

uncertainties in climate change.

3.4.7.2 Affected Environment

For the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and the surrounding Sierra Nevada, climate 

variability and weather events such as rain and snow storms, droughts, heat waves, floods, and 

lightning storms are an integral part of the natural environment. The Sierra Nevada is the highest 

mountain range in North America’s only area of Mediterranean-type climate. As such, the range 

receives large amounts of winter snowfall, followed by a 3-5 month summer drought. The 

temporal misalignment of precipitation and growing season is a characteristic of Mediterraneantype climates, and leads to ecosystem patterns that are driven principally by water availability 

but also to a great extent by dry-season fire. Increasing changes in climate and disturbances 

projected for the future are expected to lead to substantial alterations in California forests and the 

ecosystem services they provide (Field et al. 1999, Moser et al. 2009). The International Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC 2007) has identified future impacts of temperature warming, changes in 

precipitation, extreme weather events, severe droughts, earlier snowmelt, increasing wildfire 

activity, and other changes that could significantly affect forest ecosystems.

Although science has been investigating various aspects of climate change on forests for 

decades, our knowledge of how plants and ecosystems will respond to a changing climate and 

how to react appropriately at local or regional levels where management actions are effected is 

still very limited (Wiener 2006, Solomon 2008). Uncertainties about outcomes will require 

flexibility, and land management strategies based on current or historical conditions may need to 

be adjusted or replaced with approaches that support adaptation to changing conditions (USFS 

2008; Wiens et al., in press).

Forests can play an important role in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. Mitigation 

measures focus on strategies such as carbon sequestration by natural systems, increasing carbon 

storage in wood products, providing renewable energy from woody biomass to reduce fossil fuel 

consumption, and reducing environmental footprints. Adaptation measures address ways to 

maintain forest health, diversity, productivity, and resilience under uncertain future conditions. 

Adaptation and mitigation activities must also complement each other and balance with other 

ecosystem services (USFS 2008).

Specifics regarding many mitigation measures, such as the appropriate calculations for carbon 

offsets and how to consider carbon sequestration rates, are still being developed, so most focus at 

the Forest level at this time is on the use of management options to improve resilience and 

adaptability of native ecosystems under changing conditions. Over the 15-year life of the Forest 

Plan, as issues are better understood and appropriate measures are identified, climate change 

strategies can be adjusted through the adaptive management process.

3-174 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of current climate and climate-related trends in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

(From Safford 2010, contained in Appendix D)

Mean annual temperatures in the LTBMU planning area have risen by about 2 degrees 

Fahrenheit over the last century, with most of the change occurring in nighttime temperatures. 

The occurrence of nighttime freezing temperatures has decreased over the last century, and for 

the first time on record, the annual mean minimum temperature at lake level is now above 

freezing. The average number of days in a year on which the average air temperature remains 

below freezing has dropped by 27 days since 1910. The Lake Tahoe Basin (LTB) rise in 

nighttime temperatures is higher than in most California locations and may be linked to the 

thermal mass of Lake Tahoe, whose surface waters have increased in temperature by one degree 

F in only the last 25 years. Over the last century, mean annual precipitation has risen by almost 7 

inches per year, but there is very high (and increasing) interannual variability. At lake level, the 

balance of snow to rain has been shifting toward the latter: at the beginning of the last century, 

more than 50% of precipitation fell as snow; today the average is about 34%. Snowpack 

measurements show a strong downward trend across northern California over the last 1⁄2 century. 

Although some years continue to bring significant snowfall, the average springtime snow water 

equivalent at measured locations near Lake Tahoe has dropped by >70% in many cases.

Changes in temperatures and amounts and timing of precipitation have led to earlier peak 

streamflows in most Sierra Nevada streams, with higher spring flows and lower summer flows. 

Streamflow data show that peak snowmelt in the LTB is occurring 21⁄2 weeks earlier today than 

at the beginning of the 1960’s. Forest fire frequency, size, total area burned, and – in some forest 

types – severity have all been increasing in the Sierra Nevada over the last two to three decades. 

Non-fire driven mortality of adult trees also appears to be increasing in lower and middle 

elevation forests in the Sierra Nevada, but not at higher elevations (>7500 feet), where warming 

temperatures have lengthened the short summer growing season. Studies of terrestrial vertebrate 

animals, birds, and butterflies show that many species have been shifting their ranges toward 

higher elevations, probably in response to warming temperatures and changing precipitation 

patterns.

Summary of projected future trends in and around the Lake Tahoe Basin

(From Safford 2010, Appendix D)

Although climate change models vary in their projections for the latter half of the 21st century, 

all predict significant warming (about 4 to 9° F in mean annual temperatures by 2100) in the 

northern Sierra Nevada, most expect precipitation to remain similar or slightly reduced compared 

to today. Raising the LTB’s mean annual temperature by 9° is the equivalent of dropping the 

elevation by over 2500 feet. Most models also agree that summers will be drier on average than 

they are currently, regardless of levels of annual precipitation. Models project a continuously 

increasing rain:snow ratio and earlier runoff dates for the next century, with decreased snowpack 

and growing-season stream flow. The most extreme future emissions scenarios project stream 

inflows into Lake Tahoe may drop 20-40% by 2100. Hydrological modeling projects lower 

spring and summer runoff in most Sierra Nevada river basins, but winter and early spring runoff 

is projected to be higher under most climate scenarios, as higher temperatures cause snow to melt 

earlier. Flood potential in Sierra Nevada rivers that are fed principally by snowmelt (i.e., higher 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-175
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

elevation streams) is projected by most models to rise, principally due to earlier dates of peak 

daily flows and the increase in the proportion of precipitation falling as rain. If overall 

precipitation increases over time, streamflow volumes during peak runoff will increase even 

more, leading to notably higher flood risk in downstream locations.

Vegetation and fire modeling linked to future climate scenarios suggests that the area of coniferdominated forest in the Sierra Nevada will decrease, as hardwood species respond positively to 

warmer nighttime temperatures and changing disturbance regimes (and especially if precipitation 

increases). Many scenarios also expect grassland area to increase at lower and middle elevations, 

as woody vegetation retracts in the face of increased fire frequency. Increased fire activity in the 

Sierra Nevada may also increase chaparral, which would increase forest heterogeneity and 

influence the future fire regime (Nagel and Taylor 2005). Current trends of increasing fire 

activity and burned area are expected to continue under almost all future climate scenarios, and 

some models project increases in fire intensity as well. Additionally, Loudermilk et al. (2013) 

modeled multiple climate scenarios coupled with landscape disturbance modeling (LANDIS-II) 

over the next century. Their results suggest that increasing temperatures and wildfire activity 

may decrease establishment ability of subalpine and upper montane trees. 

Potential implications of climate trends for Lake Tahoe Basin ecosystems

To this point, a climate change vulnerability assessment has not been carried out for the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, however a number of climate change adaptation assessments have been completed 

for areas including or neighboring the LTB. As a case study within a broader national 

assessment, Joyce et al. (2008) carried out a preliminary climate change adaptation evaluation 

for the Tahoe National Forest on the Sierra Nevada west slope; the Tahoe National Forest 

borders the LTBMU on the northwest. In May, 2011, The Nature Conservancy completed an 

adaptation assessment for the Northern Sierra Partnership (NSP) (Low et al. 2011), an alliance of 

non-governmental organizations focused on conservation in the northern Sierra Nevada. 

Although the Lake Tahoe Basin falls within the NSP area of interest, it is itself not a focus area 

for NSP conservation efforts.

The Low et al. (2011) report integrates climate projections, forecasts of the response of major 

habitat types, and management simulations to determine where northern Sierra Nevada 

ecosystems may be at greatest risk from projected future climate changes, and what conservation 

strategies might be most cost-effective for reducing or adapting to climate risks for selected atrisk ecosystems. Based on literature review and expert input, the authors expect the following 

ecological impacts to result from climate change:

• More frequent, larger fires

• Higher tree mortality during longer growing season droughts

• Longer periods of low stream flows

• Longer periods of groundwater recharge during colder months

• Increased dispersal of non-native species

• Greater conifer and deciduous tree species recruitment and growth in 

meadows/wetlands/riparian areas due to drought and CO2 fertilization

• Impaired recruitment of willow and cottonwood due to modified hydrology

• Faster growth of fast-growing native tree species

3-176 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Increased recruitment of high-elevation trees

• Increased dispersal of pinyon pine and juniper in shrublands 

In their analysis, Low et al. (2011) used a comparison of current vegetation distribution vs. areas 

of probable future persistence to develop an index of direct “climate stress”. The authors found 

that red fir and lodgepole pine forests, area of montane sagebrush, and aspen were more likely 

than other major vegetation types to lose habitat under future climates (excluding disturbances 

and other non-climate factors). Those least likely to suffer direct climatic stress were mixed 

conifer and pine-dominated forest types, blue oak, and subalpine forests.

Low et al. (2011) also modeled distributions of vegetation successional (seral) stages within 

different vegetation types, and compared baseline models (which they assumed represented the 

natural range of variability [NRV]) against current conditions and future projections. They found 

that the vegetation types that are currently most departed from NRV are riparian and wet 

meadow types, followed by aspen, big sagebrush, and yellow (ponderosa and Jeffrey) pinedominated conifer forests. Vegetation types under the greatest risk of loss, invasion, and/or 

conversion under future climate warming were, in this order: (1) wet meadows; (2) riparian 

systems; (3) big sagebrush; (4) yellow pine-dominated conifer forests; (5) other sagebrush 

ecosystems.

As a case study within a broader national assessment, Joyce et al. (2008) carried out a 

preliminary climate change adaptation evaluation for the Tahoe National Forest on the Sierra 

Nevada west slope; the Tahoe National Forest borders the LTBMU on the northwest. Joyce et al. 

(2008) identified the following key climate change impacts to the northern Sierra Nevada:

• Combined effects of continued warming, declining snowpack, and earlier stream 

runoff threaten longer summer droughts and greater soil moisture deficits during the 

growing season. This will increase stress that an already long, dry Mediterranean 

summer imposes on vegetation and wildlife

• Increased fuel build-up and risk of uncharacteristically severe and widespread forest 

fire

• Longer fire seasons; year-round fires in some areas

• Higher-elevation insect and disease and wildfire events

• Increased interannual variability in precipitation, leading to fuel build-up and causing 

additional forest stress. This situation promotes fire vulnerabilities and sensitivities

• Increased water temperatures in rivers and lakes and lower water levels in late 

summer

• Increased stress to forests during periodic multi-year droughts; heightened forest 

mortality

• Decreased water quality as a result of increased watershed erosion and sediment flow

• Increased likelihood of severe floods

• Loss of seed and other germplasm sources as a result of population extirpation events

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-177
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Safford (2010; see Appendix D), identifies other potential impacts of ongoing and future climate 

change, including changing geographic distributions of animal and plant species, and changing 

patterns of dominant vegetation composition and structure. 

3.4.7.3 Environmental Consequences

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges to sustainable management of forests and human 

well-being because rates of change will likely exceed many ecosystems’ capabilities to naturally 

adapt. Rapidly changing climate and associated agents of change, such as amplified fire regimes, 

insects and diseases, atmospheric contaminants, and invasive species, have resulted in recent 

impacts to forest ecosystems and resources in the LTB and surrounding Sierra Nevada. 

Anticipating future effects of changing climate to these ecosystems will be challenging, since 

climate projections are inherently uncertain and climate-related stressors are variable and 

complex. An adaptive management approach that incorporates the best available science 

information, monitors ecological conditions, and adjusts management approaches based on these 

conditions is crucial in an era of rapidly changing climate.

The first step in addressing climate change is to carefully assess the associated risks and 

vulnerabilities for the natural and human communities. Vulnerability assessments are one 

management strategy that may be utilized to guide management for climate change. In order to 

build resilience we must understand the vulnerabilities, including projected environmental 

changes, key values at risk, and the sensitivity of those values at risk to projected change. A 

vulnerability assessment spans the range of ecosystems and values at risk to identify the relative 

vulnerability of ecosystem components and their ability to adapt to increased stress. In turn, this 

helps prioritize where management actions may focus in order to maintain healthy, resilient 

ecosystems and protect human communities. A collaborative approach to vulnerability 

assessment (including management, research, and the public) can help to avoid fragmented, 

piecemeal approaches that lack public support. Development of vulnerability assessments is 

being undertaken separate from Forest Plan revision. A Sierra-Nevada Regional effort is 

underway that will cover California Forests in the Sierra Nevada. This work will continue 

regardless of which alternative is selected.

An effective management strategy to changing climate must be flexible, responsive, incremental, 

and reversible (Millar et al. 2007). This will be especially challenging in forest ecosystems of the 

LTB and surrounding Sierra Nevada that are typified by homogeneous canopy structure and 

heavy fuel loads, resulting from decades of fire exclusion and intensive logging (McKelvey and 

Johnston 1992, Murphy and Knopp 2000, North et al. 2007). Both adaptation strategies and 

mitigation strategies will be necessary to manage forest ecosystems in the context of changing 

climates and amplified fire regimes (Millar et al. 2007, Stephens et al. 2010). Adaptation 

strategies increase the resilience of ecosystems and resources to climate change impacts (IPCC 

2007). Promotion of key ecological processes, heterogeneity in forest structure, biodiversity, and 

reduced surface and ladder fuels conducive to restoring wildland fire are examples of effective 

adaptive strategies for Sierra Nevada ecosystems in the face of changing climate (Stephens et al. 

2010). Mitigation strategies seek to reduce the long-term severity of climate change by lowering 

the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Examples of mitigation strategies 

3-178 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

include carbon sequestration in ecosystems, renewable energy to reduce fossil fuel consumption, 

and reduction in carbon footprint through sustainable practices and operations. If we actively 

manage ecosystems before climate-related effects induce change, long term management goals 

may be attained more effectively with fewer resources. Short term adaptations build resistance 

and resilience so that ecosystems are better able to withstand change, while long term 

adaptations are needed to avoid thresholds being crossed where one ecosystem abruptly 

transitions into another (Blate et al. 2009). 

Below, the alternatives are compared with respect to their predicted relative abilities to support 

six adaptation or mitigation strategies that are current focus areas for Forest Service response to 

climate change (USFS 2008, 2011). These strategies are: (1) building adaptive capacity of 

ecosystems through ecological restoration, (2) enhancing watershed health, (3) sequestering 

forest carbon, (4) reducing existing stresses, (5) sustainable operations, and (6) fostering sciencemanagement partnerships and public education. 

Building adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological restoration

Ecological restoration is a major focus area for forest managers throughout the Sierra Nevada. A 

prerequisite for restoration is the identification of current condition and trend in the focus forest 

type, and the identification of historical reference conditions that can provide guidance as to the 

nature of “proper function” in ecosystem processes and the capacity of certain forest structures 

and functions to be “resilient” to environmental change. Climate change is projected to become 

one of the main drivers of extinction and habitat loss (Dawson et al. 2011). It is widely thought 

that restoration practices based on a thorough understanding of past, pre-EuroAmerican 

settlement conditions are more likely to be sustainable over time. Adaptive capacity of biological 

and landscape level diversity to climate change depends on both intrinsic factors (e.g. species, 

ecosystem type, genetics) and extrinsic factors (e.g. rate of change, additional stressors) (Dawson 

et al. 2011). Restoration and protection of habitats may be critical for increasing species and 

ecosystem adaptive capacity to climate change, depending on the individual species and/or 

ecosystem specific; both positive and negative effects on species have been identified due to a 

changing climate (Dawson et al. 2011). Litell et al. (2012) and Blate et al. (2009) recommend 

several adaptation strategies that can be linked to building adaptive capacity of ecosystems 

through ecological restoration:

• Increase landscape diversity 

• Implement treatments that restore resilience at large spatial scales 

• Reduce fuel loads in forests

• Develop silvicultural treatments to reduce drought stress

• Treat large-scale disturbance as a management opportunity and integrate it in 

planning

• Increase use of managed wildfire for multiple objectives

• Maintain biological diversity

• Develop corridors/habitat connectivity for species migration and habitat protection

• Review genetic guidelines for reforestation

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-179
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Increase landscape diversity 

All alternatives increase landscape diversity to some extent. A desired condition of the forest 

plan is that stand and landscape conditions provide a diversity in vegetation types, stand 

structures, and species compositions that resembles patterns resulting from the interaction of 

natural disturbance regimes (e.g., wildland fire, insect and disease outbreaks, landslide and 

avalanche, windthrow, flooding, pre-Comstock aboriginal manipulations), variations in the 

physical landscape (e.g., elevation, soils, site productivity, aspect, slope), and the reigning 

climate. 

Alternatives B, C and E focus on managing for forest structural heterogeneity and landscape 

diversity, which will increase resilience to stressors. As new data become available, updated 

reference conditions may be applied when and where appropriate. Alternatives B, C and E 

provide flexibility in order to meet heterogeneity within the natural range of variability. 

Alternative A has the potential to increase landscape diversity in early and late seral forests; 

however this alternative has absolute canopy closure limits so there isn’t 100% flexibility. 

Alternative D depends on natural events, such as wildfire, to increase landscape diversity. 

Alternatives A and D restrict vegetation treatments in old forest ecosystems under the old forest 

emphasis area. Alternatives B, C and E do not use the old forest emphasis designation, but 

instead old growth is preserved wherever it occurs and mid-seral forests are promoted for future 

late-seral conditions (mid-seral forest is also where we will be creating early-seral forest).

Reduce fuel loads and promote resilience

All alternatives reduce fuel loads in the Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) where community 

safety is the first fuels priority. Alternatives B, C and E emphasize active ecological restoration 

to restore resilience and protect natural resources in both the WUI and across the landscape. 

These alternatives provide the greatest flexibility for ecological restoration. 

Under certain circumstances, trees greater than 30 inches DBH may be removed in alternatives 

B, C and E to achieve forest health, restoration, and safety goals. Alternative A only allows 

removal of trees greater than 30 inches DBH for hazard tree removal or to enable equipment 

operation. After existing projects are implemented, Alternative D allows only trees less than 12 

inches DBH to be removed outside of the defense zone in order to facilitate safe use of 

prescribed fire and natural ignitions. Hand thinning limitations in alternative D may not result in 

sufficient openings as trees get larger, especially if large scale disturbances are absent on the 

landscape.

Silvicultural treatments in alternatives B, C and E would be designed within the natural range of 

variability to provide greater resilience to insect outbreaks and drought. Alternative C would 

reduce the number of treatment entries compared to alternatives B and E by reducing stand 

densities towards the lower end of the natural range of variation. Alternative D vegetation 

management outside WUI includes some hand thinning to manipulate stand structure for forest 

health and to facilitate burning, the focus would be to let natural processes operate to restore and 

promote resilience. 

3-180 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives C and D would recommend Dardanelles Roadless Area for addition to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. Additionally, Alternative D would recommend Freel Roadless 

Area for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Any additional wilderness 

area will reduce the acres avaialable for some forms of restoration practices utilized for building 

adaptive capacity and promoting resilience.

Integrate disturbance processes into management

A desired condition of the forest plan is that disturbance processes occur in the ecosystem within 

the natural range of variability, and, where this is not feasible due to inherent risks, surrogates 

(e.g. prescribed fire, thinning) are used carefully to effectively mimic natural disturbance. 

Disturbance processes and/or their surrogates create and maintain forest conditions that are welladapted to current and future climates. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E have more flexibility to use large scale disturbance, including 

wildland fire, as management opportunities than alternative A, which has aggressive fire 

suppression guidance. Alternatives B, D, and E provide the greatest flexibility, allowing planned 

and unplanned ignitions to be utilized for forest health restoration purposes in all fire 

management zones except the WUI defense zone, although Alternatives B and E have fewer 

restrictions to thinning to facilitate safe use of fire than Alternative D. Alternative C allows 

planned and unplanned ignitions to be utilized for forest health restoration purposes in all fire 

management zones except the WUI Defense and Threat zones. Alternative A only allows 

unplanned ignitions to be used for resource objectives in the Desolation Wilderness 

However, managed wildfire alone is challenging and may not be the appropriate choice in many 

situations, especially as ignitions occur near the WUI. Forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin and other 

public and private lands in the eastern Sierra Nevada have been greatly altered by human 

management over the past 150 years. EuroAmerican settlement has led to more homogenous 

forest structure and a shift to higher stand densities and more fire intolerant species (Beaty and 

Taylor 2008). High fuel loads combined with the homogenous forest structure can lead to 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Alternatives with the most flexibility for reducing high fuel 

loads will provide more opportunities for the safe use of managed wildfire.

Maintain biological diversity and provide habitat connectivity

Biological diversity will be maintained and improved in Alternatives A, B, C and E. Alternatives 

B, C and E would promote active mitigation and restoration strategies to ensure sufficient quality 

habitat is available for target species. Habitat connectivity would be provided for unobstructed 

movement sufficient for survival, migration, reproduction, and dispersal given the potential 

effects of climate change on habitat and species and trophic level biodiversity will be considered 

during project planning and design. In addition, alternatives B, C and E include management 

direction to protect and restore habitat for target species and to allow restoration activities in 

PACs. 

Although Alternative A does not include specific measures for active restoration to improve 

biological species and habitats, active management would still occur in some instances. 

Alternatives A and D do not allow restoration activities in PACs. After completion of currently 

planned projects, Alternative D would not use active restoration to maintain or improve 

biological diversity; natural processes would control ecosystem diversity. Alternatives A and D 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-181
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

do not specifically consider habitat connectivity, however alternative D may provide habitat 

connectivity due to decreased recreational opportunities. On the other hand, Alternative D could 

decrease biological diversity due to passive management, which could potentially increase 

stressors. 

Utilize silvicultural genetic strategies to promote forest resiliency and adaptability

Alternatives B, C and E provide specific strategies for incorporating species mix, stocking 

density, or use of genetically superior or pest resistant planting stock, to restore landscapes and 

improve adaptability under climate change. Alternatives B, C and E also recommend that 

restoration activities use species and populations that are adapted to current and likely future 

conditions to successfully reestablish resilient ecosystems after disturbances. Alternative A does 

not specifically mention reviewing genetic guidelines for reforestation, however other Forest 

Service direction may still provide guidance on this (e.g. FSM 2600). Alternative D would not 

use reforestation, because this alternative would focus on natural reforestation. 

Enhancing watershed health

Climate change is projected to become one of the main drivers of extinction and habitat loss 

(Dawson et al. 2011). Adaptive capacity of biological and landscape level diversity to climate 

change depends on both intrinsic factors (e.g. species, ecosystem type, genetics) and extrinsic 

factors (e.g. rate of change, additional stressors) (Dawson et al. 2011). Restoration and protection 

of habitats may be critical for increasing species and ecosystem adaptive capacity to climate 

change, depending on the individual species and/or ecosystem specific; both positive and 

negative effects on species have been identified due to a changing climate (Dawson et al. 2011). 

Litell et al. (2012) and Blate et al. (2009) recommend several adaptation strategies for building 

adaptive capacity that can be linked to enhancing watershed function:

• Increase landscape diversity 

• Implement treatments that restore resilience at large spatial scales 

• Maintain biological diversity

• Develop corridors/ habitat connectivity for species migration and habitat protection

Landscape diversity will be maintained and improved in alternatives A, B, C and E. Alternative 

A focuses primarily on restoration of streams and watershed processes, while alternatives B, C 

and E increases emphasis on aquatic habitat improvement with equal emphasis on stream 

process, water quality, and aquatic habitat components. These alternatives recognize the need for 

restoring resilience into watershed systems and their associated habitats specifically to better 

enable them to adapt to changing climate conditions. Alternative D does not use active 

restoration to build adaptive capacity. Restoration would only occur where existing projects are 

planned or where infrastructure has accelerated degradation. The assumption behind this 

alternative is that the natural processes would be responsible for setting the pace to achieve 

equilibrium with existing and future stressors. Fire suppression activities have led to an increase 

in biomass, which can lead to nutrient mobilization impacts on water quality during wildfires 

(Miller et al. 2010). Alternative D has the least protection for water quality due to the increased 

potential for wildfires burning at increased frequency and severity (Karam et al. 2013, Miller et 

al. 2010, Johnson et al. 2007).

3-182 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Biological diversity and development of corridors/habitat connectivity for species migration and 

habitat protection is discussed under building adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological 

restoration.

Sequestering forest carbon 

Forests are recognized as a carbon sink; however management techniques vary for managing 

forests with frequent fire regimes to maximize carbon storage while minimizing carbon 

emissions during planned and unplanned fires. The risk of losing stored carbon to disturbance is 

important to consider when developing management prescriptions (Hurteau et al. 2009). In the 

short term, overgrown fire-suppressed stands may contain more carbon than a treated forest until 

a large disturbance event occurs. Hurteau and North (2009) found that while untreated forested 

stands had the greatest carbon storage in the presence of wildfire these stands had the largest 

total carbon emissions. They found that maximizing carbon in the presence of fire was best 

achieved with treatments designed for a lower stand density with large fire resistant trees. North 

and Hurteau (2009) found that in seven years ‘burn only’ and ‘understory thin’ treatments had 

net positive carbon stocks, while the ‘overstory thin’, and ‘overstory thin and burn’ treatments 

had net negative carbon stocks. The ’understory thin and burn’ treatment had a net negative 

carbon balance after 7 years; however tree growth rates suggested that this treatment would 

become a net positive balance after an additional several years. 

Loudermilk et al. (2013) found that due to the legacy effects of Comstock logging and fire 

suppression, the forests of the LTB continue to be C sinks over the next century, regardless of 

fuels treatments. This study is based on landscape disturbance modeling (LANDIS-II) 

incorporating multiple climate change scenarios and relative increases in wildfire. However, the 

wildfire activity is a conservative estimate. The authors note that should actual wildfire activity 

be greater than their estimate, LTB forest may likely become C neutral or a C source.

Fuel treatments are important in forests where fire suppression has caused a deviation from 

historic fire regimes, causing hazardous fire conditions. Montane forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

and other public and private lands in the eastern Sierra Nevada have been greatly altered by 

human management over the past 150 years. EuroAmerican settlement has led to more 

homogenous forest structure and a shift to higher stand densities and more fire intolerant species 

in montane forests (Beaty and Taylor 2008). High fuel loads combined with the homogenous 

forest structure can lead to uncharacteristically severe wildfire. In the montane zone of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin the average pre-settlement fire return interval ranged from 8 to 17 years (Beaty and 

Taylor 2009, Taylor 2004). Current fire frequency is at one of its lowest points in the last 14,000 

years. The paleo-record suggests that climate warming will increase fire episode frequency as 

regional drought intensifies (Beaty and Taylor 2009, Taylor 2004). 

Restoration in subalpine and upper montane fuel treatments in higher‐elevation red‐fir, lodgepole 

pine, whitebark pine, mountain hemlock forests may not be warranted or may be needed at a 

smaller scale compared to montane forests. Subalpine forest composition, structure, and function 

are largely within the natural range of variation, except for in relation to total tree densities 

(Meyer 2013). A decrease in the density of large-diameter subalpine trees and an increase in 

smaller diameter trees is largely the result of logging and recent climatic warming (Meyer 2013). 

While fire frequency and severity and mountain pine beetle outbreaks are still within the natural 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-183
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

range of variation, these disturbances are projected to increase with climate change (Meyer 

2013).

Various authors have recommended different mitigation strategies for sequestering carbon in 

areas with a frequent fire regime:

• Develop vegetation treatments to achieve a lower overall stand density with large fire 

resistant trees (Hurteau and North 2009);

• Reduce surface and ladder fuels (Hurteau and North 2010, North et al. 2009);

• Store carbon in wood products or use it as a biomass fuel (Millar et al. 2007);

• Avoid uniform high density forest conditions vulnerable to severe disturbance (Millar 

et al. 2007), mimic natural disturbance patterns;

While the above mitigation strategies can be helpful for carbon sequestration, carbon storage is a 

complex issue that has much debate within the scientific community. These above strategies are 

not meant to be exhaustive, but rather are presented as ideas for forests specifically that have a 

frequent fire regime. Treatments need to be balanced with potential for natural disturbance; 

harvesting frequency and the structural retention influence the carbon storage of each site and the 

more intensive a treatment is the greater the reduction of carbon (Nunery and Keeton 2010). 

Alternatives B, C and E will retain the highest level of forest carbon over the coming century due 

to a reduction in stand replacing fires. Treatments under these alternatives focus on restoration 

across the landscape to achieve forest structural heterogeneity and landscape diversity and lower 

stand densities dominated by fire resistant trees. Alternative C will have fewer entries than 

alternatives B and E, which will reduce emissions during project implementation. Alternative A 

focuses on treatments in the WUI, which will also retain high levels of forest carbon. Alternative 

D will retain the greatest amount of carbon over the short term; however in the presence of a 

large wildfire this alternative is likely to retain the least amount of carbon because treatments 

outside the WUI are limited and these stands will have greater densities than in other treatments.

The use of wood products for biofuels is not discussed under any alternative and the potential 

carbon sequestration value of wood varies depending on use (Lauk et al. 2012), length of use, 

and decomposition process; however it may be an option for alternatives A, B, C and E which 

allow post disturbance timber harvest. Alternative A allows post disturbance timber harvest for 

commercial value. Alternative B, C and E consider post disturbance timber harvest after 

concerns for safety, habitat, soils, and water resources are met to meet restoration objectives. 

Post fire timber harvest is not proposed in alternative D, which in addition to not using the wood 

products for biomass or alternative products, may slow overall recovery of the forest and thus 

slow carbon accumulation from regenerating forest species.

Reducing existing stresses 

Climate change is one of the greatest drivers of ecological change. Restoration and protection of 

habitats and removal of stressors unrelated to climate is one of the most important adaptation 

options for building ecosystem resilience in response to climate change (Blate et al. 2009, 

Dawson et al. 2011). Litell et al. (2012) and Blate et al. (2009) recommend several adaptation 

strategies that can be linked to reducing existing stresses:

3-184 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Implement early detection/rapid response for non-native invasive species and 

undesirable resource conditions

• Implement treatments that restore resilience at large spatial scales 

Early detection/rapid response will be utilized in alternative B, C and E for aquatic and terrestrial 

non-native invasive species. Alternative A provides direction for early detection/rapid response 

of terrestrial species only. Alternative D focuses on allowing natural processes to control the rate 

of recovery. This alternative does not utilize early detection/ rapid response as an adaptation 

strategy. Restoration actions would only occur to remove stressors, focusing only on the removal 

of high priority species or where directed by law. 

Alternatives B, C and E include language specifically intended to promote resilience to stressors 

including resilience to fire, changing climate, disease, and insect outbreaks. Alternative D 

promotes resilience to stressors by reducing recreation impacts from humans on resources under 

certain circumstances. Alternative A does not include specific language to promote resilience to 

stressors.

Sustainable operations

Healthy forests are directly linked to sustainable consumption. The Forest Service is committed 

to reducing our environmental footprint, and including these principles into our programs, 

practices, and policies. Litell et al. (2012) and Blate et al. (2009) recommend several adaptation 

strategies that can be linked to sustainable operations:

• Implement treatments that restore resilience at large spatial scales 

• Expand recreational opportunities across all four seasons

• Match engineering of infrastructure to expected future conditions 

• Redesign roads and trails to withstand increases in rainfall intensity 

All alternatives consider recreational opportunities across all four seasons. However, recreational 

capacity is greatest in Alternative C meeting the greatest visitor demand and lowest in 

Alternative D, which has the most unmet demand for recreation. Alternative B and E have the 

greatest sustainable benefit, because it links recreational demand to improvements in ecological 

sustainability, which will restore resilience. Alternative A includes expansion of recreation 

infrastructure and development of new sites to meet predicted future demands after safety and 

resource impacts are assessed. Alternatives B and E focus on deferred maintenance and 

modification of existing facilities to achieve ecological, social and economic sustainability. 

Expansion could occur in general forest or within existing facility footprints when facilities are 

modified or displaced. These alternatives would also increase overnight accommodation sites. 

Alternative C would provide the greatest number of overnight accommodation units, the greatest 

number of day use parking spaces, and greatest number of developed acres. Alternative D would 

not replace recreation lost to ecological restoration, financial constraints or conflicts with other 

resources. Recreational infrastructure would not increase or expand to accommodate increased 

demand. While alternative D improves ecological conditions, this alternative does not provide 

for increased recreational demand; this could lead to an increase in unmanaged recreation which 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-185
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

could lead to additional ecological problems due to the lack of infrastructure in a place where 

approximately 5.7 million visitors visit annually.

All alternatives continue developed ski area recreation. Climate models project a continuously 

increasing rain:snow ratio and earlier runoff dates for the next century, with decreased snowpack 

and growing-season stream flow. Alternative A allows for the greatest expansion of ski area 

operational boundary acres and Alternative D allows the least amount of expansion, with the 

potential for a decrease in total acres; the potential for an increase in the operational footprint 

acres from greatest to smallest goes: A, C, E/ B, and then D. Expanding recreational 

opportunities to other seasons in ski areas will become increasingly important. 

While alternative D does increase recommended wilderness acres, it decreases overall 

recreational capacity (described in preceding paragraphs). Alternatives A and B continue 

management of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless in accordance with current plans 

and policies. Alternatives C and D would recommend Dardanelles Roadless Area for addition to 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. Additionally, Alternative D would recommend 

Freel Roadless Area for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System and would shift 

12,000 acres from General Conservation to Backcountry Management Area. Alternative E would 

add Stanford Rock Backcountry Area, shifting approximately 3,800 acres from General 

Conservation to Backcountry.

All of the alternatives use Access and Travel Management (ATM) planning to identify routes, 

crossing upgrade and BMP needs, and restoration and reroute opportunities that will protect and 

enhance natural resources. This process will assist engineering with matching infrastructure to 

expected future conditions. Alternative A would expand the non-motorized trail system and 

construction of trailhead parking. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would formalize the ATM 

planning process and would revisit ATM projects after implementation to adaptively manage and 

determine the effectiveness of their implementation and to address new and remaining issues. 

Alternative C would increase vehicle access to the forest on passenger vehicle routes, decrease 

percentage of challenging vehicle routes, and would increase developed parking. Additionally, 

Alternative C would decrease trails for mechanized use, but non-motorized use is allowed on all 

routes. Alternative D would reduce the maintenance level of roads and trails compared to current 

maintenance level, which would increase the percentage of primitive and challenging trails. 

The Forest Service has concurrent Executive Orders and statutory requirements to reduce the 

environmental footprint for all federal agencies. Under all alternatives, the LTBMU will reduce 

its environmental footprint and decrease greenhouse gases emitted through implementation of 

sustainable practices in its day-to-day operations. 

All alternatives promote the use of public transport through the development of multi-modal 

transit stops, which will reduce greenhouse gases emitted. During the summer recreation, 

Alternative C would provide the greatest amount of managed parking, while alternatives A, B,, 

and E would reduce roadside parking, with alternative D containing the least amount of managed 

parking. The reduction in managed parking may lead to an increase in the use of public 

transportation, which could reduce GHG. During winter recreations, dispersed parking would 

increase under alternatives B, C, and E and remain the same under alternatives A and D.

3-186 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fostering science-management partnerships and public education

Many of our climate change activities will require assistance from technical climate experts. 

Long term science-management partnerships facilitate adaptive management of public lands 

(Vogel et al. 2007). Science based adaptation is critical because if management actions are 

monitored then we can increase certainty about climate impacts (Litell et al. 2012). Litell et al. 

(2012) and Blate et al. (2009) recommend several adaptation strategies that can be linked to 

fostering science-management partnerships and public education:

• Promote education and awareness about climate change among resource staff and 

local publics 

• Collaborate with a variety of partners on adaptation strategies and to promote 

ecoregional management

• Enhance research partnerships

• Expand conservation education programs to include climate change

• Seek opportunities to educate national forest visitors on climate change

The Forest Service provides guidance on educating resource staff about climate change. The 

LTBMU will continue to educate resource staff under all alternatives in regards to climate 

change. 

In 2010 the LTBMU participated in a climate change working group that partnered with: 

California Tahoe Conservancy, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Tahoe 

Metropolitan Planning Organization, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Tahoe Science 

Consortium, Tahoe Transportation District, US Environmental Protection Agency, USFS – Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), and two Consultants who led the group. The LTBMU will 

continue to collaborate with partners on adaptation strategies under all alternatives.

Primary researcher institutions that the LTBMU currently collaborates with include the Tahoe 

Science Consortium, UC Davis, University of Nevada Reno, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Desert Research Institute and Humboldt State University. The 

LTBMU will continue to enhance research partnerships under all alternatives. 

While the alternatives do not contain a specific strategy for educating national forest visitors on 

climate change, these programs may still be developed depending on funding. An assumption 

could be made that opportunities for education would increase with an increase in developed 

recreation, although this is likely not linear. Alternatives with the greatest number of developed 

recreation acres, in decreasing order, are: C, A, B/E, D. 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-187
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.7.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

The five alternatives are ranked by their overall ability to address the adaptation and mitigation 

strategies presented above:

• Building adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological restoration: B/C/E, A, D

• Enhancing watershed function: B/C/E, A, D

• Sequestering forest carbon: C, B/E, A, D 

• Reducing existing stresses: B/C/E, A, D

• Sustainable operations: B/E, D, C, A

• Fostering science-management partnerships and public education: C, A, B/E, D

These alternatives were then assigned a numerical rank based on the weight of each of the six 

adaptation and mitigation strategies discussed (Table 3-29).

3-188 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-29. Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies numerical ranking

Adaptation/Mitigation Strategy Alternative

A B C D E

Building adaptive capacity of ecosystems through ecological restoration 2 3 3 1 3

Enhancing watershed function 2 3 3 1 3

Sequestering forest carbon 1 3 4 2 3

Reducing existing stresses 2 3 3 1 3

Sustainable operations 1 4 2 3 4

Fostering science-management partnerships and public education 3 2 4 1 2

Sum Numerical Rank of Each Alternative for addressing Climate Change 11 18 19 9 18

Overall alternatives C, B, and E are best prepared to address adaptation and mitigation strategies 

in response to climate change; alternatives A and D are least prepared. Alternative D may not 

implement the adaptation and mitigation strategies identified, because this alternative primarily 

relies on natural processes, which reduces flexibility for managers to implement strategies.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

The Forest Plan has eight desired conditions that specifically mention climate. Additional 

climate language can be found in the Forest Plan strategies. Alternatives A, B, C, and E will be 

able to meet the desired conditions, with alternatives B, C, and E having the greatest ability to do 

so. Alternative D may not be able to meet the desired conditions during the life of the plan, 

because this alternative depends on passive management (after currently planned projects are 

implemented). The eight desired conditions are:

DC15: Watersheds have the following characteristics: A) They are resilient and recover rapidly 

from natural and human disturbances. B) They exhibit a high degree of connectivity along the 

stream, laterally across the floodplain and valley bottom, and vertically between surface and 

subsurface flows. C) They provide important ecosystem services such as high quality water, 

recharge of streams and aquifers, the maintenance of riparian communities, and moderation of 

climate variability and change. D) They maintain long-term soil productivity. 

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-189
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

DC19: The LTBMU incorporates adaptation actions into management to increase resiliency and 

adaptive capacity of vulnerable resources.

DC22: Disturbance processes occur in the ecosystem within the historic range of variability, and, 

where this is not feasible due to inherent risks, surrogates (e.g. prescribed fire, thinning) are used 

carefully to effectively mimic natural disturbance. Disturbance processes and/or their surrogates 

create and maintain forest conditions that are well-adapted to current and future climates. 

DC23: Stand and landscape conditions provide a diversity in vegetation types, stand structures, 

and species compositions that resembles patterns (figure 3) resulting from the interaction of 

disturbance regimes (e.g., wildland fire, insect and disease outbreaks, landslide and avalanche, 

windthrow, flooding, pre-Comstock aboriginal manipulations), variations in the physical 

landscape (e.g., elevation, soils, site productivity, aspect, slope), and the reigning climate. Forest 

structure should vary over the landscape in relation to topographic variables of slope, aspect, and 

slope position. 

DC46: At the scale of the LTB as a whole, the area of high functioning meadow vegetation is 

higher than in 2009 and the trend is up and meadow wetness is maintained or increasing as 

determined by species composition. A high diversity of meadow types is represented in the LTB, 

and soil drying and conifer encroachment that is due to human management is halted and 

reversed. Meadows affected by soil drying and conifer encroachment due to climate effects may 

also be targeted for treatment, depending on management goals. Bare ground cover is reduced in 

many meadows. Healthy stands of willow, alder and aspen grow in appropriate places within and 

adjacent to meadows.

DC57: Terrestrial and aquatic habitat connectivity continues to provide unobstructed movement 

sufficient for survival, migration, reproduction, and dispersal given the potential effects of 

climate change on habitat and species.

DC62: Inherent genetic variability within native plant populations is conserved and is sufficient 

to respond and adapt to changing climates and environment conditions.

DC82: Forest conditions in whitebark pine stands are the result of natural ecological processes, 

which occur with little direct human influence. Stand density, age distribution, and structural 

heterogeneity are such that stands are resilient to disturbance (e.g. wildfire and climate change) 

and resistant to pathogen infestations (such as white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle).

The strategies specific to climate change that help meet climate change specific desired 

conditions include:

• A vulnerability assessment will be completed at the Regional Level for the Sierra 

Nevada. The LTBMU will collaborate on local and regional vulnerability assessments.

• Vulnerability assessments related to climate change will be incorporated into 

management on the LTBMU as information is synthesized. Adaptation activities 

recommended for vulnerable resources will be considered and prioritized based on 

funding.

• Consider restoration of species and/or habitat identified as vulnerable to climate change 

during project planning.

3-190 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Restoration for individual species should be considered during habitat restoration, 

especially for vulnerable resources.

• Minimize management impacts to species that are vulnerable to climate change. 

Reduction of stress (e.g. human activities, invasive species) related to management will 

reduce the additive effects of non-climate stress.

• Reforestation strategies incorporate species mix, stocking density, or use of genetically 

superior (e.g. five-needle pines that are major gene resistant or slow resistant to white 

pine blister rust) or pest resistant planting stock, to restore landscapes and improve 

adaptability under climate change.

• Consider all levels of food web (trophic level) biodiversity (example predator/prey) 

during project planning and design to help mitigate climate change exposure to individual 

species and communities (e.g. from changes in phenology and habitat shifts). 

• Consider habitat connectivity for species that may be impacted due to climate change by 

removing or modifying physical impediments to movements. 

• Consider the potential for changed flow regimes as a result of climate change during the 

development of the aquatic organism passage management and monitoring plan.

• Identify and, as needed, protect refuge areas for rare plants with habitat that is likely to 

reduce or change due to climate change (e.g. subalpine & alpine habitat). 

• Conserve whitebark pine genetic diversity by collecting and archiving seeds and growing 

and planting genetically diverse seedlings. Identify and collect seed from trees that 

exhibit some level of WPBR resistance. Where possible, protect valuable rust-resistant, 

seed-producing trees from future mortality caused by disturbance, climate change, and 

competition. 

• Translate science behind the principles and methods for sustaining forests in changing 

climate into easily accessible tools and information to build environmental awareness, 

knowledge and skills.

Chapter 3 | Climate Change ■ 3-191
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.8 Cultural Resources 

3.4.8.1 Introduction

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on Cultural 

Resources that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines the 

five alternatives for revising the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan. 

Methodology

No modeling was used for this analysis. It is a qualitative analysis. 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

All specific projects that result from selection of any alternative will undergo separate National 

Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act review before implementation. 

3.4.8.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

As of December, 2011, approximately 68,982 acres have been surveyed (representing 44% of the 

LTBMU land), and 899 cultural sites have been recorded. Cultural evaluations of 254 sites 

determined 126 are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and 128 are 

not eligible.

Most inventory and site recording has resulted from large forest health projects. Numerous small 

project-related inventories, including urban lots and grazing allotments, account for the rest of 

the survey. This pattern of inventory and site recording has resulted in concentrations of 

information with large gaps in the more remote portions of the forest that may bias the sample of 

archaeological resources. The majority of new future inventory opportunities will be funded 

through the units Section 110 program. (Historic Preservation Act of 1966) efforts.

Additionally, more recent inventories beginning with the East Shore project have included the 

intensive recording of transportation systems that were ignored during earlier inventories. This 

has left an uneven impression of the presence of these systems across the forest. 

The East Shore project identified a pristine Historic Logging Landscape associated with the 

Comstock mining boom in Virginia City. Many of the sites within the area have been determined 

to be contributors to a National Register of Historic Places eligible Comstock Logging District. 

These sites range from an extensive array of Chinese associated woodcutter cabins, lumber 

milling sites, flumes, ditches and complex transportation systems. This east shore complex is 

unique because a single logging event took place in the 1870’s to 1900, and then the area was not 

re-entered, leaving the historic landscape unaltered from more recent logging entries. Managing 

this large landscape presents challenges during fuels reduction and forest health projects.

3-192 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Native American milling complexes have been identified in the Meiss Lake, Freel 

Peak, and Mount Rose areas. Additional Section 110 inventory in similar remote high altitude 

could expand or further define these complexes. 

The Cave Rock Traditional Cultural Property is an important traditional resource that has been 

identified and evaluated and will present management challenges due to the 2005 Forest Order 

restricting access to the area. These challenges result because the Code of Federal Regulations 

does not have a provision in Subpart B (36 CFR 261) for restricting activities. Under Subpart B, 

areas can only be closed. At Cave Rock, this has resulted in a complex temporary Forest Closure 

Order that closes the Cave Rock area, then exempts some non-vertical areas within the closure so 

the public can access activities that are not in conflict with the management direction. 

Development of Subpart C (36 CFR 261) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations that 

prohibit rock climbing at Cave Rock could help with these challenges. This area may need to be 

designated a Special Interest Area. 

Groves of aspen trees carved by Basque sheepherders have been identified throughout the 

LTBMU and pose management challenges. These resources consist of carved information and 

art on living trees, many of which are reaching the end or have exhausted their life expectancy. 

Treatment of these fragile resources can be complex. These resources could be served by a 

management plan that provides guidance for recording the information, protecting the trees and 

carvings, preserving selected examples of the carvings and possibly sustaining them through 

traditional use. 

A Memorandum of Agreement has been developed to restore and rehabilitate nine dilapidated 

historic cabins at Camp Richardson Resort. These contributors to the National Register of 

Historic Places Camp Richardson Resort Historic District have been neglected for over 20 years 

and are in danger of becoming unsalvageable. A focus of future management at Camp 

Richardson and other Historic resorts should be balancing historic preservation of contributing 

structures with the resorts’ economic viability.

The structures at National Register eligible Glen Alpine Springs Resort are used under a life 

estate to Robert Fritchee and under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Historic 

Preservation of Glen Alpine Springs Inc. Oversight of the resort has been uneven over the 

duration of the current Land and Resource Management Plan. Some periodic activities may not 

be appropriately authorized under the MOU and some discussion has taken place regarding 

putting the resort under Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit should continue to be 

pursued for appropriate authorization, management consistency, and ease of transition in the 

future when the life estate terminates. 

Chapter 3 | Cultural Resources ■ 3-193
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.8.3 Environmental Consequences 

None of the alternatives will have direct effects to Cultural Resources provided that the 

assumption noted above is valid. Indirect impacts could accrue from several provisions in some 

alternatives. 

3.4.8.4 Analytical Conclusions

No direct effects will result from the adoption of any of the alternatives.

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

An indirect effect could accrue if the recommendation of the Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless 

Area for Wilderness designation in Alternatives C or D is acted upon by Congress. Recent court 

precedence suggests that historic structures in Wilderness areas cannot be maintained and must 

be allowed to decay. The Meiss Cabin and Barn are important historic properties within the 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area that have been determined to be eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Unless provisions for maintaining these structures were included in 

the designation legislation, designation would result in an adverse impact from lack of 

maintenance. Additionally, historic dams are located at Showers, Dardanelles and Round lakes 

in the Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area. These structures have not been evaluated for their 

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, but similar adverse impacts could result 

from designation if they are determined eligible. 

The same indirect effect would accrue under Alternative D with the addition of the dam at Star 

Lake within the Freel Inventoried Roadless Area which could also be adversely impacted.

Fuels treatments in Alternative B and E could have the long term indirect effect of reducing or 

eliminating impacts from wildfires to cultural sites with organic components. In the short term, 

impacts to cultural sites from treatment activities could occur.

Under Alternative C, the reduced number of entries needed would indirectly reduce the 

possibility of impacts to cultural sites from project activity while providing the same protection 

from wildfire as in Alternatives B and E. Wildland fire management for resource objectives 

could indirectly result in short term increased risk to cultural sites when fire is allowed to burn in 

areas where cultural inventories have not occurred. 

The management of natural ignitions and under burning in Alternative D would have the most 

risk for indirect impacts to cultural sites while providing the same long term indirect benefits as 

Alternatives B, C, and E.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All alternatives equally maintain the Desired Conditions.

3-194 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.9 Tribal Relations

3.4.9.1 Introduction

This discussion evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on Tribal 

Relations that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines five

different alternatives for revising the 1988 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and 

Resource Management Plan as amended (1988 forest plan). 

Methodology

No modeling was used for this analysis. It is a qualitative analysis. 

Assumptions

It is assumed that the LTBMU will continue its mandated Government to Government 

relationship with the Tribe.

3.4.9.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The Washoe people are the original occupants of the land encompassed by the LTBMU and the 

lands administered by the LTBMU were managed by the Washoe for millennia before their 

displacement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Lake Tahoe is considered by the Washoe 

to be the center of their aboriginal territory and of great importance to their culture, livelihood 

and traditions (Washoe 2004). For many years Washoe tribal members had little presence at the 

lake and often felt unwelcome. 

The Tribe has stated reestablishing a Washoe presence at Lake Tahoe, maintaining cultural 

traditions and language, reintroducing traditional environmental management practices, and 

increasing trade and commerce as primary goals at Lake Tahoe. Progress toward accomplishing 

these goals has been made during the life of the LRMP.

The LTBMU has a well-established long term relationship with the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California (Tribe) that has sustained over the life of the LRMP through several tribal 

administrations and Forest Service Line Officers. During the life of the previous plan the 

LTBMU and Tribe have developed a Government to Government protocol agreement and three 

additional use agreements. The protocol agreement needs to be updated to include other forests 

with relationships with the Tribe. 

The Agreement for Meeks Meadow traditional plant tending and uses and the agreement for 

collaborative wetlands conservation planning in the Baldwin/Taylor and Meeks Meadow areas 

have helped maintain and reintroduce traditional practices into the management of land and 

resources and Lake Tahoe.

Congressional legislation has conveyed approximately 24 acres of land to the Tribe at Skunk 

Harbor. Additionally, the LTBMU has produced the Environmental Analysis to issue the tribe a 

Special Use Permit for a Cultural Center at Taylor Creek. At Baldwin Beach day use area, the 

concessionaire reserves parking spaces for Washoe use and does not charge fees for tribal 

Chapter 3 | Tribal Relations ■ 3-195
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

members. These endeavors have furthered the goal of reestablishing a Washoe presence at Lake 

Tahoe. 

The Tribe successfully bid on the economic opportunity to manage Meeks Bay Resort, a Forest 

Service facility on the west shore of Lake Tahoe. This opportunity furthers the goal of 

increasing trade and commerce at Lake Tahoe.

3.4.9.3 Environmental Consequences 

None of the alternatives will have direct effects to Tribal Relations provided that the assumption 

noted above is valid. Indirect impacts could accrue from provisions in the action alternatives, 

specifically fuels reduction treatments. 

3.4.9.4 Analytical Conclusions

No direct effects will result from the adoption of any of the alternatives.

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Each of the Alternatives have fuels treatment components that would indirectly be beneficial to 

the Tribes management of their adjacent land in the Skunk Harbor area. Alternative D 

accomplishes treatments throughout the basin in the most traditional manner utilizing managed 

prescribed fire as a tool.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

All alternatives equally maintain the Desired Conditions.

3-196 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Wa She Shu E Deh" – Washoe Lands/

A Commitment to Forest Ecosystem Restoration

The Significance of the Lake Tahoe Region to the Washoe Tribe

Lake Tahoe has been the center of the Washoe world for thousands of years. Their 

ancestral homelands consisted of more than 1.5 million acres from Honey Lake to the 

north, Antelope Valley to the south, the Sierra Nevada mountains to the west and the 

Virginia and Pine Nut Hills to the east. In the 1800s, the Washoe lost most of this land 

as a result of westward expansion by the United States. Current Washoe holdings 

include approximately 72,500 acres of land.

Responsible Stewards for Generations

For thousands of years, the Washoe lived off these lands. Every spring, they gathered on 

the shores of Lake Tahoe to hunt, fish, gather medicinal plants and celebrate tribal 

unity. In the fall, they moved to the Pine Nut Hills to gather pine nuts, one of their most 

valued foods and their sustenance during the long winters. Our ancestors lived in 

balance with their surroundings, taking care to preserve this sacred land and its 

resources.

The Washoe: Uniquely Qualified to Help Preserve Lake Tahoe

The Washoe have unique and important knowledge about managing Lake Tahoe's 

resources and contribute greatly to efforts to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Washoe 

conservation practices are based on an ancient understanding of the region's ecosystem 

and on their behalf that all living things are interdependent.

Their indigenous resources management experience includes Washoe pharmacology 

which involves the cultivation and harvesting of native plants for medicinal reasons. 

For generations, Washoe elders have passed down to younger members their vast 

knowledge of the tribes' traditional conservation practices in the Lake Tahoe basin.

Figure 3-25. Page from the Washoe Lands document “Lake of the Sky: Washoe Stewardship of 

Lake Tahoe" (Washoe 2004).

Chapter 3 | Tribal Relations ■ 3-197
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.10 Fire and Fuels 

3.4.10.1 Introduction

Changing fire patterns and fuel management are primary issues driving forest plan revision. Past 

management practices including fire exclusion have led to increasing forest density and fuel 

loads, and an overall decrease in structural and compositional heterogeneity. This over-crowding 

combined with three periods of drought since 1975 has led to beetle-caused mortality, further 

increasing the hazardous nature of fuel conditions. 

Wildfire frequency, size, total annual burned area, and – in some forest types – fire severity, are 

all trending upward across the western U.S. (Westerling et al. 2011, Safford et al. 2011). It is 

believed that climate warming in conjunction with the increasing fuel loads are contributing to 

these trends (Miller et al. 2008, Flannigan et al. 2000). In recognition of this, federal wildland 

fire management policies have changed to allow more flexibility in fire management. In addition, 

our improved understanding of forest dynamics has provided more ecologically sound vegetation 

treatment practices. While some of these practices are not prohibited under our current direction, 

revising the forest plan will enable us to incorporate these policies and practices directly into our 

guiding documents providing goals, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines based on 

new science not available when the current plan was developed.

Here we summarize the results of the fire and fuels program environmental consequences 

analysis. The analysis evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on fire 

and fuels that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. The analysis 

examines, in detail, the five different alternatives for revising the 1988 Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan as amended (1988 Forest Plan). There 

is considerable overlap between fire and fuels programs and vegetation management programs. 

This analysis focuses on the effects fuels treatments have on fire behavior in the wildland-urban 

interface, the ability of the alternatives to return fire to the ecosystems, and wildland fire 

management throughout the LTBMU.

3-198 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Organization of Fire and Fuels Section

Methodology 

Describes the process used for the two sets of analyses conducted:

1. The wildfire risk analysis attempts to identify areas with elevated hazards, areas with 

elevated ecological risk, as well as areas with higher probability of events, such as

ignitions, occurring. 

2. The second analysis examines operational opportunities and constraints to the fire and 

fuels program meeting needs identified in the risk analysis above.

Assumptions 

These include assumptions used in the analyses, as well as general assumptions applicable to the 

alternatives.

Indicators 

A description of the indicators used to compare the effects between alternatives.

Overview of the Affected Environment 

A brief description of the current situation including environmental conditions, and the results of 

the analyses listed above.

Environmental Consequences 

Explanation of the expected relative impacts of implementing each of the alternatives in terms of 

the results of the analyses.

Analytical Conclusions 

The final conclusions weighing the differences and benefits of the various alternatives, the ability 

or constraints associated with the alternatives and their relative contribution to achieving desired 

conditions.

This Fire and Fuels section provides summarized analyses results only. For more detailed 

information, see the full Fire and Fuels Report in the project record. 

Methodology

1. Wildfire Risk Analysis 

Analysis questions:

• Where have ignitions occurred historically?

• Where are the potential problem areas for fire behavior?

• Where are the fire return interval departures the greatest?

• What has been the recent fire activity?

Analysis methods:

Ignition Risk--Ignition risk was assessed in two ways: 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-199
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

• Recorded ignition point data (1973-2010) were used to produce a density surface 

partitioned into five risk classes ranging from very low to very high ignition risk.

• The ignition point data were then separated by fire management unit (FMU) to 

produce an ignition risk by FMU map. The ignition risk by FMU data were displayed 

in charts by general cause (human vs. natural), and by frequency and proportion (see 

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report).

Current Wildfire Potential --FLAMMAP (Version 3) was used to predict fire behavior 

characteristics such as flame length and fire type (e.g. crown fire, surface fire). 

FLAMMAP uses GIS-based raster inputs for terrain and fuel characteristics and 

computes fire behavior outputs of a given landscape using standard fire behavior 

prediction models. For this analysis, the 2011 update California Fuels Landscape was 

used (WFDSS 2013). Raster maps are produced showing potential fire behavior 

characteristics (flame length, crown fire potential, etc.) over the entire landscape. Fire 

behavior modeled with FLAMMAP provides a point in time (assumes fuel moisture, 

wind speed and wind direction are constant) fire behavior calculation for each 30 meter 

cell across the landscape. It does not simulate fire growth or changes in fire behavior 

characteristics over time (see Fire and Fuels Specialist Report).

Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID)—This polygon layer consists of information 

compiled about fire return intervals for major vegetation types in the Lake Tahoe Basin

(LTB). Comparisons are made between pre-Euro American settlement and contemporary 

fire return intervals (FRIs). Current departures from the pre-Euro American settlement 

FRIs are calculated based on mean, median, minimum, and maximum FRI values. Fig. 

3.34 displays mean FRID condition classes for the LTB.

Recent Fire History—Historical fire report data were analyzed in a variety of ways to 

answer the analysis questions related to recent fire activity. Data from FAMWEB 

(http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries and reports—Fire Causes 

and Acres Burned by Year for Administrative Unit. 

2. Potential to Meet Fire and Fuels Program Objectives 

Analysis questions:

• What are the environmental and regulatory constraints that might affect the ability to 

meet program objectives?

• Where and when has lightning historically occurred? 

• Based on a regression of the historical record, how often does a lightning strike cause 

an ignition?

• What is the potential for meeting objectives with managed wildfire by alternative? 

Note: any modeled potential acres of managed wildfire accomplishments for any of 

the alternatives are not expected TARGETs. Rather they are modeled maximum acres 

burned under favorable conditions in which every lightning ignition from the 

historical record was modeled as a wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. 

These are BEST-CASE estimates of potential managed wildfire under ideal conditions 

3-200 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

in which all lightning ignitions that occur in approved areas are managed for 

resource objectives. With the amount of WUI, infrastructure, current fuel conditions, 

smoke management issues, and prevailing weather typical at or near periods where 

lightning ignitions are expected to occur, decisions to manage natural ignitions will 

be much less frequent and the actual accomplishments will more likely be near the 

lowest end of the projections.

Analysis methods:

Historical Burn Day Analysis--To assess prescribed burning opportunities on the 

California side of the LTB, we analyzed data from California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) and the Meyers remote automated weather station (RAWS). All CARB and 

weather data were combined into a single database and a day-by-day comparison over the 

past 13 year period was analyzed to assess patterns and trends when prescribed fire 

prescriptive criteria coincide with days designated as permissible burn days by CARB. 

Smoke management in Nevada is regulated by Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP). NDEP does not designate days as burn days or non-burn days. This 

analysis, as designed, was not conducted for the Nevada portion of the LTBMU (see Fire 

and Fuels Specialist Report).

Lightning Strikes and Ignitions Analyses--Lightning strike data for 1990 through 2010 

were obtained from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The lightning data is 

provided to BLM under contract by WSI Corporation, Inc. (BLM 2011). Lightning 

ignition data were derived from FAMWEB. Linear regression to assess relationship 

between annual strikes and ignitions was conducted to provide the ability to use lightning 

strike frequency as a predictor for ignition frequency. Lightning strikes by month and by 

FMU were assessed to examine potential opportunities to manage wildfire to meet 

resource desired conditions and objectives. 

Ability to Use Managed Wildfire to Meet Resource Desired Conditions and Objectives 

(Managed Wildfire)—The Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) model in the wildland fire 

decision support system (WFDSS) was used to model potential to meet management 

objectives. FSPro provides the ability to estimate the probability of wildfire spreading

into an area or to a point of interest from a specific location. The advantage of using 

FSPro over other fire behavior models is that multiple wind-weather scenarios for 

historical climatology weather records are used to simulate hundreds of possible patterns. 

The proportion of the total each cell is impacted by fire is then partitioned into 

probability categories which are used to predict potential managed wildfire opportunities. 

Historically, the majority of lightning caused ignitions occur in August. Therefore 

simulations were run using August 1 start dates. In order to cover a range of moisture 

conditions, two sets of simulations were run using historical climatological weather

records from a low precipitation year (2007) and a high precipitation year (2011). Each 

simulation ran 500 different fires scenarios for seven days.

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-201
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Assumptions

Modeling assumptions and limitations 

• FLAMMAP uses constant weather and fuel moisture conditions representing a single 

moment in time. Actual weather conditions are variable and dynamic throughout the 

Basin. No set of weather parameters can fully account for all possible conditions that may 

be encountered. Therefore, a generalized set of weather conditions are used in the 

FLAMMAP analysis.

• FLAMMAP uses the same fire behavior calculations as many other models i.e. 

Rothermel’s 1972 and 1991, Van Wagner’s 1977, and Nelson’s 2000) fire spread 

equations, and either the Scott or the Finney crown fire models (Finney was used here as 

recommended for the California Fuels Layer). Limitations of these models are inherent in 

FLAMMAP.

• Estimated annual acres of managed wildfire assume all lightning ignitions in approved 

FMUs are managed to meet resource objectives. This is based on historical lightning 

caused ignition frequencies divided by the years of the analysis period.

• FSPro simulations assume no suppression actions taken. However, simulated wildfire 

growth was restricted as stated below.

• FSPro wildfire extents are restricted as follows:

o When multiple fires are simulated in FSPro, some fire sizes may be limited as 

fires grow together. These limits to fire size are assumed to mimic conditions of 

an active managed wildfire program where fire scars of previous wildfires limit 

growth of subsequent fires.

o When calculating estimated acres of managed wildfire by alternative, FSPro 

spreads are cut off at approved FMU boundary. This is assuming that fires 

spreading from approved FMUs into unapproved FMUs will be suppressed.

• FSPro modeling was conducted using weather from a dry year (2007) and a wet year 

(2012). Estimates of potential maximum acres of managed wildfire are based on 2011 

weather following a winter with abundant precipitation. The assumption is that decisions 

to manage a wildfire for resource objectives in dry years such as 2007 will be unlikely, 

and the decision instead will be to suppress the fire. The ignitions by lightning strikes 

regression analysis assigns all lightning strikes equal probability of causing an ignition.

Fire and Fuels specific assumptions 

• In all five alternatives, the majority of fuels reduction treatment efforts are concentrated

in the WUIs until initial WUI treatments are completed (see the Lake Tahoe Basin MultiJurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy – September 20, 2007—

hereafter the “10 year strategy”). WUI treatments that maintain the treatment unit’s

effectiveness occur as needed. Note that scheduling in the 10 year strategy has outpaced 

accomplishments on the ground. However, the pace of WUI mechanical and hand 

treatments will not vary by alternative.

3-202 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Fuels treatments are assumed to effectively modify fire behavior at conditions for which 

they were designed. 

• Prescribed fires and managed wildfires burn at intensities within or close to those 

expected under natural fire regime. The assumption is that if conditions or prescriptive 

criteria are outside of an acceptable range (conditions conducive to high or extreme fire 

behavior) decisions will be to suppress wildfires or not to ignite prescribed fires.

• Weather, resource availability, smoke dispersion, and other conditions necessary for 

implementation of a prescribed fire or managed wildfire are extremely difficult to predict 

beyond the very short-term. Any projected acres of prescribed fire or managed wildfire 

are based on the assumption that conditions are sufficient for safe and effective 

implementation.

• Pile burning is included as reducing FRID. Although it can be argued that pile burning 

does not provide the same level of ecological benefits as understory burning, pile burning 

does put fire back into the system and often, fire is allowed to creep between piles, 

providing similar effects as underburning in some areas. More importantly, pile burning 

is often a necessary precursor to understory burns.

• Currently, as an alternative to prescribed pile burning, biomass utilization accounts for 

approximately 100 acres per year. If future opportunities for biomass utilization increase, 

then the proposed pile burning will decrease proportionally.

• Forest structure restoration establishing new age classes in the form of small openings is 

expected to reduce fire behavior initially. However, these treatments are meant to create 

early seral conditions, which, in a few years, may increase fire behavior depending on the 

level of tree recruitment and shrub growth and in-fill.

Indicators

1. Fire behavior. 

2. Fire return interval departure (FRID).

(see Safford et al 2011 for detailed description of FRID).

Indicator descriptions 

 

1. Fire behavior modification is a primary objective of fuels treatments. During the 

planning and design phase of a site specific fuels treatment project, each treatment unit 

has desired outcomes and objectives to which the unit is designed, i.e. desired posttreatment fire type (surface fire) or flame length. These objectives are specific to each 

unit based on location, fuel type, terrain features, etc. For instance, in order to achieve a 

surface fire type under a given set of weather conditions, a different thinning prescription 

would be needed for flat ground than for a steep slope in order to meet the surface fire 

objective. For this analysis, when any alternative proposes fuels reduction on one of the 

treatments listed below, the proposed acres of treatment are all assumed to meet the 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-203
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

minimum criteria for which it was designed (see assumptions above). Some non-WUI

treatments may not be designed with fire behavior modification as a primary objective 

but those included here are expected to have similar effects to a fuels treatment (see 

Forest Vegetation section for these treatment descriptions). Forest vegetation treatments 

that modify fire behavior are: 

o Thinning and fuels reduction in the WUI

o Forest structure restoration—non-WUI treatments establishing new age classes in 

the form of small openings. 

o Forest type conversion— non-WUI treatments converting fir to Jeffrey pine or 

mixed conifer

o Forest stand resilience—thinning outside the WUI

2. FRID is an important concern for the forest restoration and fuels reduction strategy of the 

forest plan revision alternatives. The reference fire regimes of the major forest types in 

the LTB include attributes such as burn patterns, severity, rotation, and fire return 

interval. The observed departures of current conditions from these reference conditions 

provide a guide to direct management objectives. 

Although we can attempt to predict what the severity or burn pattern might be should a 

particular portion of the landscape burn in a wildfire, we cannot predict with any 

certainty what the outcome will be. Prior to an actual fire, the only departure from an 

historic fire regime attribute in which we can place a reasonable degree of confidence is 

in FRID. Although a single wildfire event or prescribed fire may not contribute greatly to 

reducing this indicator in areas that have missed multiple fire cycles, it does set the stage 

for implementation of a regular program of using fire for fuels treatment maintenance and 

ecological restoration. Multiple fire cycles will be required to get to conditions that will 

more closely produce historical fire effects. Further, even when FRID is within historical 

conditions, that does not necessarily mean that a wildfire will burn with the same range of 

historical effects. Climate regimes today are different than pre-settlement regimes that 

were established by the historical conditions.

For this analysis we use FRID as an indicator by which we can measure success in 

restoring fire’s role back into the ecosystem. The tools we will use to reduce FRID are 

prescribed fire and managed wildfire. Both of these tools depend upon many conditions 

outside of our control (see assumptions above). Each alternative’s proposed prescribed 

fire acres are derived from past accomplishments and adjusted to be consistent with an 

alternative’s strategy for meeting desired conditions. Average acres burned using 

managed wildfire is estimated using FSPro to produce probability analysis for each 

alternative. Although the estimates are based on a high degree of uncertainty, the acres 

are included as potential reductions in FRID to measure the relative effectiveness of the 

alternative’s potential for affecting this indicator.

Regardless of the effects or ignition source, all wildfires and prescribed fires contribute to 

reducing FRID (The exception is the case where fire is occurring more frequently than 

indicated by the presettlement fire regime e.g. some shrub systems in southern 

California). Wildfires which are not managed for resource or multiple objectives are 

suppressed. Annual acres burned in the LTB by suppressed wildfires are highly variable, 

3-204 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

ranging from less than ten to greater than 3,000 acres. Recent studies on climate change 

and the potential to affect wildfire suggest larger and more intense wildfire in the future 

(Flannigan et al. 2000, Lenihan et al 2003, McKenzie et al. 2004, Stephens et al. 2007, 

National Research Council 2011, also see the Climate Report in Appendix D). However, 

when considering suppressed wildfire contributions to reducing FRID, we project annual 

acres burned at the current 10 year moving average of 455 acres per year. Although the 

alternatives’ different strategies are expected to affect vegetation and fuels in different 

ways and to varying degrees, we project this number of acres and the associated effects 

equally for all alternatives, and therefore do not include it in the analysis of this indicator.

3.4.10.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The LTBMU Comprehensive Evaluation Report (LTBMU 2006) (Part of the Analysis of the 

Management Situation) assessed the current state of management direction for fire and fuels 

management and identified the need to address the following:

• Direction in the 1988 Forest Plan called for suppression of all wildfires and did not 

provide the opportunity to manage wildfire to meet resource objectives (Note: The Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2004) allows wildfires in wilderness areas to be 

managed to meet resource objectives). The Desolation Wilderness Forest Plan 

Amendment (November 1998) approved wildfire management to meet resource 

objectives in the Desolation Wilderness.

• Fire and fuels management needs to have more integration with vegetation and habitat 

management, and fire ecology.

• Focus should be on historic fire regimes, and forest vegetation composition and structure.

• New science and modeling data need to be included in forest plan revision, especially 

concerning the importance of restoration of natural disturbance regimes and their effects 

on forest structure, composition, and function.

• The number of human caused ignitions needs to be decreased, especially since these 

usually occur in close proximity to human communities. With projected warming and 

increasing fuels loads associated with climate change, potential for catastrophic wildfire 

affecting communities and natural resource will continue to increase.

• Updating guidance for smoke management. Although the current plan provides 

guidelines and mitigations for reducing smoke emissions and impacts, some of the 

options for slash disposal now conflict with scientific knowledge and current 

management practices. The revised Forest Plan needs to consider potential smoke 

emissions from these sources (LTBMU 2006, p.32)

• The public expressed a variety of opinions regarding the management of the amount of 

smoke in the basin resulting from prescribed burns used to improve forest health and 

safety. In most cases, those who understood the goals of prescribed burning generally 

supported the need to continue these burns, however there was overwhelming support to 

use alternatives to burning where possible (especially pile burns). 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-205
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Summary of past actions 

Prior to European settlement, fires were ignited by lightning or members of the Washoe Tribe. It 

is estimated that between 2,000 and 8,000 acres on average burned each year, although there was 

very high interannual variability. Fifty percent or more of the acres burned were at the lower 

elevations in the montane zone (Manley et al. 2000). Because frequent fires in the montane zones 

reduced surface and ladder fuels, fire intensities were low and there was relatively little mortality 

of mature trees (Manley et.al. 2000, Skinner and Chang 1996). 

Over the last century LTB ecosystems have been altered through a combination of drought, fire 

suppression and past timber harvesting (Stephens et al. 2004, Taylor 2004, Nagel and Taylor 

2005). This has resulted in heavy accumulations of dead and down woody fuels, altered fuel 

arrangements and changes in vegetative structure and composition. As a result, the fire regime 

attributes have departed substantially from historic patterns. 

As Europeans settled in the LTB, several factors contributed to changes in the fire regime and 

fuel hazards. The seasonal fires set by the Washoe Tribe were eliminated as Native Americans 

left the basin. During the Comstock Era (1875- 1895) large scale clear cutting removed most of 

the old growth forests in the Basin (Lindstrom et al. 2000). By1900, most of the Basin’s forests 

were dominated by seedlings and saplings (trees with a DBH of less than 12”). In addition to 

current fuel conditions and the effects of past actions, increasing temperatures and changing 

precipitation patterns exacerbate the problem. Western fire seasons are beginning earlier and 

lasting longer than in the past (Westerling et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2008, North et al. 2009 GTR 

220). Extreme fire weather has become more frequent and forest fires are predicted to continue 

to grow larger and more severe making them more difficult to suppress (Flannigan et al. 2000, 

McKenzie et al. 2004, Stephens et al. 2007, National Research Council 2011).

Recognition of the role natural disturbance regimes play in shaping ecosystem condition leads to 

the need to provide a fire and fuels program strategy that re-establishes natural disturbance 

processes while providing for community safety. In many cases, existing heavy fuel loads 

preclude the use of fire until other management techniques are first used to reduce heavy fuel 

loading in order to facilitate safe use of fire. 

3-206 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Where have ignitions occurred historically? 

Figures 3-26 and 3-27 show the distribution of ignitions heavily skewed towards the WUI. More 

natural ignitions than human ignitions occur in the General Forest FMU. The opposite is true in 

the other FMUs. To summarize: 12% of all types of ignitions occur in the General Forest, 9% in 

Wilderness, 56% in the WUI Defense Zone, and 23% in the WUI Threat Zone (Figure 3-32).

Figure 3-26. Percent of ignitions throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by fire management 

unit (FMU) and cause (Human vs. Natural) 1973-2010.

Note: the WUI FMU is broken down into its components; threat and defense zones.

Figure 3-27. Number of ignitions throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by fire management unit 

(FMU) and cause (Human vs. Natural) 1973-2010.

Note: the WUI FMU is broken down into its components; threat and defense zones.

30

70

92

75

70

30

8

25

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

General Forest Wilderness WUI Defense Zone WUI Threat Zone

%

Percent of Ignitions by FMU

Human

Natural

70

130

1039

350

164

55 87 118

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

General Forest Wilderness WUI Defense Zone WUI Threat Zone

Number of

Ignitions

Number of Ignitions by FMU

HUMAN

NATURAL

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-207
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Where are the potential problem areas for fire behavior? 

Flammap was used to display areas where fire behavior under high fire danger conditions (90th

percentile weather) is expected to vary across the landscape (Figure 3-28). The 90th percentile 

weather is calculated from the historical climatology and therefore does not account for projected 

future warming. Areas in orange and red are a major concern since these areas may experience 

extreme fire behavior (crown fire) threatening values at risk. East side shows less extreme fire 

behavior (less red) than other areas, largely due to more open stands as is typical of less 

productive sites. See Assumptions section for a discussion of limitations of the Flammap model.

3-208 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-28. Fire type map based on FLAMMAP output (see “Current wildfire potential” above)

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-209
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Where are the fire return interval departures the greatest? 

Historic mean fire return intervals (FRI) in the LTB ranged from over 400 years in the subalpine 

zone to about 10 years in the lower montane zone (Elliott-Fisk et.al 1996, Manley et.al. 2000, 

Barbour et.al. 2002, Taylor 2004, Nagel and Taylor, 2005, Beatty and Taylor 2009, Safford and 

Schmidt 2007). About 50% of the landscape supported vegetation with FRIs less than 22 years.

Areas with long historic mean FRIs will typically be within the historic range (condition class I) 

since the period of fire exclusions has not yet interfered with multiple fire cycles. Therefore areas

colored green on map 3-34 depict mostly types such as subalpine where historic FRIs are long 

(e.g. 85 years or greater).

Today large wildfires (greater than 100 acres) are uncommon in the Basin and current (1910-

2012) FRIs are extremely long (Figure 3-29). Ninety eight percent of the land area in the LTB 

has not had a fire since 1910, and greater than 90% of the land is characterized as moderately or 

severely departed (FRI condition classes II and III) from pre-Euro-American settlement FRIs 

(Safford and Schmidt 2007, Safford et al. 2011). Additionally, wildfire severity proportions 

during recent wildfires have not been consistent with natural fire regimes. For example, greater 

than 50% of the Angora fire burned at high severity compared to 5-15% expected under 

presettlement fire regimes in the forest types burned (Safford et al. 2009, Carlson 2009).

Forests with fire regimes within or near their natural range of variation (NRV) for FRI (condition 

class I) generally will have lower fuel loading than forests where fire has been excluded for 

multiple cycles. The lower fuel loading also promotes fire effects more similar to NRV for other 

fire regime attributes such as severity. Reference fuel conditions for the LTB can be estimated by 

using quantified fuel loads from reference ecosystems such as unlogged, and until recently, nonfire suppressed Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer forests of the Sierra San Pedro Martir (SPM) 

mountains in Baja, Mexico (Stephens 2004) or through, fire scar dendrochronological studies,

modeling. or extrapolative techniques (Taylor et al. 2013). Stephens (2004) measured average 

surface fuel loading in SPM at 6.4 tons per acre (range: 0-65 tons per acre). Taylor et al. (2013) 

measured contemporary fuel loading and estimate reference fuel loading for Jeffrey pine, mixed 

conifer, red fir, and lodgepole pine at a variety of sites on the east and west shores of the LTB 

(Tables 3-30 and 3-31). These are useful references for comparing current fuel loads with what is 

expected of presettlement LTB ecosystems that had intact natural fire regimes. However, when 

designing projects for community protection or restoration, post treatment fire behavior, taking 

topography, weather, as well as fuel loading, into account should determine project design.

3-210 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-30. Mean (range) surface fuel characteristics estimated for reference (Ref.) and contemporary (Con.) forests in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, USA; using the fire and fuels extension of the forest vegetation simulation (FFE-FVS), photo series, planar intercept transects and table 

values (Tables) from van Wagtendonk & Moore (2010).

Forest type and method 1-hr mg·ha-1 10-hr mg·ha-1 100-hr mg·ha-1 Total 1-, 10-, 100-hr

Jeffrey pine Ref. Con. Ref. Con. Ref. Con. Ref. Con.

(n = 11) FFE-FVS 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 2.0 (1.7–2.1) 1.9 (1.4–2.5) 2.2 (1.9–2.3) 2.8 (1.7–4.1) 3.3 (2.7–4.6) 6.1 (4.4–8.2)

b 7.5 (6.2–8.8)b

Photo series 0.2 (0.2–0.2) 0.4 (0.0–0.4) 2.5 (1.6–3.4) 1.3 (1.1–2.2) 1.4 (0.9–1.8) 2.5 (1.8–4.5) 4.2 (2.7–5.4) 4.2 (3.6–6.7)

Tables 0.6 (0.1–1.4) 3.3 (2.1–5.8) 2.0 (0.9–4.0) 6.0 (3.2–10.3)

Mixed conifer

(n = 12) FFE-FVS 0.8 (0.3–1.4) 1.6 (1.4–1.8) 1.3 (0.6–2.1) 1.7 (1.5–2.0) 2.4 (1.0–3.6) 5.1 (3.1–6.8) 4.4 (1.9–6.8)

c 8.5 (6.5–10.1)c

Photo series 0.5 (0.2–1.6) 1.6 (1.0–2.2) 2.0 (0.9–4.5) 4.6 (2.9–5.8) 3.1 (0.9–8.1) 6.6 (5.3–10.0) 5.7 (2.7–13.0)

c12.9 (9.2–17.8)c

Planar intercept 0.9 (0.3–1.5) 5.2 (1.3–8.9) 6.1 (2.5–14.5) 12.2 (5.8–24.7)

Tables 1.6 (0.5–3.0) 4.0 (1.2–8.2) 3.2 (1.0–6.5) 8.3 (3.4–17.8)

Red fir

(n = 6) FFE-FVS 0.6 (0.5–0.6) 2.0 (1.6–2.2) 1.0 (0.8–1.1) 2.4 (1.9–2.8) 2.2 (1.9–2.6) 4.6 (3.1–6.1) 3.7 (3.2–4.3)

c 8.9 (6.9–11.0)c

Photo series 1.6 (0.9–2.0) 1.7 (0.7–2.4) 6.0 (4.0–6.9) 5.5 (0.9–7.1) 5.3 (2.5–6.7) 5.2 (0.4–8.1) 12.9 (7.4–15.7) 12.3 (2.0–17.5)

Tables 3.4 (2.0–3.9) 3.7 (2.2–4.5) 1.6 (1.0–1.8) 8.6 (5.3–10.1)

Lodgepole pine

(n = 3) FFE-FVS 5.4 (3.4–6.5) 2.2 (1.8–2.5) 7.1 (4.8–8.3) 2.4 (2.0–2.7) 11.4 (8.8–14.0) 3.4 (2.4–4.4) 23.9 (16.9–

28.6)

a

8.0 (6.2–9.3)

a

Photo series 0.4 (0.2–0.7) 0.4 (0.2–0.4) 0.9 (0.9–0.9) 3.0 (0.9-4.0) 0.4 (0.4–0.4) 2.9 (1.6–3.6) 1.7 (1.6–2.0) 6.3 (2.7–8.1)

Tables 2.5 (1.5–3.2) 2.3 (1.0–3.0) 1.1 (0.4–1.4) 5.8 (2.9–7.6)

For the Average Total 1-, 10-, 100-hr columns, values in the same row with the same letter are significantly different (Kruskal–Wallis H test aP < 0.05, bP <

0.01, cP < 0.001).

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-211
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-31. Mean (range) canopy fuel characteristics for reference and con- temporary forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Table recreated from Taylor et 

al. 2013.

Forest type Canopy bulk 

density (kg/m3)

Canopy base 

height (m)

Stand height (m)

Jeffrey pine

 Reference 0.02 (0.01-0.03)c 8.2 (6.4-11.9)c 30.1 (24.7-36.9)

 Contemporary 0.07 (0.04-0.10)c 0.6 (0.3-0.9)c 31.9 (28.0-36.6)

Mixed conifer

 Reference 0.04 (0.01-0.06)b 4.9 (3.7-6.4)b 30.6 (19.8-35.7)

 Contemporary 0.09 (0.03-0.18)b 0.5 (0.3-1.2)b 31.8 23.2-39.6

Red fir

 Reference 0.05 (0.04-0.07)a 6.6 (6.1-7.6)c 34.5 (31.1-36.3)c

 Contemporary 0.09 (0.04-0.12)a 0.9 (0.9-0.9)c 28.4 (25.9-32.3)c

Lodgepole pine

 Reference 0.04 (0.03-0.06) 7.3 (5.5-9.8)b 31.9 (28.7-33.5)

 Contemporary 0.08 (0.03-0.11) 0.8 (0.6-0.9)b 27.8 (26.8-29.0)

Values for reference and contemporary forests with the same letter were significantly different (Kruskal–Wallis H test, aP < 0.05, bP

< 0.01, cP < 0.001).

3-212 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-29. Condition Class based on mean FRID (CC[FRI]).

This condition class (CC) measure is derived using the departures from mean point fire return 

interval (FRI) data. To summarize: CC-I = within +/- 33% of historic mean. CC-II = moderately 

departed—between 33% and 67% departure. CC-III = >67% departure. cite FRID.

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-213
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

What has been the recent fire activity? 

The number of acres burned by wildfires in the LTB has increased in each decade since 1973 

including a ten-fold increase during the last decade (Figure 3-29). Although the majority of fires 

are small, three recent fires during the last decade grew larger than fires of the past few decades 

—the Gondola and Showers Fires (673 and 294 acres, respectively) in 2002 and the Angora fire 

(3,100 acres) in 2007. The Angora Fire, which destroyed or damaged more than 240 buildings, 

was the largest fire ever recorded in the LTB. Weather conditions on the initial burning period 

of each of these fires recorded from Lake Tahoe Airport are listed in the table below 

(Table 3-32). It should be noted that these recorded weather conditions in Table 3-32 are below 

the 90th percentile conditions to which the Basin designs its fuel treatments. Windy conditions 

were the dominant factors influencing fire growth. Even with highly effective suppression 

resources, the crown fire activity and sizes of these fires provide additional evidence that fuel 

hazards in the Basin have increased substantially and will continue to increase in the years ahead 

(Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy –10 

year strategy, September 20, 2007).

Table 3-32. Weather recorded on days when large fire occurred in Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Data from National Weather Service; Lake Tahoe Airport (LTVL). Ninetieth percentile 

calculated from Meyers RAWS’ historical dataset May through October.

Site Date Max Temp (oF) Min 

RH (%)

Avg. Afternoon 20ft Wind 

(mph)

Gondola 3 July, 2002 77 18 9-13 with gust to 22 

Showers 19 August, 2002 76 11 10-16 with gusts to 26

Angora 24 June, 2007 68 11 9-13 with gusts to 28

90th

percentile

85 5 25 (10 minute average)

Human caused ignitions are the predominant source of wildfire ignitions in recent decades 

(Table 3-33, Figures 3-31 and 3-32). On average, human caused ignitions occur nearly four 

times as often as natural ignitions since 1980 (Table 3-33, Figure 3-31). Over the same time 

period human caused ignitions accounted over 99% of acres burned (Figure 3-32). Further, as of 

2010, lightning ignitions have greatly declined since 2003; with 2006 having the most with 9 

lightning ignitions (Table 3-33, Figures 3-31 and 3-32). Lastly, the number of acres burned is 

related more to climatic factors such as drought, and to weather conditions near the time of 

ignition, than to the number of ignitions.

3-214 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-33. Number of ignitions and acres burned by cause (human versus natural) over the last 

three decades. 

Wildfire Activity 1980-2010

Human Cause Natural Cause Grand Total

Year Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres

1980 45 9 15 2 60 12

1981 84 17 3 0 87 17

1982 32 7 10 1 42 8

1983 22 3 1 2 23 5

1984 71 139 12 2 83 140

1985 73 19 10 5 83 24

1986 72 12 5 1 77 13

1987 67 10 18 27 85 38

1988 88 14 36 8 124 22

1989 52 8 17 2 69 9

1990 61 8 41 6 102 14

1991 37 6 12 2 49 7

1992 33 5 40 5 73 11

1993 4 0 0 0 4 0

1994 101 53 11 1 112 54

1995 54 152 2 0 56 153

1996 34 168 16 3 50 171

1997 3 0 2 0 5 1

1998 24 8 10 2 34 11

1999 41 10 13 2 54 12

2000 43 7 13 2 56 8

2001 63 31 7 2 70 34

2002 35 1041 18 2 53 1043

2003 34 278 39 6 73 283

2004 52 6 3 1 55 6

2005 17 2 2 0 19 2

2006 34 36 9 2 43 38

2007 50 3127 5 1 55 3128

2008 44 5 0 0 44 5

2009 58 8 0 0 58 8

2010 43 5 6 3 49 8

Total 1471 5194 376 89 1847 5283

Average 47 168 13 3 60 170

Data from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries 

and reports—Fire Causes and Acres Burned by Year. These data pertain to 

National Forest System Lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-215
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-30. Wildfire acres burned in the Lake Tahoe Basin by decade (1973-2010). 

Data from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries and reports—

Fire Causes and Acres Burned by Year.

Figure 3-31. Number of human and natural ignitions 1973-2010. 

Data from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries and reports.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1973-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010

Wildfire Acres by Decade 1973-2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Number of Human vs Natural Ignitions 1973 -2010

Human

Natural

3-216 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-32. Fire Causes and Acres Burned by Year.

Data from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries and reports.

 

What are the environmental and regulatory constraints that might affect the ability to meet 

program objectives? 

The LTBMU conducted an historical analysis combining days that met burn plan prescriptive 

criteria coincident with days designated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as 

permissible burn days (atmospheric conditions meeting smoke dispersion criteria). These data 

are very important for assessing the Unit’s ability to implement prescribed fires. They can also 

be used to predict the availability of periods where conditions will be conducive to using 

managed wildfire. 

Seasonality of available burn days is an obvious pattern when looking at the monthly means, 

with the summer months having the lowest number. Note the inverse relationship between 

average burn days (Figure 3-33) and average monthly lightning strikes (Figure 3-34); a

relationship important for planning for managed wildfire opportunities.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Acres

Acres Burned Natural vs Human 1973-2010

Human

Natural

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-217
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Historical Burn Day Analysis

Figure 3-33. Monthly average number of days that meet permissible burn day and burn plan 

prescription criteria. Data from CARB and Meyers RAWS, May 1, 1998 through Dec 31, 2010.

Where and when does lightning occur? 

Historic Lightning Occurrence – Over the past couple decades, lightning strikes in the LTB 

have been mostly concentrated between June and September, and have been extremely rare 

between November and March (Figure 3-33). Areas approved for managed wildfire in 

Alternative A averaged 54 lightning strikes per year. Alternative C averaged 249 annually and 

Alternatives B, E and D averaged 375 strikes annually (Figure 3-35) (Lightning strike data for 

1990 through 2010 were obtained from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (The lightning 

data is provided to BLM under contract by WSI Corporation, Inc.).

11

12

9 9

7

4

1 1

2

9

11 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Days

Average Number of Burn Days per Month

(All Days May '98-Dec '10)

3-218 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-34. Average lightning strike occurrence in the Lake Tahoe Basin recorded by month from 

1990 through 2009. Proprietary lightning data acquired from Bureau of Land Management (Lightning 

strike data for 1990 through 2010 were obtained from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (The 

lightning data is provided to BLM under contract by WSI Corporation, Inc.).

Figure 3-35. Average number of lightning strikes occurring from 1990 through 2010 in areas 

approved for managed wildfire by alternative (Lightning strike data for 1990 through 2010 were 

obtained from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (The lightning data is provided to BLM under 

contract by WSI Corporation, Inc.).

 

1 4

39

66

256

134

51

23

1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Lightning Strike Monthly Averages 1990-2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Alt A Alt C Alts B, Bmod &D

Average Lightning Strikes 1990-2010 in Areas Approved 

For Managed Wildfire by Alternative

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-219
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

How often does lightning cause ignitions? 

Based on the regression (Figure 3-36), the lightning frequencies stated above predict an average 

of three ignitions annually in approved fire management units (FMUs) for Alternative A, ten for 

Alternative C, and 15 for Alternatives B, E and D (Table 3-33). 

Note: Not all lightning strikes have equal probability of causing an ignition. Lightning fires are 

started by strikes to ground that have a component called a continuing current. All positive 

discharges have a continuing current, and about 20% of negative discharges have one. Ignition 

depends on the duration of the current and the kind of fuel the lightning hits (Latham and 

Schlieter 1989). This regression accounts individual strikes as equally likely to cause an ignition.

Regression of Ignitions by Lightning Strikes

Lightning Strikes

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Ignitions

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

y = 0.0408x + 0.3041

95% Confidence Interval

r 2=0.4798

A B

 C

Figure 3-36. Linear regression of lightning ignitions by lightning strikes from 1990 through 2010.

Ignition data from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/fam-web/) data warehouse: queries and reports—Fire Causes 

and Acres Burned by Year. Proprietary lightning data acquired from Bureau of Land Management. Note the 3 outliers 

labeled A, B and C. Points A and B correspond to 1990 and 1992, years with annual precipitation recorded at 49% 

and 56% of average respectively. Point C is data from 2010, a year with 168% of average annual precipitation 

(precipitation data from NOAA (http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/rainfall_data.php) and California Dept. of Water Resources 

(http://cdec.water.ca.gov)). R-squared value increases to 0.8092 when outliers excluded.

Average numbers of reported lightning caused ignitions in the approved FMUs for each

alternative are also shown in Table 3-33.

3-220 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-34. Average annual lightning strike occurrence by area approved for managed 

wildfire by alternative, and estimated ignitions calculated from regression equation

(see Figure 3-36). Average reported ignitions from FAMWEB (http://famtest.nwcg.gov/famweb/) data warehouse: queries and reports—Fire Causes and Acres Burned by Year

Average 

Annual

Estimated 

Ignitions

Reported Ignitions 

(avg.)

Alternative A 54 3 1

Alternative C 249 10 6

Alternatives B, D, & E 375 15 8

What is the potential for meeting objectives with managed wildfire by alternative? 

The ability to restore fire to a degree necessary to achieve desired conditions will depend on 

many things, including patterns and trends in lightning strike occurrence, weather and 

atmospheric conditions, as well as management constraints such as resource availability and 

suppression preparedness level. In order to assess each alternative’s potential to utilize fire to 

meet program objectives, we analyzed historic lightning occurrence from 1990-2009 

(Figures 3-35, 3-36 and 3-37), reported lightning caused ignitions (Table 3-34), and California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) permissible burn days that coincided with days in burn plan 

prescription from 1998-2010 (Figure 3-38). 

Utilizing historic lightning ignition point data, the LTBMU conducted an analysis to project 

potential for managed wildfire to restore fire as an ecosystem process. These data were used as 

ignition points from which to produce simulated wildfire spread probability maps using the Fire 

Spread Probability (FSPro) model. FSPro is a spatial-probabilistic model that produces fire 

spread partitioned into polygons based on the proportion of times each cell in the polygon was 

burned by the numerous fires in the simulation. The analysis was based on hundreds of fires 

grown from each historical ignition point modeled under hundreds of possible weather scenarios. 

In order to produce a range of climatological conditions under which managed wildfire growth 

was estimated, a dry year (2007) and a wet year (2011) were used as model inputs. 

The analysis uses every reported lightning ignition for the past 30 years as a point source ignition 

for the FSPro runs. Each of these ignitions is grown simultaneously for 7 days, with 500 

repetitions. The chosen start date (Aug. 1, 2007, or Aug. 1, 2011) provides preconditioning of the 

fuels associated with the weather prior to ignition. Individual random weather scenarios from the 

historic record are then used as fire weather influencing fire progression. Then the acreage tally 

is divided by 30 to get the projected annual estimate.

Projected days available for prescribed fire are analyzed by quantifying the number of days that 

met air quality and prescribed fire weather criteria. Although these may not be directly linked to 

future managed wildfire decisions, they do show relative trends of when conditions can be 

expected to be most favorable. Note the inverse relationship between average lightning strikes by 

month (Figure 3-34) and available burn days (Figure 3-33).

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-221
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Note that modeled fires allowed to grow into the defense zone and urban core (prior to clipping 

polygons) spread into greater than 90% more acres when using 2007 weather than 2011 weather. 

To increase confidence, only pixels that experienced fire spread 60% or more were counted 

towards estimated acres.

Figure 3-37. Potential acres of managed wildfire produced using the Fire Spread Probability 

(FSPro) model. Based on lightning ignitions over a 30 year period (1981-2010) and expected acres 

summed across 60 through 100 percent FSPro spread probabilities. Analysis covered two disparate 

years in terms of rainfall: a dry year (2007) and a wet year (2011). 

Note: these are projected MAXIMUM acres. 2007 represents conditions in which decisions to manage 

wildfires for multiple objectives are highly unlikely. Even acres projected for 2011 are projected as a bestcase scenario. Given the complexity of the LTB, actual managed wildfire acres is expected to account for 

fewer acres than shown here. 847

4,679

3,441

4,679

286

1104

722

1104

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

A B C D

Acres

Alternative

Potential Acres of Managed Wildfire 

2007 Weather

2011 Weather

3-222 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of the Affected Environment

• The Comprehensive Evaluation Report (USDA Forest Service LTBMU 2006) 

determined the need for the fire and fuels resource to:

o Reconsider more opportunities to implement managed wildfire

o More thoroughly integrate fire and fuels management with other resource 

programs

o Focus more on historic fire regimes as well as vegetation structural diversity and 

ecological function

o Utilize science and modeling products available since the last plan update

o Reduce the number of human ignitions

o Consider alternatives to pile burning

• Risk to human communities and ecological resources:

o Ignition risk by FMU—nearly 80% of all ignitions occur in the WUI, 56% in the 

Defense Zone and 23% in the Threat Zone.

o Greater than 90% of the Basin is moderately or severely departed from reference 

fire return interval (FRI). 

o Under 90th percentile weather conditions, fire behavior modeling produced fire 

type outputs in the following proportions—46% surface, 34% passive crown, 19% 

active crown

o Additionally, wildfire severity proportions during recent wildfires have not been 

consistent with natural fire regimes, specifically, low severity has been underrepresented and high severity over-represented.

o Gondola Fire—July 3, 2002, 673 acres

o Showers Fire—2002, 294 acres 

o Angora Fire—2007, 3,100 acres, over 250 homes destroyed, the largest fire ever 

recorded in the LTB. 

o Of all acres burned since 1980, 85% burned in the last decade (2002-2011)

• Fire and fuels management programs:

o Burn plan prescription criteria and air quality restrictions limit the number of days 

available to meet prescribed burning objectives.

o In recent years lightning caused ignitions have declined. If the trend continues, 

opportunities for managed wildfire will be minimal. Lightning frequency is 

probably cyclical.

o Wet years such as 2011 may provide opportunities to utilize managed wildfire to 

meet various resource desired conditions and objectives

o Dry years, such as 2007 may be much more difficult to manage wildfires and thus 

suppression of most or all wildfires will be the likely decision.

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-223
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

o There has been a slight negative trend in human caused ignitions over the past 

three decades.

o Current trends in climate change are expected to increase fuel production as well 

as increase fire activity that may affect LTBMU’s fire and fuels programs to 

unknown degrees.

3.4.10.3 Environmental Consequences 

All five alternatives are consistent with Federal wildland fire management policy. LTBMU 

wildland fire management promotes the goal of managing fire to meet safety, protection, and 

natural resource management goals. Initial action on human-caused wildfire will continue to 

suppress the fire at the lowest cost with the fewest negative consequences with respect to 

firefighter and public safety. 

The following activities are expected to affect the indicators: 

• Indicator 1—Fire behavior will be affected primarily by WUI thinning and fuels 

reduction, but also by activities outside the WUI that restore forest structure, forest type 

conversion, and resilience.

• Indicator 2— FRID is affected only by prescribed fire and managed wildfire activities

(suppressed wildfires not counted here since we project equal effects in all the 

alternatives).

Indicator 1 Consequences – Fire Behavior

This indicator is affected by numerous activities. Here we analyze and summarize the expected 

effects WUI fuels treatments and various non-WUI forest restoration treatments have on 

wildland fire behavior. Because all five alternatives follow the 10 year fuels reduction strategy, 

they are equal in the number of acres of WUI thinning and fuels reduction, although Alternative 

C thins to a lower density and Alternative D relies more on hand thinning and less on mechanical 

thinning than the other alternatives. Acres and types of treatments outside the WUI differ by 

alternative.

Reduction of fuel loading and modification of fuel arrangement are effective in modifying fire 

behavior, thereby reducing risk to communities, infrastructure and natural resources (North et al.

2009, Safford et al 2009, Stephens et al 2009, Ager et al 2010, Moghaddas et al 2010). Fire 

behavior modification is the primary objective in WUI fuels reduction projects. Each WUI 

treatment will be designed to meet a minimum fire behavior threshold under prescribed weather 

and fuel moisture conditions (90th percentile). Even though all alternatives’ fuels treatments will 

meet minimum criteria, those alternatives with fewer constraints may exceed those criteria and 

will be more effective under extreme conditions. WUI treatments will have similar effects at 

minimum criteria for all the alternatives. All the alternatives propose 2,000 acres per year of 

WUI fuels treatments. Alternatives A and D include more stringent thinning and diameter limit 

constraints. Alternative D relies more heavily on hand thinning than the other alternatives. Fuels 

treatments in Alternative C are designed to meet objectives with fewer entries and provide for 

greater longevity of treatment effectiveness.

3-224 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

By altering fuel loading and arrangement, forest restoration activities outside of the WUI also 

contribute to modification of fire behavior even though that might not be the primary objective. 

Alternatives A, B, and E propose equal numbers of acres, but more stringent diameter limits and 

thinning constraints provide less flexibility and decrease the ability of Alternative A to meet or 

exceed fire behavior objectives. Alternative C proposes treating twice the acres outside the WUI

over Alternatives A, B, and E, and has fewer constraints than Alternative A. In Alternative D, the 

WUI Threat Zone converts to non-WUI and a 12 inch diameter limit outside the WUI Defense 

Zone goes into effect once initial WUI fuel treatments are completed (approximately 10 years). 

In addition to the 12 inch diameter limit in Alternative D, mechanical treatments are minimized 

and the alternative relies heavily on hand thinning and prescribed fire to meet objectives. The 

uncertainty of having conditions suitable for using fire to meet objectives reduces the flexibility 

to meet objectives when fire is not available to managers.

WUI thinning and fuels reduction 

All five alternatives are very similar with respect to modification of fire behavior in the WUI 

zones until initial WUI treatments are complete (~10 years). Alternative D relies slightly more on 

hand treatments over mechanical treatments in the WUI, but total acres remains the same among

all alternatives. Greater differences among alternatives would emerge once the initial WUI 

treatments are complete and the Threat Zone converts to non-WUI and the 12 inch diameter limit 

outside the defense zone takes effect in Alternative D. 

Forest structure restoration (Non-WUI) 

Alternatives A, B, D, and E propose the same number of acres. Alternative C proposes twice the 

number of acres of this activity. Alternative D does not include manual type conversion but relies 

completely on hand thinning and prescribed fire to meet forest structure restoration objectives. 

Forest type conversion (Non-WUI) 

Alternatives A, B, D, and E propose 50 acres per year, while Alternative C proposes 100 acres 

per year. Alternative D relies on hand treatment and prescribed fire. 

Forest stand resilience (Non-WUI) 

Alternatives A and B and E propose 500 acres per year (7,500 ac over the life of the plan). 

Alternative C doubles the number of acres (15,000 ac over the life of the plan). Alternative D 

proposes only 300 acres per year (4,500 ac over the life of the plan) of stand resiliency 

treatments, and relies on hand treatments and fire. 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-225
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-35. Acre contributions to effects on indicator by the various vegetation and fuels treatments. 

These are estimates of average annual accomplishments and those expected over the life of the Plan (15 years).

Indicator 1 – Modification of Fire Behavior (acres)

Activity

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life

WUI thinning 

& fuel 

reduction 2,000 30,000 2,000 30,000 2,000 30,000 2,000 30,000 2,000 30,000

Structure 

restoration 100 1,500 100 1,500 200 3,000 100 1,500 100 1,500

Type 

conversion 50 750 50 750 100 1,500 50 750 50 750

Forest stand 

resiliency 500 7,500 500 7,500 1,000 15,000 300 4,500 500 7,500

Total 2,650 39,750 2,650 39,750 3,300 49,500 2,450 36,750 2,650 39,750

3-226 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-227 

Indicator 2 Consequences – FRID 

All five alternatives use prescribed fire as the primary tool for reducing FRID. Managed wildfire 

may also contribute. Therefore we include an estimated best-case scenario for potential 

maximum annual acres of managed wildfire. The proposed prescribed fire and the estimated 

managed wildfire acres are summed to provide total potential acres of FRID reduction 

(Table 3-35). Alternative D is estimated to reduce FRID on the most acres at 54,811 acres over 

the next 15 years. That is about 10,000 acre more than Alternatives B, E and C, and about 20,000 

acres more than Alternative A. 

Wildland fire is a natural process that, among other things, reduces fuel loads, supports a 

superior forest gene pool, promotes development of all structural stages, and increases resilience 

to disturbances and to climate change (Collins et al. 2009, Miller et al 2012, North et al. 2012, 

Collins and Skinner 2013). According to FRID over 90% of the Basin is characterized as 

moderately or severely departed from historic fire return interval. It is estimated that wildfires 

burned an average annual acreage of between 2,000 and 8,000 acres in pre-settlement times 

(Manley et al. 2000); 1,600 to 6,400 of those estimated acres occurred in the montane and upper 

montane zones. These are the vegetation zones in which most of the LTBMU’s management 

activities are located, much of which occurs in the WUI. 

Alternatives A, B, and E each propose 1,800 acre of prescribed burning per year in the WUI. If 

this is accomplished, 27,000 acres will be treated over the life of the plan. This equates to 45% of 

the WUI that will have some fire on the ground. Alternatives C and D each propose 2,100 acre of 

prescribed burning per year in the WUI. If this is accomplished, 31,500 acres will be treated over 

the life of the plan. This equates to 52% of the WUI that will have fire on the ground. Prescribed 

burning outside of the WUI is proposed to begin once initial WUI treatments are complete. 

Alternatives A, B, and E propose 100 acres per year. Alternative C proposes 200 acres per year, 

and Alternative D 450 acres per year. 

Alternative D does less pre-treating and relies much more on hand treatment to prepare units for 

prescribed fire. Those units outside the WUI are further subject to the 12 inch diameter limit. 

Denser post-treatment stands may narrow the prescription window for use of fire. But, there may 

be fire behavior trade-offs as a denser stand may have lower insolation, reduced wind speeds and 

decreased undergrowth regeneration than more open stands. Stands thinned to a lower minimum 

density provide greater treatment longevity over stands with higher residual densities. 

Alternative C provides the greatest treatment longevity. Alternative D will rely on fire to meet 

treatment objectives. More high intensity fire and tree mortality should occur during prescribed 

burning with Alternative D. This is consistent with this strategy and is expected to help restore 

structure and composition. Proximity to communities may limit use of higher intensity 

prescribed fires as public acceptance of intense fire activity and torching trees is limited. 

Assuming that the proposed acres in each alternative are accomplished, substantial FRID 

reductions in the WUI will be realized over the life of the plan. Substantial reductions in FRID 

usually will not occur with a single fire treatment, but getting these initial burns accomplished is 

critical to restoration efforts since second entry prescribed burns are more likely to resemble 

natural fire regimes. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Projecting any amount of prescribed burning or managed wildfire acres requires assuming that 

conditions will be suitable, objectives can be met, resources are available to complete the 

projects, smoke impacts can be mitigated, and the burn can be implemented within acceptable 

risk. These are huge assumptions based on a high degree of uncertainty. The LTBMU conducted 

an historical analysis of burn opportunities over a 13 year period (see Figure 3.38), and based on 

the analysis, conditions suitable for prescribed burning are not abundant. During the late 

summer, early fall months, when most presettlement burning occurred, smoke dispersion and 

weather conditions coincide only about one third of the time. Further, two to four consecutive 

day periods meeting these criteria occur very infrequently (average less than twice per year in 

each of these three months) and longer consecutive day periods are even less frequent. Based on 

these constraints and all the inherent uncertainties, projecting acres using prescribed fire to 

reduce FRID is a difficult exercise. Keeping up with fuel accumulation, restoring fire to the 

ecosystems, and meeting the goals and objectives of any of the alternatives will require us to be 

prepared to take advantage of burn opportunities as they arise. Alternatives that provide 

conditions most favorable for safe implementation of prescribed fire will have the most potential 

for success. Alternatives A, B, and E propose the least number of acres of prescribed fire. 

Alternative D proposes the most, but imposes the greatest constraints on activities that may be 

needed to prepare treatment units for prescribed fire. This lack of flexibility reduces the 

probability of success for this alternative. Because Alternative C imposes fewer constraints on 

preparatory treatments, it provides the most flexibility and probability of success.

Utilizing natural ignitions for meeting resource desired conditions and objectives is essential for 

restoration (Collins and Stephens 2007, Collins et al. 2008, North et al. 2009) but also effective 

for fuels reductions (Miller 2003). The importance of fire in restoring forest structure and 

composition as well as reestablishing a dynamic equilibrium with changing climate and ignition 

conditions should not be underemphasized (North et al. 2009). The LTBMU realizes the value of 

using fire to meet these objectives. As with any application of fire, making decisions to allow 

naturally ignited fires to meet resource objectives is subject to a variety of constraints based on 

weather criteria, fuel conditions, resource availability, smoke dispersal conditions, and safety 

concerns. Projecting desired acres into the future based on these assumptions and inherent 

uncertainty is extremely difficult.

For the LTBMU, decisions for utilizing fire are even more difficult for fire managers and line 

officers because of the proximity to communities and the high-value resources throughout the 

unit. Conditions under which a decision to go ahead with a naturally ignited wildfire and manage 

it to meet resource objectives will undoubtedly be those conditions that will support low fire 

activity and thus result in small fires (conditions such as those in 2011 rather than 2007). While 

Alternatives B, E and D propose more acres available than C, the extra acres consist of WUI 

Threat Zone acres. Although urban areas were restricted in the FSPro simulations consistent with 

respective alternatives, it should be noted that when using 2007 climatology, the model burned 

greater than ten times more acres in the defense zone and urban areas than those simulations 

using 2011 climatology. These are areas that are least likely to provide decision makers with the 

level of comfort to make the decision to allow a fire to be managed for resource objectives. 

Likelihood of affirmative managed wildfire decisions decrease with proximity to values at risk, 

but may increase when in proximity to treated areas.

3-228 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

In order to make a decision to manage a wildfire to meet resource objectives, the ignition must 

be natural (lightning) caused. Since 2004 there have been a total of 25 lightning caused ignitions 

reported in the Basin (see lightning occurrence and natural ignitions in Affected Environment 

section of this report). If this frequency trend continues, our ability to meet resources objectives 

using managed wildfire will be very limited. If lightning ignitions continue at the current 

frequency or trend downward, the importance of utilizing this tool to meet resource objectives 

will be virtually non-existent. Should this reduced frequency of lightning caused ignition over 

the last few years be part of a cyclic pattern, or perhaps due to stochastic processes, opportunities 

to manage natural ignitions to meet resource objectives may increase.

Prescribed burning 

All five alternatives use prescribed fire as the primary tool for reducing FRID. Alternatives A, B

and E propose reductions on 1,900 acres per year or 28,500 acres over the life of the plan. 

Alternatives C and D propose 2,300 and 2,550 acres per year respectively, or 34,500 and 38,250 

acres respectively over the life of the plan.

Managed wildfire 

Current direction provides for this only in the LTBMU portion of the Desolation Wilderness 

(21,998 acres). Alternative C provides the option in all areas except the WUI (83,534 acres) and 

Alternatives B, E, and D propose the highest number of acres available (130,740). This includes 

all areas except the WUI Defense Zone. Figure 3-40 shows modeled upper estimates for 

managed wildfire acres under 2007 and 2011 weather scenarios. Modeled FSPro wildfire spread 

into defense zone and urban core areas occurred greater than 90% more frequently when using 

2007 weather. Since a year such as 2007 is unlikely to receive an affirmative decision to manage 

a wildfire to meet resource objectives, estimated acres using the 2011 weather only are reported 

in Table 3-35.

Note: any modeled potential acres of managed wildfire accomplishments for any of the 

alternatives are not TARGETs. Rather they are modeled maximum possible? acres burned under 

favorable conditions in which every lightning ignition from the historical record was modeled as 

a wildfire managed to meet resource objectives. With the amount of WUI, infrastructure, current 

fuel conditions, smoke management issues, and prevailing weather typical at or near periods 

where lightning ignitions are expected to occur, accomplishments will more likely be near the 

lower end of the projections.

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-36. Acre contributions to effects on indicator 2 by prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

These are estimates of average annual accomplishments and those expected over the life of the Plan (15 years). Managed wildfire acres here 

reflect only those acres modeled using 2011 weather. 

These are considered maximum acres with minimums estimated annual acres equal to zero.

Indicator 2 – Reduction in Fire Return Interval Departure (acres)

Activity

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan Life Annual Plan 

Life

Prescribed 

Fire

1,900 28,500 1,900 28,500 2,300 34,500 2,550 38,250 1,900 28,500

Managed 

Wildfire

286 4,287 1,104 16,561 722 10,830 1,104 16,561 1,104 16,561

Total 2,186 32,787 3,004 45,061 3,022 45,330 3,654 54,811 3,004 45,061

3-230 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Climate Change 

Over the last 100 years, mean annual temperature in the Lake Tahoe Basin has increased by 2o F. 

Days with temperatures below freezing are decreasing. Average annual precipitation during the 

last 100 years is increasing, but inter-annual variability is also increasing. While average annual 

precipitation is increasing, the amount falling as snow is decreasing, as well as average winter 

snow pack. Further, spring thaw is occurring 5-30 days earlier than several decades ago (see 

Appendix D– LTBMU Climate Change Trend Assessment). 

These observed trends are expected to affect fire and fuels in a variety of ways. Increasing the 

growing season for fuels may affect the rate at which fuels accumulate under current conditions. 

Excess water during wet years can support higher rates of fuel production, while dry years are 

more conducive to large fire growth. Extended summer drought may increase tree mortality and 

contribute to more of these accumulating fuels providing more available fuels that contribute to 

increasing fire size and severity. This can be seen in recent trends in wildfire characteristics 

throughout the Sierra Nevada region over the past 2-3 decades, where wildfire frequency, size, 

total area burned and severity have all been observed to increase. Climatic changes discussed 

above are considered primary causal factors for these increases (Westerling et al. 2006; Miller et 

al. 2009). 

If these projected changes occur the fire and fuels program may be affected in a variety of ways. 

It might make prescribed fire and managed wildfire implementation more difficult if the fire 

season is extended. Alternatively, if more of the winter months experience rain rather than snow, 

burn opportunities could expand. Most likely, the projected high inter-annual variability will 

create years with abundant burn opportunities alternating with years with very few burn 

windows. Climate change impacts to the program will be very similar across all the alternatives.

3.4.10.4 Analytical Conclusions

Fire behavior

Alternative C will provide the most acres of modified fire behavior with 3,300 acres per year or 

49,500 acres over the life of the plan. That is 35% greater than Alternative D and 25% greater 

than Alternatives B and E. Alternatives B, C, and E share the greatest flexibility to meet or 

exceed fire behavior criteria. Alternative C provides the greatest treatment longevity.

Conclusion: Alternative C provides the greatest benefit in terms of fire behavior.

FRID

Given all the uncertainties and assumptions listed in the consequences section, the following 

conclusions have been derived:

While Alternatives C and D estimate more acres in FRID reduction, Alternatives B and E will 

provide the greatest probability of success in reducing FRID. Alternative D estimates more 

potential acres of FRID reduction, but should conditions suitable for the safe and effective use of 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-231
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

fire not occur, the ability to meet objectives will be compromised since other treatment options 

are restricted.

Alternative C proposes more pretreated acres, which is an advantage for meeting resource 

objectives, but includes less area allowable for manage wildfire. Alternative A by far provides 

the least opportunities for reducing FRID. 

Conclusion: Alternatives B and E provide the greatest probability of success in reducing 

FRID.

Climate Change

The effect of the fire and fuels program on mitigating the effect of climate change may vary by 

alternative and will be mostly dependent on the amount of area treated, post-treatment stand 

density, and the amount of prescribed burning proposed and managed wildfire allowed by 

alternative. For the amount of area treated and post-treatment stand density, Alternative C creates 

the most resilience to climate change, followed equally by Alternatives A, B, and E. Alternative 

D creates the least resilience to climate change. When considering use of prescribed fire and 

managed wildfire, the differences between alternatives depend greatly on where the amount of 

burning falls in the range of proposed prescribed fire and acres of estimated managed wildfire. 

The alternatives differ at the upper range of burning, but all have the same lower range of zero. 

So if climatic conditions are such that prescribed fire or managed wildfire accomplishments 

trend towards the lower range, differences between alternatives will be minimal. If optimal 

burning conditions are realized, Alternative D will have the most beneficial effect followed by 

Alternative C, then B and E, and finally A. However, as stated in relation to the indicators above, 

reliance on conditions outside the Unit’s control elevates the risk of the strategy and reduces 

probability of success. Strategies that allow the most flexibility to meet uncertain future 

conditions have a higher likelihood of success.

Conclusion: Alternative C provides the most treatment acres and flexibility to increase 

resilience to projected climate change.

3-232 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other activities that may affect fire fuels indicators

• Acres of PACs restored by 2025—A=0, B, C, E=3,900, D=0. PACs are human constructs 

delineated to include spotted owl or goshawk nest stands and encompass the best 

available 300 acres of habitat consisting of two or more tree canopy layers, large trees (> 

24“ dbh) and high canopy cover (> 60%). These conditions are very susceptible to stand 

replacing fire. Depending on where and how these restoration projects were 

implemented, they could have minor effects on localized fire behavior and, if prescribed 

fire or managed wildfire are used, FRID. However, activities used to meet these 

restoration targets are not described by alternative and therefore, effects on fire and fuels 

indicators cannot be evaluated.

• Developed recreation expansion (overnight units, parking, permit expansion, ski run 

expansion)—A=0-10% increase, B=0-5% increase, C=0-15% increase, D=0-15% 

decrease, E same as B but overnight accommodations may increase up to 10%. Were 

activities associated with recreation expansion to occur, some alteration of vegetative 

cover would likely be required. Any new structures would require defensible space as 

stated in Forest Vegetation DC7. However, most these activities would be much localized 

and are not expected to have significant impacts on the any of these indicators or on fire 

and fuels management in general. Significant exceptions would be new or widened ski 

runs which would be effective as fuels breaks. However, without project specific details,

this is difficult to evaluate except to say that these activities are most likely to occur in 

Alternative C and descend in likelihood according to the percentages above.

• Miles of Roads—A=199, B, E=204, C=221, D=207. Alternative C may provide an 

advantage over the other alternatives since it proposes between 14 and 22 miles of more 

road access. Depending on where future fuels treatments are located, these roads may 

provide important access to vehicle and equipment needed for implementation. However, 

without site specific treatment location information, it is not possible to precisely 

quantify the effects additional roads will have on the fire and fuels indicators.

• Acres of Backcountry Management Emphasis Areas and Wilderness—the alternatives 

propose varying amounts of backcountry and wilderness areas. This is based on 

recommending current Backcountry Management Emphasis as Wilderness, or in 

additional Backcountry Management Emphasis areas such as in Alternative E. Therefore 

any increase in Wilderness is accompanied by an equal decrease in Backcountry 

Management Emphasis. Alternative A keeps current acreages. Alternative E adds about 

3,600 acres of new Backcountry Management Area between Ward and Blackwood 

Canyons called Stanford Rock backcountry area that excludes WUI. Alternative C 

recommends the Dardanelles Roadless Area as recommended Wilderness area. 

Alternative D recommends the Dardanelles and the Freel Roadless Areas, as well as adds 

the Stanford Rock backcountry area which overlapped part of the WUI. Impacts of these 

recommendations on fuels indicators or programs will be minimal since we do not 

conduct significant fuels management in roadless or wilderness areas. The exception is 

where backcountry overlaps with WUI. In these cases, community protection is still the 

number one priority. Where treatments in backcountry are required for community 

protection, treatment methods may be modified to be consistent with Backcountry 

Management Emphasis suitable uses. But fire behavior objectives will still be met. Since 

Stanford Rock backcountry area does not overlap any of the WUI, impacts to fire and 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-233
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

fuels management will be minimal. Wildland fire management might be affected if more 

wilderness areas are added since there are constraints to what suppression tactics can be 

employed inside wilderness areas. However, none of the alternatives are expected to have 

significant impacts on fire and fuels management due to changes in Wilderness or 

backcountry areas. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Rather than addressing each individual vegetation and fire-fuels related desired condition, the 

desired conditions are grouped according to similar themes.

Modification of fire behavior and reducing risk to communities 

Throughout implementation of the 10 year strategy for the WUI, all five alternatives would 

progress towards community risk and fire behavior modification desired conditions in similar 

fashion and at a similar rate. Minor exceptions would be those alternatives with more thinning 

constraints (diameter and canopy cover retention limits) or those relying more on hand 

treatments than mechanical. Alternative B, C, and E have exceptions to the 30 inch diameter 

limit. However, these exceptions are expected to be used very sparingly and therefore, will not 

have great impact. Alternative D uses hand thinning more than the other alternatives and is 

subject to conversion of WUI threat Zone to non-WUI as well as a 12 inch diameter limit outside 

the defense zone. However, these will not go into effect until the 10 year strategy is complete. 

Alternative A and D may reduce fire behavior slightly less and Alternative D provides less 

treatment longevity than the others. Alternatives A B, and E will be similar in effects because 

they both treat the same number of acres. However, since Alternatives B and E have fewer 

constraints, their effects on fire behavior and treatment longevity will be greater than Alternative 

A. Alternative C treats the most acres with the fewest constraints and therefore, provides the 

most longevity and modification of fire behavior. Alternative D’s heavy reliance on fire to 

achieve desired conditions and to meet objectives includes a great deal of uncertainty. If 

conditions are mostly suitable for using fire, then Alternative D may meet desired conditions and 

objectives as well or better than the other alternatives. Should conditions be unfavorable for 

application of fire, then Alternative D will reduce fire behavior the least and have the least 

treatment longevity due to the heavier reliance on hand versus mechanical treatments. 

Once initial treatments of the 10 year strategy are complete, some changes will occur in the 

alternatives. The most significant changes will be vegetation management increased emphasis on 

ecological restoration outside the WUI and Alternative D’s Threat Zone converting to non-WUI 

management. The restoration treatments outside the WUI will be less important in terms of 

community risk than WUI treatments, but are still important in reducing fire behavior because 

wildland fires originating outside the WUI can still threaten WUI and natural resources. 

Alternatives B and E are slightly better than Alternative A in their ability to meet fire behavior 

and community risk reduction desired conditions outside the WUI. Alternative C is the most 

effective at meeting these desired conditions. The reasons are the same as those stated in the 

paragraph above. The most significant difference outside the WUI occurs in Alternative D, 

because Threat Zone is converted to non-WUI along with associated thinning constraints and 

heavy reliance on hand treatments and prescribed burning to meet restoration objectives. So 

3-234 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

evaluating the effectiveness of Alternative D at meeting fire behavior modification desired 

conditions outside of the WUI Defense Zone depend on successful use of fire. If conditions do 

not permit enough use of fire, then thinning constraints would make this Alternative the least 

effective. If conditions permit sufficient use of fire to thin forest to appropriate levels, 

Alternative D can be as effective as any other alternative. However, any alternative that limits 

choices and reduces flexibility for meeting desired conditions should be viewed with caution.

Conclusion: Alternative C would make the most progress towards risk reduction and fire 

behavior desired conditions.

Restoring and maintaining ecological processes and disturbance regimes, restoration of 

historic forest structure, composition. 

Alternatives A, B, and E treat the same number of acres for meeting these ecological restoration 

desired conditions. Alternatives B and E provide fewer constraints and more flexibility and 

would make better progress towards these desired conditions. Alternative C doubles acreage and 

would progress towards the desired conditions much faster than Alternatives A, B, or E. 

Alternative D relies primarily on hand treatment and use of fire to meet ecological restoration 

desired conditions. Restoration of natural processes such as fire is the preferred method of 

meeting desired conditions. Such a strategy, theoretically, would reestablish dynamic 

equilibrium with reigning climates and provide the most resilient and sustainable conditions. 

Alternatives B, D and E project the greatest number of managed wildfire acres, followed by 

Alternatives C, and then A. If conditions are optimal for using fire, then Alternative D will have 

as high a probability of success as Alternatives B and E. However, excluding other available 

tools and technologies that can be used as surrogates to natural disturbance processes will reduce 

this alternative’s ability to meet desired conditions when conditions safe for implementation of 

fire use are not available. 

Conclusions: Alternatives B and E best provide the ability to restore ecological process 

desired conditions.

Resilience 

Several desired conditions discuss increasing the forest’s resilience to fire, drought, insects, and 

pathogens. Additionally, most predictions suggest a warmer and potentially drier future for the 

Lake Tahoe Basin (see the Climate Report in Appendix C) Creating resilience to these stressors 

is an important part of each of the action alternatives. The desired conditions for forest 

vegetation are based both on contemporary reference conditions (unlogged forest with minimal 

fire suppression) and historical pre-settlement conditions (since these conditions evolved over 

centuries under prevailing disturbance regimes). Strategies with the best chance for success seek 

to reestablish fundamental ecosystem processes (fire, hydrology, propagule dispersal, etc.) 

wherever possible, so that LTB ecosystems can more readily achieve dynamic equilibrium with 

changing climates. All alternatives seek to utilize natural processes, such as wildfire, or 

surrogates, such as prescribed fire and thinning, to create more resilient conditions. Alternatives 

A, B, and E propose equal efforts in terms of acres treated. Once again, Alternatives B and E

have fewer constraints and more flexibility and would have better ability to create resilience. 

Alternative C doubles the acreage of Alternatives A, B, and E and includes fewer constraints 

than Alternative A, providing more resilience than Alternatives A, B, or E. The common theme 

Chapter 3 | Fire and Fuels ■ 3-235
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

with Alternative D is that relying too heavily on one set of tools (i.e.underburning and managed 

wildfire), however appropriate those tools may be, could end up tying the hands of managers 

should the appropriate conditions for using those tools not materialize.

Conclusion: Since Alternative C thins the most acres with the fewest constraints, it provides the 

most flexibility and highest likelihood of success for meeting resilience related desired 

conditions.

Overall conclusions: Alternative C provides the best strategy for modifying fire behavior, 

reducing risk, and achieving forest vegetation and fire-fuels related desired conditions. 

Alternatives B and E reduce FRID and restore ecosystem processes the most due to more area 

allowed for managed wildfire than Alternative C. However, while Alternatives B and E do not 

propose as many acres of treatments as C, they are not precluded from treating more acres if 

capacity is present and ecological conditions suggest more treatments are appropriate. Finally, 

this report concludes that Alternative B or E provide the best strategy for success in meeting fire 

and fuels program goals.

3-236 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.11 Forest Vegetation 

The goal for forest vegetation in the forest plan is to restore forest structure and composition to 

conditions that are more resilient to future changes in climate and disturbance regimes. The first 

step will be to target historic, pre-Euro American settlement conditions where possible, with 

eventual modifications as more is learned about the influences of a changing climate. Goals 

include Jeffrey pine and white fir forests that have fewer and (on average) larger trees, more 

structural variability, and a more clumped (or random) spatial distribution than current forests 

(Taylor, 2006). 

As defined here, forest restoration includes: 

1) Creating early seral openings within the mid-seral stage to restore temporal and physical 

distribution of structure by major forest type;

2) Converting overabundant white fir types to more resilient pine or mixed conifer types to 

restore relative abundance of major forest types; and 

3) Reducing stand densities and understory fuels periodically over the life of the stand to 

resilient levels that allow for continued stand development following drought, fire and 

bark beetle attacks.

The forest in the Lake Tahoe Basin is subdivided into smaller, relatively homogenous units, 

called stands. This makes management of the larger landscape much easier because it can be 

approached one stand at a time (Hunter, 1990). An important point to remember is that these 

units of area (e.g., stand, forest, landscape) are not static and change a great deal through time. 

Disturbance, whether a random event or something that occurs slowly over time, will influence 

the competitive advantages of trees and other associated species within – and across – each 

major forest type.

3.4.11.1 Introduction

Analysis of how well each alternative achieves or maintains the forest vegetation desired 

conditions is based primarily on the scale and intensity of forest restoration treatments along with 

periodic incidence of modeled wildfire and bark beetle-caused mortality. A suite of prescriptions 

were developed using the SPECTRUM model, a computer-based analytical tool for building 

natural resource management models where parameters are formulated to capture the effects of 

disturbance and succession (Henderson, 2008, USDA, 2008) to accomplish forest restoration

goals. Since the timeframe to achieve the desire conditions extends beyond the life of this plan, 

this analysis is focused on trends towards which each alternative makes in achieving the 

restoration goals. Given the estimated annual treatment acres in Table 2-1, combined with a lack 

of site specificity, the modeled runs reflect a generalized view of possible outcomes. The acres 

in Table 2-1 of the forest plan are based on objectives and strategies to meet DCs. The model 

uses these to inform the prescriptions for each alternative.

A team of vegetation, fire, and biology specialists in the USFS Regional Office and on the 

LTBMU developed a list of prescriptions, constraints for treatments, and goals for modeling 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-237
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

forest vegetation over time for each alternative. Using Forest Inventory & Analysis data, GIS 

resource layers, and the treatment amounts in the forest plan, model runs were projected out to 

assess differences in achieving the desired conditions between alternative specific goals. The 

goal for each alternative analyzed differed by the intent of that alternative. These are as follows:

Alternative A - maximize the amount of late seral closed canopy forest.

Alternative B, C & E – maximize restoration of forest structure and composition, with alternative 

C reflecting more progress over time.

Alternative D – maximize growth of large trees (>30 inches diameter) mostly through the use of 

hand treatments and prescribed fire.

The principal question addressed in the analysis is whether the trends move towards the 

reference conditions and achieve the goal for the alternative.

Methodology

The Spectrum model was the primary model used by analysts to predict future outcomes of 

planned treatments identified to achieve forest restoration goals. Using GIS and application of 

basic prescriptions (combined with acres from Table 2-1), outputs were generated from 2003

forest inventory data (FIA, 2003) to illustrate reduction in departure from historic conditions by 

alternative. 

Established data sets were used for analysis within the model. There were three sources of 

established data sets used including: 1) current forest vegetation inventory information

(Christensen et al., 2008) from the 2003 Forest Inventory & Analysis program of the US Forest 

Service-PNW along with corresponding IKONOS satellite imagery, 2) historic forest structure 

and composition information from modern studies of historic or reference conditions and fire 

frequency by multiple researchers as well as the Wieslander inventory for the US Forest Service 

in the 1930s, and 3) locally and Regionally defined prescriptions for treatment using 

professional judgment as related to the objectives.

Geographic Information System is the primary tool for spatially quantifying various types of 

information, e.g., slope percent, soil types, suitable road access, etc. that influence treatment 

methods and constraints (e.g., cultural sites, riparian areas) that require special treatment 

measures. Major forest types were highlighted in the GIS generated map with stratification 

made on the basis of structural class, density, and location within the land suitability framework. 

However, specific treatment sites were not identified. 

Outputs of the modeling are approximations of future outcomes to aid in evaluating 

consequences of actions. Although the timeframe for implementation of the revised forest plan 

is 15-20 years, to understand the implications of restoration outcomes a half century or more is 

needed to determine whether the actions taken today will have the desired effect beyond the life 

of the plan.

3-238 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Limitations inherent in the information, analytical tools, and modeling include: 

• Currently used prescriptions are generalized for practical modeling purposes. These 

general prescriptions satisfy the majority of cases in which a silviculturist would 

prescribe treatment to meet the forest restoration desired conditions. Although there are 

some constraints built into the model for certain wildlife habitats, e.g. Protected Activity 

Centers for Spotted Owls and Northern Goshawks, wildlife specific prescriptions were 

not included. 

• The Revised Forest Plan contains more specific standards and guidelines for 

consideration in project planning than is feasible to model here.

• Model strength or accuracy is generally greater the shorter the modeled duration or 

period. The predictive growth model is thought to be reliable up to 50 years out. After 

that it drops in reliability.

• There are slight differences in classification of forest types between current inventory 

(CWHR) and representations of modeled historic forest types in the historic reference 

condition mapping. Historic forest types are classed as percentages of the landscape 

within a structural seral stage while the current inventory of forest types represents the 

actual seral stage acreage within each (HUC 6) watershed.

• The model includes periodic disturbance from wildfire and bark beetles based on historic 

occurrences. Disturbance frequencies and severities may not be the same in the future, 

but is all we have to go by. Drought was not specifically modeled. These are in addition 

to the planned/prescribed treatments and occur every 2 periods in the model

• There is a first decade adjustment for treatments and fires (e.g., Angora Fire of 2007) that 

occurred between the time of the inventory (2003) and the running of the model (2011). 

For this analysis and since this period of 10 years has past, the first decade has been 

dropped from analysis. 

• Group selection openings were modeled for an average sized opening of 2.5 acres. This 

means that there are no openings of other sizes between 1 and 10 acres.

• Although the forest plan would allow trees greater than 30 inches in diameter to be 

removed (this is the case for alternatives B, C, and E), no trees greater than 30 inches 

were removed by the model.

Indicators

The key indicators selected for evaluating progress and accomplishment of forest restoration 

goals resulted from a collaborative approach comprising technical experts from agencies, 

universities, and private sector consulting. These indicators best represent conditions at each 

stage of stand development as well as overall conditions at the landscape scale 

(also see Table 3-37).

1. Forest Structure – This indicator is both a physical and temporal distribution of stand 

development stages (hereafter called “seral stages”) that have been classified as Early, Mid 

Closed, Mid Open, Late Open, and Late Closed seral stages. (See Table below for 

explanation of seral stage sizes and opening percentages).

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-239
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

2. Forest Type – This indicator describes composition of the dominant tree species that make 

up a stand, sometimes represented by a single species or as a mixture. Conversion of a forest 

type from one to another relates to abundance desired at the basin-wide scale that was present 

pre-settlement. Forest Types include Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, and red fir (see 

Figure 3-38). These are derived from California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 

vegetation types.

3. Forest Stand Resiliency – This indicator refers to the ability of a forest stand to withstand 

disturbance at each seral stage (See Definition below). In a resilient stand, trees are capable 

of capturing sufficient resources (water, sunlight) to resist (see Definition below) drought, 

fire and bark beetles. This indicator can be measured directly as a result of actual mortality 

or predicted through the use of modeling. In addition to being an indicator, density levels for 

each forest type over a range of site conditions can be used to predict mortality.

Table 3-37. Seral stages by canopy and tree sizes 

Seral Stage Canopy Tree Size

Early Open 0-4.9”

Mid Closed 5-23.9”

Mid Open 5-23.9”

Late Open ≥24”

Late Closed ≥24”

Note: “Open” and “closed” are relative 

measures for the canopy layer of a stand. For 

this analysis, a stand is considered open if the 

canopy closure is less than 40 percent for 

Jeffrey pine and less than 50 percent for red fir 

and white fir/mixed conifer.

3-240 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-38. Major Forest California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 

vegetation types

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-241
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made

• The models used (SPECTRUM, FOFEM) are correct.

• After treatments, forest stands regenerate back to original forest type unless purposefully 

converted. That is, unless directed to do so the model does not convert from one forest 

type to another.

• The current conditions in table 3-38 are accurate. The starting point for outputs from the 

SPECTRUM model is the second decade. Starting with the second decade allows for 

more consistent inter-decadal change over time, i.e. trend.

• The SPECTRUM model is deterministic (linear modeling) limited to the inputs provided 

by analysts, which means that one outcome is provided based on hundreds of data runs. 

• The aim is to restore forest structure and forest composition beyond the life of the 

Revised Forest Plan (20 years). In reviewing the outputs from the model regarding 

departures from reference conditions, it would appear that this assumption is on the order 

of 100 years or more to achieve restoration for some forest types.

• First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) was used to generate wildfire event information

at the 90th percentile weather, which were then generalized into periodic events (every 20 

years) in SPECTRUM.

• We allow the SPECTRUM model to create small openings (2.5 acres) in the Defense 

Zone (1/4 mile from communities) of the WUI, because they are good for fire behavior 

modification as well as structural modification.

• Forest type conversion (WF/MC to JP) is allowed for white fir/mixed conifer stands that 

were previously identified as Jeffrey pine in the Weislander inventory of 1935. Type 

conversion and group selection is avoided in both Late Open and Late Closed Seral 

Stages.

• Subalpine vegetation is considered to be within the desired condition and not analyzed as 

a separate forest type in the model.

• Meadow and aspen restoration are not analyzed in the model, because SPECTRUM 

models conifer growth that has occurred in these vegetation types and conifers would be 

removed completely or nearly completely from these types.

• All four alternatives follow the collaboratively developed Lake Tahoe Basin MultiJurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy (2007). Exceptions will 

occur in the second decade when the WUI Threat Zone is scheduled to be eliminated in 

Alternative D. Additionally, diameter limits may exclude creation of early seral patches 

which may otherwise occur inside of the WUI. Alternatives will vary in the application of 

prescribed fire.

3-242 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.11.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The forest types surrounding Lake Tahoe range along elevation gradients, beginning with those 

found in the montane zone at lake level (6,250 feet), continuing through an upper montane zone 

(7,200-8,500 feet) and up to the sub-alpine zone along the mountain peaks and ridges (above 

8,500 feet). The major forest types that comprise the greater extent of the lower elevations 

include the Jeffrey pine and white fir-mixed conifer while the upper montane includes red fir. 

Together, these three forest types comprise the majority of forested lands around Lake Tahoe.

Montane and upper montane forests were dramatically changed in the late 1800s by logging to 

support silver mining in Nevada, and since the early 1900s from exclusion of fire to protect 

people and property at the Lake. Prior to the changes wrought on the forest in the 1800s, the 

Washoe Tribe was a regular visitor to the Basin and made use of fire as a tool for maintaining 

open forest and abundant forage for game. Fire plays a pivotal role in shaping and maintaining 

the structure, composition, and function of mixed-conifer and yellow pine ecosystems and was 

once very common in most of the Sierra Nevada (North et al. 2009). Heavy logging and longterm fire suppression have severely altered Lake Tahoe Basin forests from their “natural” state.

Today there are few examples that can be used as proxies for ecosystem-based management that 

approximate a forested ecosystem with its inherent disturbance regimes. The coniferous forests 

of the Peninsular Ranges of northern Baja California are close analogues to the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, having similar climate, geology, and dominant species. Because large areas of these 

northern Mexican forests were not logged, and because fire suppression has only been in effect 

for the last few decades, their composition and structure provide an important reference for the 

much altered forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Considerable research on suitable reference conditions exists for the Lake Tahoe Basin. Some of 

this involves historical reconstructions of pre-settlement fire regimes and major forest type seral 

stage frequency distributions (Taylor 2004, Beaty and Taylor 2007). Modeling efforts have 

produced additional historical reference condition information (Safford and Schmidt 2007). 

Another important information resource is contemporary analogue forest systems in 

northwestern Mexico, which have been little logged and not managed under long-term fire 

suppression (Stephens and Fulé 2005).

Multilayered and very dense canopies, often associated with Pacific Northwest old-growth 

forests, are not the best model for Sierran mixed-conifer and especially not for pine forests 

because when adjacent trees are multilayered, the continuity of vertical fuels can provide a 

ladder for surface fire into the overstory canopy. Almost all historical sources suggest that, on 

average, yellow pine and mixed conifer forests were much more open and heterogeneous in 

structure than current forests. Horizontal heterogeneity, however, used to be relatively common 

in Sierran mixed-conifer forests (North et al. 2009). All of the Sierran reconstruction studies 

suggest mixed-conifer forests, under an active fire regime, had a naturally clumped distribution 

containing a variety of size and age classes (North et al. 2009). 

There has been no deliberate restoration of early seral stages or structural heterogeneity across 

vegetation types in the Basin through management activities over the life of the current forest 

plan. The primary factors affecting the forest conditions remain the Comstock era logging that 

removed most of the Jeffrey pine forest in the late 19th century and the exclusion of fire for more 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-243
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

than 100 years. Over the past decade two wildfires occurred in 2002, the Gondola Fire (700 

acres) and the Showers Fire (300 acres) and two in 2007, the Angora Fire (3,000 acres) and the 

Washoe Fire (20 acres). Although these fires converted some late and mid seral stages to early 

seral vegetation, they do not represent restoration. Except for the sub alpine zone, the historic 

fire regime or fire return interval has not occurred in these areas.

Forest vegetation treatments have occurred for fuel reduction, including understory removal with 

minimum thinning of the canopy. In wildfire-prone forests, tree-based carbon stocks are best 

protected by fuel treatments that produced a low-density stand structure dominated by large, fire 

resistant pines (Hurteau & North, 2009). The recent climate has been favorable for growth and 

has created an increased potential for large-scale and intense levels of mortality due to bark 

beetles. Treatments have also occurred to reduce density and improve resiliency of the residual 

stand to bark beetle caused mortality. A suite of mechanical or hand treatments followed by 

prescribed fire have resulted in lower densities that have not had additional bark beetle caused 

mortality (Stark, et al, 2013). The dominant mid-seral stage condition present today that resulted 

from Comstock era logging persists in the montane and upper montane areas around the Lake, 

and is progressing toward late seral forest. However, this trend is not sustainable as there are 

few acres of early seral stages to progress into the mid seral stages. See the table below for 

general status and trend of each indicator.

In North America, management has often sought to recreate patterns characteristic of historical 

(pre-degradation) reference conditions, and historical information helped provided a blueprint for 

the desired outcome. In the future, the management emphasis in many ecosystems will shift from 

one of historical fidelity to one of ecological integrity, resilience, and delivery of services (Millar 

et al. 2007, Stephenson et al. 2010, Cole et al. 2010b). In this changed management environment, 

the role of historical ecology becomes one of informing a management response to global change 

rather than resisting global change. Historical ecology can, among other things, identify 

important broad-scale and long-term processes that influence local ecological outcomes under 

different climate conditions or disturbance regimes; provide clues to mechanisms underlying 

ecosystem dynamics and resilience (i.e. why have some systems persisted through climatic 

changes in the past?); guide the development and validation of predictive models; suggest 

appropriate future trajectories, and inform us if current conditions are anomalous and worthy of 

management intervention (Tausch et al. 1993, Landres et al. 1999, Millar and Woolfenden 1999, 

Swetnam et al. 1999, Cole et al. 2010a). In the end, historical ecology represents our clearest 

window into ecological patterns and processes that occur at temporal scales beyond the scope of 

human observation. 

Any projection of future conditions is by definition uncertain. Although calibrated models of 

climate change agree on a range of plausible future mean temperatures, temperature extremes are 

impossible to predict with any certainty, and the extremes are often the primary drivers of 

ecological responses to climate (Easterling et al. 2000). Precipitation predictions vary widely, 

and for many places models projecting increased precipitation are countered by other models 

predicting decreased precipitation. As many authors have noted, uncertainties in future 

projections of climate change and its impacts are almost certainly higher than uncertainties in the 

spatial and temporal accuracy of historical ecological data (Willis and Burks 2006, IPCC 2007, 

Keane et al. 2009, Lawler et al. 2010). Thus, the argument has been made that because our 

understanding of historical ecosystems is usually much greater than that for most novel or 

3-244 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

emerging ecosystems, setting short-term targets based on known, historical ecosystems may 

minimize the risk of making things worse (Jackson and Hobbs 2009). The key is to understand 

that projected trajectories for many places will lead beyond the historical range of variability in 

climate – measured over thousands of years – in the next century. HRV-based management 

targets are thus better seen as “way-points” rather than “end-points.” 

The Proposed LTBMU Forest Plan uses data on historical pre-settlement conditions to help set 

forest management and restoration on the right path toward generating sustainable conditions 

under future changed climates, understanding that future climatic conditions will not mimic past 

climatic conditions. For example, there is general agreement that fire frequencies and burned 

area are increasing strongly across the western US, and fire severity has been rising in the Sierra 

Nevada as well (Westerling et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2009). Future projections suggest similar but 

accelerating trends throughout the next century (Lenihan et al. 2003, McKenzie et al. 2004). 

Forest conditions described for the Lake Tahoe Basin before Euroamerican settlement were 

strongly shaped by fire. Historical ecological data on fire-adapted forests provide a highly useful 

template for designing future forest conditions (structures, compositions, processes, etc.) that are 

more likely to be resilient to warming climates and intensifying wildfire activity. 

A perspective that recognizes the pervasiveness of human impacts on ecosystems also recognizes 

the importance of using contemporary ecosystems as reference systems whenever possible. We 

use historical data principally to understand ecological events and processes that we cannot 

observe firsthand, but directional changes in the baseline state (climate, air, water, soil, etc.) 

mean that historical conditions may be imperfect surrogates for future desired conditions. To 

compensate – where available – properly functioning contemporary reference ecosystems should 

form part of the package of information that underlies restoration and resource management. 

Jeffrey pine-dominated forest types in the Lake Tahoe Basin have experienced 100+ years of 

heavy logging, grazing, and fire exclusion (Sugihara et al. 2006). High elevation conifer forests 

in northern Baja California, Mexico are the southern extension of the semiarid Alta California 

yellow pine forests – they grow on similar soils, experience a similar climate, and support the 

same dominant trees and shrubs. Both Alta and Baja California yellow pine forests are 

experiencing directional climate change, but large areas in Baja were not logged, and fire 

exclusion has only recently come into vogue (Stephens and Fulé 2005). Historical data 

substantiate the long-term ecological similarity of the systems and have uncovered important 

climate-fire linkages that help to explain ecosystem patterns and processes along the latitudinal 

gradient that joins the California forests (Stephens et al. 2003, Skinner et al. 2008). Researchers 

and management agencies have recognized the potential of using the Mexican sites as 

contemporary reference systems for the American sites, and many studies have documented 

ecological patterns and processes within the former for management use in the latter (see, e.g., 

Minnich et al. 1995, Stephens and Fulé 2005). We use forest structure and fire severity data from 

the Baja California mountains to develop some of our desired conditions in the LTBMU Forest 

Plan. 

In summary, while future changes in climate are likely to be outside of the historical range of 

conditions, the historical range of variation in ecosystem components and processes can provide

information on, among other things, ecosystem dynamics, status of current ecosystem conditions, 

and insight into potential future ecosystem behaviors. Pre-Euro-American settlement conditions 

may provide information relevant to past and future ecosystem resilience or vulnerability. These 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-245
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

pre-settlement conditions, in combination with information from contemporary reference 

systems in the mountains of Baja California, have provided information for the desired 

conditions developed for the alternatives analyzed in this document. Achieving approximate presettlement conditions as an initial baseline goal will include restoring key ecological processes 

that are currently absent or compromised, and better prepare those stands for the challenges that 

warmer, drier climates will bring. Thus, indicators used in this analysis are based on current 

departures from these reference conditions.

Table 3-38. Current Status and Trend of Indicators without treatment and forest restoration goals 

in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Indicator Existing Condition Trend

(Without Treatment)

Goal

Forest Structure

Predominance of Mid-Seral 

stage

Preponderance of Midseral trending to Lateseral without enough 

Early-seral to grow into 

the Mid-seral stages

Seral Stage 

distributions more 

similar to presettlement, leading to 

higher landscape

heterogeneity.

Forest Type

Overabundant White Fir & 

under represented Jeffrey 

Pine. Lodgepole pine 

encroaching into red fir and 

riparian vegetation (aspen, 

streams, meadows).

White fir continues to 

dominate where pine 

had dominated prior to 

Comstock era logging. 

Riparian converting to 

lodgepole.

Relative abundance of 

dominant species 

more similar to presettlement 

abundances.

Forest Stand 

Resiliency

High stand densities resulting 

in high risk of bark beetle and 

fire mortality.

Continued increase in 

density and higher 

susceptibility to bark 

beetles and fire

Forest stands are 

thinned to levels that 

can sustain 

disturbance without a 

high amount of 

mortality.

3-246 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Annual mortality of trees is mapped by the US Forest Service’s Forest Health Protection unit and 

quantified by causal agents (see Table 3-39). The bark beetle caused mortality has occurred in 

many of the late seral stands throughout the basin, which largely overlap spotted owl and 

goshawk PACs/HRCAs (see map, Figure 3-39). There is a higher vulnerability in late seral 

stands to bark beetles due to past limitations to treatment options, including (but not limited to) 

diameter limits on tree cutting and avoidance to protect areas for habitat. Older trees in dense 

stands are often in competition with younger, more vigorously growing trees. Mortality of largediameter (>39.4 inches (>100 cm) DBH) white fir, red fir, incense cedar, and sugar pine trees 

can be significantly high (Smith et al, 2005) following periods of drought as occurred with the fir 

engraver outbreak of the mid-1980s and the Jeffrey pine beetle outbreak of the 1990s. In the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, the Jeffrey pine beetle outbreak of the 1990s reduced the greatest amount of 

canopy cover in areas with higher density (Egan et al, 2012). In order to increase the resiliency 

of late seral stands from fire and bark beetles some level of treatment will be necessary. Specific 

standards and guidelines are provided in the Revised Forest Plan for this purpose, but are beyond 

the capability of the SPECTRUM model to capture. Therefore, despite the increasing levels of 

mortality occurring in late seral stands, no treatments are modeled in this seral stage.

In addition, the health of forests in the Tahoe Basin depends on a greater amount of space to 

grow than forests with similar forest types on the west slope due to: 1) geography – being 

situated mostly on the east side, which is characterized by less precipitation to support dense 

stand conditions; and 2) topography – being mostly mountainous terrain consisting of steep 

slopes where soils do not retain water or nutrients for trees to tap into as compared to flatter 

terrain. As a result, where the slope is flatter and on the west shore, which receives more 

precipitation (e.g., Blackwood Canyon), denser Jeffrey pine canopy conditions exist. However,

where the slope is steeper, conditions do not support the same densities.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-247
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Acres with mortality and damage by causal agent and year

Causal Agent 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Totals

Unspecified or mixed bark 15 1 0 17 6,03 73 6,09 77 78 3,37 11 21 16,93

Jeffrey pine beetle 99 5 21 2 41 10 17 65 15 21 18 14 2,36

Mountain pine beetle 34 28 0 30 22 69 1,72 2,28 1,98 96 69 77 9,17

Red turpentine beetle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40

Ips engraver beetles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 10

Fir engraver 19 61 57 21 4,64 4,14 1,88 10 16 1,41 5,60 2,51 21,34

Unknown** 80 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 24 73 39 39 31

Totals 55 34 78 41 11,11 4,39 9,92 3,82 2,41 6,07 6,64 3,68 50,17

Number of estimated dead trees by causal agent and year

Causal Agent 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Totals

Unspecified or mixed bark 29 1 0 1,14 6,81 78 18,02 56 10 13,71 11 50 41,09

Jeffrey pine beetle 31 7 73 4 67 95 35 97 41 24 35 15 5,17

Mountain pine beetle 1,35 46 0 12 45 12 3,36 12,56 7,84 2,93 2,51 86 32,19

Red turpentine beetle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,75 0 0 1,75

Ips engraver beetles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 19 0 20 0 49

Fir engraver 32 70 1,18 41 6,75 5,03 3,73 58 12 3,85 12,09 3,86 37,85

Unknown** 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 10 0 0 23 25

Totals 1,72 1,17 1,91 1,69 14,28 6,18 25,50 14,16 8,51 22,49 15,09 5,61 118,37

*Unspecified or mixed bark beetles typically denotes mortality affecting true fir and one or more

**Unknown agents in the Tahoe Basin were attributed as either "aspen decline, aspen mortality or aspen defoliation," with the exception of 57

Table 3-39. Annual Aerial Tree Mortality Survey for the Years 2000 to 2011.

(USFS State & Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection).

3-248 Chapter 3 ▪ Forest Vegetation
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-39. Cumulative Mortality, trees per acre (TPA) across the LTBMU, 2000-2011

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-249
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Periodic disturbances, such as fire, drought, bark beetle outbreaks, flooding, wind, and other 

human caused disturbances, have occurred historically and more recently have been suppressed 

or mitigated to the extent possible. Stephens et al (2009) found when fires were preceded by 

drought that spatial heterogeneity was a key feature in forest resiliency. In a warming climate, 

disturbance events could become more dramatic and prolonged, resulting in management actions 

that might need to be taken after an event. Moving current forest conditions towards the presettlement conditions is part of an overall approach that will also include adaptive strategies 

based on what can be learned from climate change to refine the prescriptions needed to achieve 

desired conditions.

As of 2010, the proportions of the major forest types analyzed as currently within the historic 

ranges by seral stage only existed for white fir/mixed conifer. All of the other forest types were 

tremendously outside the historic ranges. In particular, Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer deviate 

the most from the reference, and red fir is shifting in composition to lodgepole pine (Taylor et al, 

2013). The current proportions within the early stage was mostly under-represented and the mid

and late seral stages over-represented. However, as the model grows the forest out beyond 20 

years, much of the mid seral stages reach a mean diameter that puts them into the late seral stage. 

This pushes most of the forest in the Lake Tahoe Basin to a precarious situation in which there is 

little early seral forest to replace the mid seral. The imbalance of structural classes indicates the 

need for forest management to begin creating additional early seral from a portion of the mid 

seral stage before it grows into late seral. 

The ability of the forest to self-maintain all seral stages only exists within the potential for 

periodic mortality-inducing disturbance events, e.g. bark beetle outbreaks and fire. To the extent 

that these can be controlled, management treatments will be necessary to restore forest 

conditions that are more resilient to these disturbances, drought and other climate-related 

changes. This is an objective in the current plan and will be even more important to achieve if 

the forests of Lake Tahoe are to become healthy (see the Glossary for a definition of Forest 

Health, Resilience and Resistance) and sustained for future generations.

Reference conditions for the major forest types in the Lake Tahoe Basin

In Table 3-40, Pre-settlement or Historic Reference Condition modeling for major Lake Tahoe 

Basin forest types were developed from non-linear forest stand dynamics (state and transition) 

modeling, using disturbance regimes from pre-Euro-American settlement period. Climate inputs 

were applied from 20th century information. The values derived cannot be reliably applied to 

landscape units less than about 10,000 acres in area (Safford and Schmidt 2007).

The reference percentages of area for the forest types analyzed come from the 1935 Vegetation 

Type Map (Wieslander) and the 2003 Lake Tahoe Basin Existing Vegetation Map, Version 4.1, 

updated for the 2007 Angora Fire.

The diameter ranges for seral stages represented in the reference table below are: 0 to 4.9 for 

early, 5.0 to 23.9 for mid, and 24 and larger for late seral stages.

For white fir, and the red fir types, an “open” canopy has less than 50 percent closure while a 

closed canopy has closure greater than 50 percent; for Jeffrey pine, the open-closed cutoff is 

40%. For detailed seral stage definitions, see Historic Reference Condition Mapping, Safford and 

Schmidt 2007, in the Plan Set of Documents.

Vegetation data to be updated as new information becomes available. 

3-250 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-40. Modeled Pre-Settlement Historical Reference Conditions

The desired ranges of stocking, density, snags and down wood are derived from a variety of

studies summarized in Table 3-40. (Collins, B.M., and S. L. Stephens. 2010; Fites, J. 1993; 

Harrod, R.J., et al. 1998; Minnich, R.A., et al. 2000; Potter, D.A. 1998; Safford, H. D., et al. 

2009; Stephens, S.L. 2004; Stephens, S.L., et al. 2008; Stephens, S.L., et al. 2007; Stephens, 

S.L., and Gill, S.J. 2005; Taylor, A.H., 2004; USDA Forest Service. 2001; Waddell, K.L. 2002). 

For the majority of forest stands at the mid- and late-seral stages of development, the range 

between median and mean are most representative of historic pre-settlement conditions. This 

range is also representative of project-specific modeling in stands where the aim is to alter fire 

behavior and reduce risk of bark beetle outbreak to levels that are resilient to these disturbances.

Vegetation 

Description

Approx. 

Percent 

of Area

1935

Approx.

Percent

of Area

2003

Average Percent of Vegetation Type

EarlySeral

MidSeral, 

Closed 

Canopy

MidSeral, 

Open 

Canopy

LateSeral, 

Open 

Canopy

LateSeral, 

Closed 

Canopy

White fir mixed 

conifer 10 21 10-20 5-15 10-15 30-40 20-30

Jeffrey pine 37 19 5-15 5-10 25-30 45-50 5-10

Red fir 15 18 10-20 20-30 5-15 15-25 25-35

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-251
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-41. Desired range of stocking (density) and basal area of live trees and number of snags and tons per acre of coarse woody 

debris on the forest floor

Forest 

Type

Stocking Basal area Snags Coarse Woody Debris

(stems) (feet2/acre) (>20" dbh/acre) (tons/ acre)

Low Median Mean High Low Median Mean High Low Median Mean High Low Median Mean High

White 

Fir/ 

Mixed 

Conifer

25 80 100 300 40 150 200 350 0 3 6 25 0 2 10 150

Jeffrey 

pine 15 60 70 200 30 80 100 250 0 1 3 15 0 1 6 100

Red 

Fir 25 80 100 300 50 250 350 700 2 4 7 25 0 10 20 150

Table 3-42 was developed using the 2003 USFS Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) inventory data broken into California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationship (CWHR) classes. There are more than 100 FIA plots in the Lake Tahoe Basin of which 10 percent are measured 

each year. The CWHR classes are further lumped into seral stage classes for purposes of analysis of forest structure in the model. 

Both classification systems are represented here as some resource inferences, e.g. wildlife habitat, uses CWHR and the vegetation and 

fire & fuels resources use the seral stages. 

The current conditions have been adjusted for changes since the time of the last inventory (2003), including wildfire (Angora 2007) 

and treatments recorded in the Forest ACtivities Tracking system (FACTS) under the current forest plan. These conditions are used as 

the starting point for all graphs.

3-252 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-42. Current Forest Conditions by California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Class and Seral Stage based on Forest Inventory

CWHR Classes

Seral 

Stage 

Classes

White Fir/ Mixed Conifer Jeffrey Pine Red Fir

CWHR 

Acres % Seral Acres % CWHR Acres % Seral Acres % CWHR Acres % Seral Acres %

H-1X SEEDLINGS Early 1667 4 1478 9 1553 7

H-2X SAPLINGS 0 0 1667 4 0 0 1478 9 0 0 1553 7

H-3M POLES MOD

MidClosed

1031 2 322 2 0 0

H-3D POLES DENSE 0 0 0 0 0 0

H-4M SM SAW MOD 6561 14 1676 10 2235 10

H-4D SM SAW DENSE 5856 13 13,448 29 1651 10 3,649 22 0 0 2,235 10

H-3S POLES SPARSE

Mid-Open

0 0 0 0 0 0

H-3P POLES POOR 0 0 108 1 10 0

H-4S SM SAW 

SPARSE 744 2 1252 8 242 1

H-4P SM SAW POOR 4312 9 5,056 11 1890 11 3,250 20 3106 14 3,358 15

H-5S LG SAW 

SPARSE LateOpen 4987 11 2484 15 3018 14

H-5P LG SAW POOR 7431 16 12,418 27 1679 10 4,163 25 848 4 3,866 17

H-5M LG SAW MOD LateClosed10337 22 2991 18 7903 36

H-5D LG SAW DENSE 0 0 171 1 0 0

H-6 MULTI-STORIED 3197 7 13,534 29 926 6 4,088 25 3265 15 11,168 50

Totals 46,123 100 46,123 100 16,628 100 16,628 100 22,180 100 22,180 100

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-253
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.11.3 Environmental Consequences 

Sustainability of the forest vegetation surrounding Lake Tahoe can be affected to differing levels 

by each alternative. Restoring and managing for forest health, increasing wildlife and plant 

habitat heterogeneity, and resiliency to drought, bark beetle outbreaks and wildfire are the 

primary objectives in the forest plan. Much of the forest structure that is targeted for treatment

falls within the mid-seral stage, which is trending towards the late-seral stage. In the coming two 

decades, most of this will move towards the late seral stages, leaving very little early-seral stage 

in the mix to replace it over time. Reductions in stand densities and moving some of the midseral stage stands to the early seral stage will be imperative to the sustainability of the forest 

overall.

Associated with the goal of managing for inherent sustainability of the forest are the fire and 

fuels, wildlife, botany, recreation, scenic, and watershed goals. These associated values can be 

viewed along with those of forest vegetation from an ecological or social point of view. Many 

social values have direct effects on whether the goals for ecological functions can be restored, 

maintained, or enhanced through management actions. Likewise, laws, regulation, policy and 

public input into project-specific planning play a vital role in determining the level of flexibility 

to manage for forest sustainability, ecological functions, or restoration.

The following graphs illustrate the modeled output of changes to the forest structure and 

composition of the three major forest types over 5 decades. In none of the forest types are the 

desired condition achieved over the 50 year time frame though white fir does make some 

progress towards it in Alternative C. There is an increase in the amount of Late Seral stages 

overall, but very little Early Seral created and in some instances further decreases. 

Although some progress is made towards reducing departures from historic conditions, there is 

an insufficient amount of treatments to restore forest structure over the course of 20 years of plan 

implementation. As achieving restoration goals are expected to take up to 100 years, the 

intention of this analysis is to determine whether the trends are towards reference conditions are 

positive. In implementing the revised forest plan, adaptive management may permit for greater 

flexibility for forest restoration. However, the model does not have the ability to predict such 

adaptive changes.

In the first 10 years of forest plan implementation, emphasis would be on completion of forest 

health and fuel reduction projects within the WUI and over the life of the plan restoration of 

forest health, structure and composition.

3-254 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The effects of each alternative in achieving forest vegetation desired conditions 

The following summaries and analyses reflect both overall forest trends and forest type-specific 

trends and departures from reference conditions for the three major forest types analyzed. Both 

treatments and disturbances (wildfire and bark beetle outbreaks) contribute to the changes in 

forest structure and net removals from the inventory.

Questions:

The principal question is whether the seral stages are moving towards the reference conditions, 

which would indicate a positive relationship between the alternative and restoration of forest 

structure.

The secondary question is whether the goals for the specific alternative are met.

Goals: 

Alternative A is based on the current forest plan (as amended) to promote Late Seral Closed 

Canopy habitat for species dependent on this habitat, including California Spotted Owls and 

Northern Goshawks. 

Alternatives B, C & E are to restore forest structure, while Alternative C allows for a higher level 

of acres treated per decade than in Alternatives B and E. 

Alternative D is to grow larger trees using more passive methods of treatment, primarily 

prescribed fire.

Percent changes in seral stages by alternative are categorized as: No change (0-10 percent 

change); an Increase or Decrease that is either Slight (11-20 percent change), Moderate (21-50 

percent change), or Substantial (>50 percent change).

Summary of Seral Stage changes across all forested types by alternative 

When all of the major forest type information is combined, we see general trends for the majority 

of forestland area in basin. Table 3-43 highlights the general trends over 5 decades for 

proportions of five seral stage classes. It is important to note that these modeled outputs reflect 

effects of proposed treatments towards achieving alternative-specific goals and that change is 

due both from treatments and disturbances (fire, bark beetles).

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-255
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-43. Summary of all forest type trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of 

five decades.

Seral 

Stage

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Early Moderate 

Decrease

Slight 

Decrease

No Change Slight 

Decrease

Slight 

Decrease

Mid closed Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Mid open Substantial 

Decrease

No Change Slight 

Increase

Moderate 

Decrease

No Change

Late open Moderate 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Late 

closed

Moderate 

Increase

No Change Slight 

Decrease

Slight 

Increase

No Change

Summary of Seral Stage changes for white fir/mixed conifer by alternative 

White fir is a shade-tolerant species that is found throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. However, it 

has become a major component of the mixed conifer forest type and together comprises the 

largest forest association in the Basin. Table 3-44 highlights the general trends over 5 decades 

for proportions of five seral stage classes. It is important to note that these modeled outputs 

reflect effects of proposed treatments towards achieving alternative-specific goals and that 

change is due both from treatments and disturbances (fire, bark beetles, etc.). 

Table 3-44. Summary of white fir/mixed conifer trend changes from current conditions over a 

prediction of five decades.

Seral 

Stage

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Early Substantial 

Decrease

Slight 

Decrease

Slight 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Slight 

Decrease

Mid 

closed

Substantial 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Mid open Substantial 

Decrease

No Change Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Decrease

No Change

Late open Moderate 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Slight 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Late 

closed

Moderate 

Increase

No Change No Change Moderate 

Increase

No Change

3-256 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Seral Stage changes for Jeffrey pine by alternative 

Jeffrey pine is a shade-intolerant species that is found throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Table3-45 highlights the general trends over 5 decades for proportions of five seral stage classes. 

It is important to note that these modeled outputs reflect effects of proposed treatments towards 

achieving alternative-specific goals and that change is due both from treatments and disturbances 

(fire, bark beetles, etc.). 

Table 3-45. Summary of Jeffrey pine trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of 

five decades.

Seral 

Stage

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Early Moderate 

Decrease

No Change No Change Slight 

Decrease

No Change

Mid closed Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Mid open Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Increase

Late open Moderate 

Increase

Slight 

Increase

Slight 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Slight 

Increase

Late closed Substantial 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Moderate 

Increase

Summary of Seral Stage changes for red fir by alternative 

Red fir is a shade-tolerant species that is found in the montane and upper montane reaches of the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. Table 3-46 highlights the general trends over 5 decades for proportions of 

five seral stage classes. It is important to note that these modeled outputs reflect effects of 

proposed treatments towards achieving alternative-specific goals and that change is due both 

from treatments and disturbances (fire, bark beetles, etc.). 

Table 3-46. Summary of Red fir trend changes from current conditions over a prediction of five 

decades.

Seral 

Stage

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Early Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Substantial 

Increase

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Mid 

closed

No 

Change

Substantial 

Increase

No 

Change

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Mid 

open

Substantial 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Late 

open

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Late 

closed

Slight 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Moderate 

Decrease

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-257
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

In each alternative there are four different types of graphs used to illustrate the changes over time 

(5 decades), including 1) seral stage trends for each forest type, 2) percent departure from desired 

conditions (based on reference conditions), 3) net growth and removals relative to the forest 

inventory, and 4) growth in number of large trees (greater than 30 inches diameter).Net Changes 

in the forest inventory due to growth and removalsThe total forest inventory in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin is approximately 4.2 million CCF (Hundreds of Cubic Feet) or 50.2 million MBF 

(Thousand Board Feet) of volume. In all alternatives the total inventory growths and the net 

growth exceeds the net removals over time. 

In decades when the net removals are high, this is due in large part to incidence of wildfire and 

not treatments. In addition, the first decade from the model outputs has been removed from the 

following charts as this decade is accounting for all inventory changes since the time of the last 

forest inventory and goes beyond a decade of disturbance and treatment.

Total Inventory and net growth in large (≥30 inches DBH) trees. 

There are no removals of trees greater than 30 inches DBH modeled. Changes in the amounts of 

additional trees over 5 decades vary by growth and removals of smaller trees.

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the no action alternative and provides a baseline for the effects analysis. If this 

alternative were selected, management would continue as described in the 1988 LTBMU Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended 

(Including 2004 SNFPA). There are diameter and canopy closure limits imposed with the goal 

to perpetuate a greater abundance of large trees and dense-canopy stands over the Sierra Nevada 

Range. There is allowance for the creation of openings up to 7 acres in size to establish early 

seral habitat. Although integrated pest management is an objective, this is mostly attained 

through thinning under the timber management objectives.

Forest Vegetation 

The current Forest Plan would retain tree diameter and stand canopy cover limits that would 

conflict to a greater extent over time with achieving desired forest structure and forest resiliency 

conditions. Although more large trees would emerge from the ranks of smaller diameter trees, 

the density at which they would grow would put them in a higher degree of vulnerability from 

fire, bark beetles, drought, and other effects of a changing climate. The unit would continue to 

conduct treatments within the WUI to reduce hazardous fuels over the first decade of the plan. 

Towards the end of the first decade and into the second decade of the plan, approximately 50 

acres per year of group selection harvests with reserves (scattering of trees or groups of trees) 

would occur in openings from 2 to 5 acres with some as large as 7 acres. 

Overall, the forest under this alternative increases both late seral open and closed while mid seral 

open and closed stages decline (see Figure 3-40). This change is likely due to a proportional 

amount of growth in the mid seral stages growing into the late seral stages. The effect of 

treatments may be minimal towards this change as the treatments prescribed for this alternative 

follow a thin from below prescription. In terms of restoring forest structure each forest type 

3-258 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

needs to be viewed relative to departure from reference conditions. However, this alternative 

overall appears to move more of the forestland towards late seral closed, which is the underlying 

goal.

Figure 3-40. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.

The white fir/mixed conifer type trends (see graphs below) mid closed and late open towards the 

reference conditions while the late closed and early move away. Overall, white fir/mixed conifer 

does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed, thus meeting the goal for this 

alternative. However, meeting the desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved 

over the 50 years modeled. 

The decrease in total acres in the white fir/mixed conifer type from type conversion to Jeffrey 

pine is less than 800 acres in 50 years.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-259
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-41. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.

Figure 3-42. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A.

The Jeffrey pine type trends (see graphs below) mid closed and late open towards the reference 

conditions while the late closed and early move away. Overall, Jeffrey pine does trend towards 

having more of both late seral open and closed, thus meeting the goal for this alternative. 

However, meeting the desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 

years modeled. 

3-260 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The increase in total acres in the Jeffrey type from type conversion from white fir/mixed conifer

is less than 1,000 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-43. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.

Figure 3-44. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A.

The red fir type trends (see graphs below) mid open and late open and closed towards the 

reference conditions while the mid open and early move away. Overall, red fir trends towards 

having more late seral open, but less late closed, which does not meet the goal for this 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-261
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

alternative. The desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 years 

modeled. 

Figure 3-45. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative A.

Figure 3-46. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative A.

The forest inventory grows from 4.2 million CCF to nearly 5.0 million CCF in 50 years. The 

graph below indicates that net growth far exceeds net removals. Other than a modeled incidence 

of wildfire in the second period, treatments over time account for a very small amount of change. 

3-262 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

This means that the current forest conditions are less likely to improve relative to forest health 

under this alternative over time. 

Figure 3-47. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative A.

In Figure 3-48, the alternative does show an increase of approximately 17 percent in the amount 

of large trees. The graph does not show that at some point in the future, this trend would likely 

decrease as growing space requirements become more and more challenging to trees of this size.

Figure 3-48. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

Alternative A.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-263
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

In light of historical recurrences of periodic droughts, proliferation of invasive species, and the 

uncertain effects of climate change, the continued dominance of “closed” (dense) stands will 

have drastic consequences. First, drought, when combined with high densities predictably 

results in bark beetle outbreaks as well as the potential for stand replacing wildfire (Negron et al, 

2009). Second, exotic invasive plant species (weeds) inhibit regeneration of native forest species 

by quickly occupying growing space following such stand replacing disturbances. Lastly, the 

effect of climate change could lead to an exacerbation of droughty conditions during the latter 

stages of the typical growing season, which could increase the level of inter-tree competition for 

water.

Associated Resources

Related to achieving forest vegetation goals in this plan are the following associated resource 

effects:

Wildlife 

Forest vegetation management would primarily be conducted in conjunction with wildlife habitat 

objectives. However, this alternative limits the diameter to which trees can be cut to 30 inches 

and canopy closure in a stand to no less than 40 percent closure. As a result, vegetation 

management results primarily in a continued densification in forest stands, although aging of the 

stands means that more stands will be dominated by large trees. As trees continue to grow in size 

and density, these limits will inhibit managers to enhance older stands of trees and would likely 

result in a more rapid decline in late seral or old growth stands. This effect would be most 

profound in habitat for species dependent on late seral or old growth conditions, e.g., spotted 

owls and goshawks. Thus, the following graphs that depict an increase in the number of large 

and very large trees are somewhat misleading as these numbers increase without any disturbance. 

 

Alternative B 

In this alternative, forest vegetation treatments are intended to aid in the restoration of forest 

structure and composition. There are exceptions to the diameter and canopy closure limits. 

However, cutting large trees or thinning to lower densities would be implemented where the 

objective is to enhance the promotion of mid seral to late seral, longevity of late seral stands, or 

the resiliency of any stand. These objectives involve standards and guidelines that are of a finer 

level of detail than can be modeled at this level. Although these objectives aim to improve 

overall forest health, they also target other resource improvements, e.g. wildlife habitat or scenic 

stability. There is allowance for the creation of openings within the mid seral stage of up to 10 

acres in size to establish early seral habitat. 

Overall, the forest under this alternative increases late seral open without changing late seral

closed. There is a moderate decrease in mid closed while mid seral open remains unchanged 

(see Figure 3-49). This change is likely due to a proportional amount of growth in the mid seral 

stages growing into the late seral stages. The effect of treatments may be minimal towards this 

change despite a prescription to move some mid seral to early seral through the use of group 

selection with reserves prescription. In terms of restoring forest structure each forest type needs 

to be viewed relative to departure from reference conditions. The goal for this alternative 

3-264 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

appears to make modest improvement in the restoration of forest structure. In addition more of 

the forestland moves toward late seral stages.

Figure 3-49. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B.

The white fir/mixed conifer type trends (see Figures 3-50 and 3-51) nearly all seral stages 

towards the reference conditions despite some small changes away from the reference. Overall, 

white fir/mixed conifer does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed. 

The decrease in total acres in the white fir/mixed conifer type from type conversion to Jeffrey 

pine is less than 1,400 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-50. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in 

Alternative B.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-265
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-51. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B.

The Jeffrey pine type trends (see Figures 3-52 and 3-53) nearly all seral stages towards the 

reference conditions though the late stages remain well outside reference conditions. Overall, 

Jeffrey pine does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed. However, 

meeting the desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 years 

modeled. 

The increase in total acres in the Jeffrey type from type conversion from white fir/mixed conifer

is less than 1,400 acres in 50 years.

3-266 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-52. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B.

Figure 3-53. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B.

The red fir type trends (see Figures 3-54 and 3-55) late closed towards the reference conditions 

while the other stages move away. Overall, red fir trends towards having more late seral open, 

but less late closed. This decrease in late closed appears to result from modeled disturbances and 

not due to the modeled treatments. The desired conditions for forest structure would not be 

achieved over the 50 years modeled. 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-267
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-54. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative B.

Figure 3-55. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative B.

The forest inventory grows from 4.2 million CCF to nearly 4.3 million CCF in 50 years. Figure 

3-56 indicates that net growth far exceeds net removals with the exception of the third decade in 

which modeled disturbance is likely why net removals exceeds the net growth. Treatments over 

time account for a greater amount of change than in alternative A. This means that the current 

forest conditions are somewhat likely to improve relative to forest health under this alternative 

over time. 

3-268 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-56. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative B.

In Figure 3-57, the alternative does show an increase of approximately 8 percent in the amount 

of large trees. The graph does not show that at some point in the future, this trend would likely 

decrease as growing space requirements become more and more challenging to trees of this size.

Figure 3-57. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

Alternative B.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-269
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Forest Vegetation 

In this alternative there is a greater positive response towards the desired conditions. In 

particular, there is near achievement in the desired condition for white fir. In Jeffrey pine the 

trend towards reference conditions is positive. Early seral remains largely unchanged, but 

somewhat close to reference conditions. Much of the mid closed changes to mid open. While 

some mid seral is returned to early mid-way through the analysis, much of those gains are lost to 

growth into the mid seral stage. Prior thinning to enhance the mid stage would likely result in an 

increase in late seral open. According to the literature related to historic conditions of forest 

structure, the late seral stage in the Lake Tahoe Basin would have been mostly comprised of 

open canopy Jeffrey pine stands (Taylor, 2004). 

Related to achieving forest vegetation goals in this plan are the following associated resource 

effects:

Wildlife

Although this alternative has the goal of restoring forest structure and composition, there is 

consideration of protected activity centers and home range core areas for spotted owls and 

Northern goshawks. Some restoration can occur in a small number of these areas, otherwise they 

are treated the same as in Alternative A. 

 

Alternative C 

This alternative is similar to alternative B with a greater number of treatment acres implemented 

per year. More acres would be treated using mechanized equipment if possible. All other factors 

are the same.

Overall, the forest under this alternative increases late seral open with a slight decrease in late 

seral closed. There is a moderate decrease in mid closed while mid seral open slightly increases 

(see figure 3-58). The change from mid to late is likely due to a proportional amount of growth 

in the mid seral stages growing into the late seral stages. The change from closed to open is 

likely due to thinning in the mid seral closed. The effect of treatments may be having a more 

noticeable effect in the mid seral stages, though there is virtually no change in early seral. In 

terms of restoring forest structure each forest type needs to be viewed relative to departure from 

reference conditions. The goal for this alternative appears to make modest improvement in the 

restoration of forest structure. In addition more of the forestland moves toward late seral stages.

3-270 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-58. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.

The white fir/mixed conifer type trends (see Figures 3-59 and 3-60) nearly all seral stages 

towards the reference conditions by the third decade and then by the fifth decade are nearly 

achieved except for early seral, which is trending away. Overall, white fir/mixed conifer does 

trend towards having more of late seral open. 

The decrease in total acres in the white fir/mixed conifer type from type conversion to Jeffrey 

pine is less than 1,500 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-59. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-271
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-60. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C.

The Jeffrey pine type trends (see Figures 3-61 and 3-62) nearly all seral stages towards the 

reference conditions except for the late closed stage, which move away from the reference. 

Overall, Jeffrey pine does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed. 

However, meeting the desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 

years modeled. 

The increase in total acres in the Jeffrey type from type conversion from white fir/mixed conifer

is less than 1,700 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-61. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.

3-272 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-62. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C.

The red fir type trends (see Figures 3-63 and 3-64) all stages except mid open towards the 

reference conditions. Overall, red fir trends towards having more late seral open, but less late 

closed. The desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 years 

modeled. 

Figure 3-63. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative C.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-273
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-64. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative C.

The forest inventory is reduced from 4.2 million CCF to nearly 3.8 million CCF in 50 years. 

Figure 3-65 indicates that net growth eventually exceeds net removals, however, net removals 

exceeds the net growth due to accelerated amount of treatment acres. Treatments over time 

account for a greater amount of change than in alternative A or B. This means that the current 

forest conditions are somewhat likely to improve relative to forest health under this alternative 

over time. 

Figure 3-65. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative C.

3-274 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

In Figure 3-66, the alternative does show an increase of approximately 2 percent in the amount 

of large trees. The graph does not show that at some point in the future, this trend would likely 

decrease as growing space requirements become more and more challenging to trees of this size.

Figure 3-66. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

Alternative C.

Forest Vegetation 

Of all of the alternatives, Alternative C makes the most progress toward desired conditions, in all 

three major forest types. At the end of 50 years all seral stages (including early) are much closer 

to their desired proportional representation on the landscape than they are today.

Alternative C was developed in part to demonstrate a quicker achievement of desired conditions, 

and the outcomes portrayed in the graphics above demonstrate its effectiveness. The total 

number of large trees remains similar across the 50 year simulations in this alternative, but their 

proportional representation goes up, since stands are thinning, and the mean diameter of large 

trees also rises, such that greater basal area is contained in larger trees at the end of the scenarios.

 

Alternative D 

In this alternative, the treatments are under similar limitations as in Alternative A, but include a 

lower tree cutting diameter limit of 12 inches DBH. There is more of an emphasis on using hand 

treatments and prescribed fire with less emphasis on the use of mechanized equipment to 

accomplish treatments. In addition, treatments in this alternative would focus primarily in the 

WUI defense zone, rather than in the entire WUI.

Overall, the forest under this alternative increases both late seral open and closed while mid seral 

open and closed stages decline (see Figure 3-67). This change is likely due to a proportional 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-275
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

amount of growth in the mid seral stages growing into the late seral stages. The effect of 

treatments may be minimal towards this change as the treatments prescribed for this alternative 

follow a thin from below prescription. In terms of restoring forest structure each forest type 

needs to be viewed relative to departure from reference conditions. In this alternative the overall 

increase in large trees appears small, perhaps due to the diameter limit on tree cutting, which 

would not cause treatments to result in increased quadratic mean diameter.

Figure 3-67. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D.

The white fir/mixed conifer type trends (see Figures 3-68 and 3-69) mid closed towards the 

reference conditions while the other stages all move away. Overall, white fir/mixed conifer does 

trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed, but does not grow substantially 

larger amount of large tree, thus would not meet the goal for this alternative. The desired 

conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 years modeled. 

The total acres in the white fir/mixed conifer type do not change in 50 years.

3-276 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-68. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D.

Figure 3-69. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D.

The Jeffrey pine type trends (see Figures 3-70 and 3-71) mid closed towards the reference 

conditions while the other stages all move away. Overall, Jeffrey pine does trend towards having 

more of both late seral open and closed. However, meeting the desired conditions for forest 

structure would not be achieved over the 50 years modeled. 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-277
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

The increase in total acres in the Jeffrey type is less than 1,200 acres in 50 years. Cannot explain 

for this increase since there is not change from type conversion in the white fir/mixed conifer 

type.

Figure 3-70. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D.

Figure 3-71. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D.

The red fir type trends (see Figures 3-72 and 3-73) mid open and late open and closed towards 

the reference conditions while the early moves away. Overall, red fir trends towards having 

more late seral open, but less late closed. The desired conditions for forest structure would not 

be achieved over the 50 years modeled. 

3-278 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-72. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative D.

Figure 3-73. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative D.

The forest inventory grows from 4.2 million CCF to nearly 4.9 million CCF in 50 years. Figure 

3-74 indicates that net growth far exceeds net removals. Treatments over time account for a 

negligible amount of change. This means that the current forest conditions are less likely to 

improve relative to forest health under this alternative over time. 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-279
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-74. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in Alternative D.

In Figure 3-75, the alternative does show an increase of approximately 15 percent in the amount 

of large trees. The graph does not show that at some point in the future, this trend would likely 

decrease as growing space requirements become more and more challenging to trees of this size. 

This increase in large trees trends towards meeting the goal of the alternative, but could be at 

greater risk of a future drop due to higher density levels.

Figure 3-75. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

Alternative D.

3-280 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Vegetation 

In this alternative, forest restoration would not be likely. Given the limit on diameter for tree 

cutting to smaller trees and the emphasis on hand and prescribed fire treatments, conditions for 

treatment could be far fewer than what was modeled. Reliance on prescribed fire for 

accomplishing treatments means that the certain conditions must be present, which cannot be 

relied upon with any consistency. The current densities in the mid and late seral stages would 

continue to increase, posing greater risk of mortality from fire, drought, and bark beetles. 

Without the ability to thin stands of trees where the diameters exceed 12 inches DBH (except 

through the use of prescribed fire and managed wildfire, which requires conditions that we 

cannot control so is difficult to implement), the health of the forest stands would steadily decline, 

because the a greater proportion of stands have mean diameters greater than 20 inches, which 

will continue to increase. The majority of forested acres appear to move towards late seral, 

however this is in the absence of disturbance, and future trends are predicted to include steadily 

greater inertia for fire due to increasing fuels, drier summers, and lower snowpack. From the 

annual aerial mortality surveys from 2000 to 2011, much of the bark beetle related mortality 

comes from larger trees in overstocked stands at high densities. This condition would pervade 

most if not all of the stands that develop under this alternative, tremendously increasing risk of 

mortality from wildfire and bark beetle outbreaks while lowering scenic stability.

Alternative E (Same as Alternative B) 

In this alternative, forest vegetation treatments are intended to aid in the restoration of forest 

structure and composition. There are exceptions to the diameter and canopy closure limits. 

However, cutting large trees or thinning to lower densities would be implemented where the 

objective is to enhance the promotion of mid seral to late seral, longevity of late seral stands, or 

the resiliency of any stand. These objectives involve standards and guidelines that are of a finer 

level of detail than can be modeled at this level. Although these objectives aim to improve 

overall forest health, they also target other resource improvements, e.g. wildlife habitat or scenic 

stability. There is allowance for the creation of openings within the mid seral stage of up to 10 

acres in size to establish early seral habitat. 

Overall, the forest under this alternative increases late seral open without changing late seral

closed. There is a moderate decrease in mid closed while mid seral open remains unchanged 

(see figure 3-76 below). This change is likely due to a proportional amount of growth in the mid 

seral stages growing into the late seral stages. The effect of treatments may be minimal towards 

this change despite a prescription to move some mid seral to early seral through the use of group 

selection with reserves prescription. In terms of restoring forest structure each forest type needs 

to be viewed relative to departure from reference conditions. This alternative appears to make 

modest improvement in the restoration of forest structure. In addition more of the forestland

moves toward late seral stages.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-281
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-76. All Forested trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.

The white fir/mixed conifer type trends (see Figures 3-77 and 3-78) nearly all seral stages 

towards the reference conditions despite some small changes away from the reference. Overall, 

white fir/mixed conifer does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed. 

The decrease in total acres in the white fir/mixed conifer type from type conversion to Jeffrey 

pine is less than 1,400 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-77. White fir-mixed conifer trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.

3-282 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-78. White fir-mixed conifer percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E.

The Jeffrey pine type trends (see Figures 3-79 and 3-80) nearly all seral stages towards the 

reference conditions though the late stages remain well outside reference conditions. Overall, 

Jeffrey pine does trend towards having more of both late seral open and closed. However, 

meeting the desired conditions for forest structure would not be achieved over the 50 years 

modeled. 

The increase in total acres in the Jeffrey type from type conversion from white fir/mixed conifer 

is less than 1,400 acres in 50 years.

Figure 3-79. Jeffrey pine trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-283
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-80. Jeffrey pine percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E.

The red fir type trends (see Figures 3-81 and 3-82) late closed towards the reference conditions 

while the other stages move away. Overall, red fir trends towards having more late seral open, 

but less late closed. This decrease in late closed appears to result from modeled disturbances and 

not due to the modeled treatments. The desired conditions for forest structure would not be 

achieved over the 50 years modeled. 

Figure 3-81. Red fir trends over time for each seral stage in Alternative E.

3-284 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-82. Red fir percent departure from desired conditions in Alternative E.

The forest inventory grows from 4.2 million CCF to nearly 4.3 million CCF in 50 years. Figure 

3-83 indicates that net growth far exceeds net removals with the exception of the third decade in 

which modeled disturbance is likely why net removals exceeds the net growth. Treatments over 

time account for a greater amount of change than in alternative A. This means that the current 

forest conditions are somewhat likely to improve relative to forest health under this alternative 

over time. 

Figure 3-83. Net growth and removals (in 100s of cubic feet of volume) in alternative E.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-285
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

In Figure 3-84, the alternative does show an increase of approximately 8 percent in the amount 

of large trees. The graph does not show that at some point in the future, this trend would likely 

decrease as growing space requirements become more and more challenging to trees of this size.

Figure 3-84. Inventory and growth of large trees greater than 30 inches in diameter in 

Alternative E.

Forest Vegetation 

In this alternative there is a greater positive response towards the desired conditions. In 

particular, there is near achievement in the desired condition for white fir. In Jeffrey pine the 

trend towards reference conditions is positive. Early seral remains largely unchanged, but 

somewhat close to reference conditions. Much of the mid closed changes to mid open. While 

some mid seral is returned to early mid-way through the analysis, much of those gains are lost to 

growth into the mid seral stage. Prior thinning to enhance the mid stage would likely result in an 

increase in late seral open. According to the literature related to historic conditions of forest 

structure, the late seral stage in the Lake Tahoe Basin would have been mostly comprised of 

open canopy Jeffrey pine stands (Taylor, 2004). 

Related to achieving forest vegetation goals in this plan are the following associated resource 

effects:

Wildlife

Although this alternative has the goal of restoring forest structure and composition, there is 

consideration of protected activity centers and home range core areas for spotted owls and 

Northern goshawks. Some restoration can occur in a small number of these areas, otherwise they 

are treated the same as in Alternative A. 

3-286 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.11.4 Analytical Conclusions

The relationships between people and the environment are highly complex. The forest, as long 

as it is green and abundant, is assumed to be healthy and beautiful. As well, it is considered safe. 

However, most people view their relationship with the forest over a very short time-span (their 

lifetime) rather than in the centuries over which a forest grows. Current conditions in the forests 

at Lake Tahoe were largely brought about by human interventions through large-scale logging, 

urban growth, and fire exclusion. Although many forest management activities create some 

adverse human effects, including smoke, a greater management intervention is needed to better 

assure that the forest within the Lake Tahoe Basin continues to provide both ecosystem and 

human benefits for generations to come. 

Sustaining a resilient forest at Lake Tahoe is principally a function of restoring and maintaining 

variation in forest structure of the major forest types (Graya and Azuma, 2005). The current 

status and projected trends in the departure of forest structure from pre-settlement conditions 

indicate resilience is likely to be low due to future climate warming and increasing propensity to 

fire and insect outbreak. Forest restoration is desperately needed, but such work will require 

significant effort. These efforts will not be without uncertainty: uncertainty about the effects of 

climate change on the forest and forest-modifying disturbances (drought, bark beetles, fire); 

uncertainty about the ability of different forest management techniques to increase forest 

resilience; and uncertainty about the social demands on the forest and social perspectives of 

forest health und resilience.

The forest vegetation modeled outcomes are useful to providing a measure of understanding 

when balancing the integration of other resource objectives and their associated constraints on 

the type, size and timing of management treatments. However, the model outcomes represent a 

coarse-scale approach that cannot approximate the fine level of detail that might be needed to 

better describe aspects of other resources. For example, the model includes some constraints for 

protected wildlife habitat areas, but does not consider more detailed characteristics that managers 

of this resource may need. 

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-287
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Alternative C would allow for the greatest progress towards restoring forest structure and 

composition over the life of the plan. Tree removal would be greatest in this alternative by 

treating more acres than the other alternatives using group selections with reserves, which could 

furnish a greater amount of early-seral habitat. However, the model indicates that greater 

amount of thinning may spur on greater growth, thus limiting the duration of the early seral 

stage. Thinning would also promote growth in the mid seral stands and while enhancing or 

prolonging the existing and future late seral habitat. 

Alternatives A, B or E would make slower progress toward meeting desired conditions, but 

Alternative D would make the least progress.

Table 3-47. Relative Comparison of the Positive Effects of Each Alternative to Achieving 

Desired Conditions.

Indicator Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Forest 

Structure

LowModerateModerate ModerateHighLow Moderate

Forest 

Composition

Moderate Moderate High Low Moderate

Forest 

Resilience

LowModerateModerate High Low Moderate

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Alternative A 

This alternative would maintain treatment effectiveness within the WUI in the short-term, but 

eventually, increasing diameters and canopy closures would limit successive thinnings as the 

forest stands progress towards late seral. In the long-term, this limitation would hinder continued 

progress towards achieving and maintaining the desired condition throughout the Montane and 

Upper Montane zones.

Alternative B 

This alternative would not be restricted by the same standards described in Alternative A. 

Progress would follow the same pace and extent as Alternative A, resulting in only achieving the 

long-term desired conditions of restoring forest structure and composition with the short-term 

consequences of fire and beetle risks.

3-288 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative C 

This alternative would not be restricted by the same standards described in Alternative A. Twice 

the rate of progress as Alternative B would result in achieving the desired condition and 

maintaining existing treatment areas that would lower fire and beetle risks.

Alternative D 

This alternative would not achieve the desired conditions. Maintenance of WUI treatments in 

the defense zone would be achieved, but falls short of restoring forest structure.

Alternative E 

This alternative would not be restricted by the same standards described in Alternative A. 

Progress would follow the same pace and extent as Alternative A, resulting in only achieving the 

long-term desired conditions of restoring forest structure and composition with the short-term 

consequences of fire and beetle risks.

In summary, Alternative C puts in motion the treatments necessary for achieving the desired 

conditions more fully and in less time than Alternative A, B, D or E. Although no alternative 

meets the desired conditions within the life of the plan, alternative C establishes a pathway 

towards meeting the historic ranges of forest structure, composition and resilience. Based on 

indications of the direction climate change is taking, these historic ranges will likely be a 

milestone on the way to conditions with lower densities and larger portions of pine versus fir.

Chapter 3 | Forest Vegetation ■ 3-289
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.12 Interpretation and Education, Partnerships and 

Volunteers

3.4.12.1 Introduction

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on Interpretation 

and Education: Partnerships and Volunteers services that may result with the adoption of a 

revised land management plan. 

Methodology

No modeling was used for this analysis. It is a qualitative analysis. 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• Taylor Creek Visitor Center continues to be managed as the major visitor information, 

conservation education, and interpretive facility for the Forest Service at Lake Tahoe. 

Future plans include replacement of the existing Visitor Center with a new structure 

designed to meet program needs as described in the 2010 Decision Notice and 

Environmental Assessment. 

• The Tallac Historic Site will continue to be managed as a Special Interest Area as 

described in the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan.

• Continue partnerships to leverage support and funding with Tahoe Heritage Foundation, 

Great Basin Institute, California Tahoe Conservancy, and others for interpretive and 

educational programs, facility maintenance/renovation/upgrades, etc.

• Partner with Nevada Department of Transportation on an East Shore Drive National 

Scenic Byway interpretive signage program.

• Form partnerships to nominate CA State Route 89 - West Shore Drive - as a National 

Scenic Byway.

• The expansion of conservation education programs to meet current conditions and trends 

will continue in the future. Partial funding for these educational programs is budgeted 

into future projects as a measure to increase project effectiveness. 

3-290 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.12.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Interpretation and Education

Interpretation and education on the LTBMU are provided through interpretive programs, 

conservation education and visitor services. The goal of the interpretation and education 

program of work is to educate visitors and the local community about public lands, natural and 

cultural resource management, recreation opportunities, and stewardship principles. 

Providing a coordinated system of interpretive facilities and programs is an important way to 

help residents and visitors understand the connection between their behavior and the 

sustainability of Lake Tahoe’s natural setting. Coordinated efforts include public-private 

partnerships, community outreach, and school programs. 

The Taylor Creek Visitor Center and the Tallac Historic Site are the major public points of 

contact, providing guided and self-guided activities, educational programs, and living history 

throughout the summer months. Two interagency partnership facilities are located at Meyers 

Interagency Visitor Center and Explore Tahoe Visitor Center. Self-guided interpretive sites 

include Inspiration Point Overlook, Stateline Lookout Overlook, Logan Shoals Vista, and Lam 

Watah interpretive trail. 

Interpretive Services staff strives to inspire visitors so that they can continue to learn about their 

natural and cultural resources and how to take care of them. Interpretive products include 

wayside exhibits, interpretive signage, self-guided trails, brochures, and programs.

The Conservation Education serves K-12 students in formal education programs in both the 

classroom and at forest sites. Conservation Education works with numerous state, federal and 

local agencies, non-government organizations and community volunteers to deliver programs. 

For high-school age students, students become actively engaged in community and forest 

projects through the Generation Green club and/or through a youth employment program in the 

summer. 

Visitor Services staff are often the first Forest Service contact for the visiting public at forest 

offices and visitor centers. Visitor Services staff provide information on recreation 

opportunities, appropriate behavior, special events and attractions. Visitor service products 

include maps, and recreation opportunity guides. Sales of interpretive publications and maps are 

provided by the Tahoe Heritage Foundation.

The strategy for implementation of this program includes the continued use of partnerships, 

volunteers, grants, and community support. Delivery of this program fluctuates with annual 

Forest Service base program budgets where reduced budgets may lead to reduction in facility 

operating hours and/or overall program delivery. Increased budgets may result in expansion of 

program facility operations and increased program delivery. Portions of the program are 

budgeted into future projects as a measure to increase project effectiveness. 

Chapter 3 | Interpretation and Education, Partnerships and Volunteers ■ 3-291
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Forest Service employee Joy Barney is assisted demonstrating how trees absorb 

nutrients to a 5th grade class. Forest Service Conservation Education programs 

utilize nationally recognized curriculum and activity guides to educate local 

students outdoors and inside Lake Tahoe community classrooms.

Partnerships and Volunteers

The LTBMU relies on its dedicated partners and volunteers to successfully manage the NFS 

lands and to attain stewardship goals. Current partnerships with other entities help reduce 

hazardous fuel, build trails, restore history sites, provide interpretive programs, restore habitats, 

remove invasive plant, and take part in many other management activities 

Partnerships include the Tahoe Heritage Foundation, Great Basin Institute, Lake Tahoe Unified 

School District, Nevada Air National Guard, RV and local volunteers, college interns, and 

numerous others.

3-292 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service employee Jose Gomez recognizes youth for 

successfully completing the Jr. Forest Ranger program. 

By offering interpretive programs to visitors, the LTBMU strives to 

better connect people to their public lands.

3.4.12.3 Environmental Consequences 

Interpretation and Education

The overall program capacity and delivery fluctuates with annual budgets. The program will 

interpret direction and emphasis reflected in the final Forest Plan, regardless of alternative 

selection. 

Partnerships and Volunteers

The overall program capacity and delivery fluctuates with annual budgets. The program will 

interpret direction and emphasis reflected in the final Forest Plan, regardless of alternative 

selection. 

3.4.12.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Interpretation and Education 

Consequences would be the same for all alternatives. There are no programmatic differences 

between the alternatives.

Chapter 3 | Interpretation and Education, Partnerships and Volunteers ■ 3-293
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Partnerships and Volunteers 

Consequences would be the same for all alternatives. There are no programmatic differences 

between the alternatives.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Interpretation and Education 

There would be no difference between the alternatives in how desired conditions are maintained 

or achieved.

Partnerships and Volunteers 

There would be no difference between the alternatives in how desired conditions are maintained 

or achieved. 

3-294 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.13 Lands Program 

3.14.13.1 Introduction

There are four program areas within the lands program. The three primary program areas are the 

Land Acquisition and Adjustment Program, the Land Boundary and Title Program, and the 

Lands Special Uses Program. The fourth program area is the Land Withdrawal Program. This 

section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the four lands 

program areas that may result from the adoption of Alternatives A, B, C, D or E.

Methodology 

No statistical or analytical models were utilized. Acreage estimates are from current GIS data. 

Projections for lands activities are based on the historic trends since the 1988 plan and current 

needs and demands. 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• The current urban areas within the Lake Tahoe Basin will not undergo any large scale 

expansion. New private residential and commercial development will be within the 

existing urban and developed areas.

• Major transportation and utility corridors will not be designated in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

• The Lake Tahoe Basin is not suitable for large scale energy development projects.

• Most of the land suitable for acquisition by the Forest Service has already been acquired. 

• Acquisitions of environmentally sensitive lands will continue under the analysis and 

recommendations of the Land Acquisition Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final EIS, 

January 1982, as amended, but the purchase program for small urban subdivision lots is 

basically completed. 

3.4.13.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Land Acquisition and Adjustment Program

The primary focus of the land adjustment program in the Lake Tahoe Basin has been the 

acquisition of private lands to increase public ownership, protect important resource values, 

make the lands available for public use and recreation, and to prevent the development of 

environmentally sensitive lands. The overall goal is to protect the water quality and public use at 

Lake Tahoe. 

Land acquisition by the Forest Service and state and local governments has been a predominant 

factor in arriving at the current management status in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Around the turn of 

the 19th century when the three National Forests that included the Lake Tahoe Basin were 

created, parts of which now comprise the LTBMU, there were only about 30,000 acres 

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-295
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

remaining in federal ownership. Nearly all the rest of the Lake Tahoe Basin had been transferred 

to private ownership by the public land laws and railroad grants. Today there are approximately 

154,000 acres under National Forest ownership within the LTBMU. Within the Lake Tahoe 

hydrologic basin, about 78% of the land is under National Forest ownership. Total public 

ownership, including state and local government ownership within the Lake Tahoe Basin is near 

88%. This exceeds the goals for National Forest and public ownership in the 1988 plan of 75%, 

and 85%, respectively.

In general, land acquisition by the Forest Service may occur by purchase, exchange, or donation. 

Purchases are primarily funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund as appropriated by 

Congress. Land exchanges require an equal exchange of values, in land or cash, and must result 

in a net public benefit. Donation must meet acceptable public land management purposes. 

On the LTBMU there are three other funding sources for land purchases. The Santini/Burton 

Act passed in 1980 authorizes the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands anywhere in the 

Basin to protect them from development and preserve water quality. The emphasis is on 

acquiring small urban subdivision lots, although there is no restriction on the size of parcels that 

could be purchased. The Act was funded by the sale of BLM public lands in a designated area 

near Las Vegas, with annual appropriations from Congress to the LTBMU for purchases under 

the Act. In addition, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), passed in 

1988, authorized the sale of public land in a much broader area around Las Vegas, with some of 

the proceeds to be used for land purchases in Nevada. Land purchases were funded on a 

competitive basis. SNPLMA also directed that land sales under the Act in the original 

Santini/Burton disposal area were to be set aside in a separate account for land acquisitions under 

the Santini/Burton Act at Lake Tahoe. These funds, referred to as SNPLMA-S/B, funds could be 

used in both states.

Prior to 1965, the primary means of federal land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe Basin was by land 

exchange. After 1965, the emphasis changed to purchases using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. After 1981, Santini/Burton funding became the primary means of purchasing 

land and the type of land to acquire switched to small urban lots, although larger parcels were 

still acquired. By 2000, about 3,500 urban lots had been acquired. In addition, both California 

and Nevada passed public bond acts to fund the purchase of additional small lots by each state. 

Between the two states, another 5,000 lots (approx.) were acquired. After 2000, the LTBMU 

started shifting the priority for land purchases to larger lots that blocked up ownership or had 

high resource values or improved public access. During the last 15 years, major land 

acquisitions by the LTBMU have included the Zephyr Cove/Dreyfus and Thunderbird Lodge 

lake front properties (BLM land exchanges), High Meadows, the headwaters of Cold Creek at

1,790 acres, Madden Creek north of Homewood Ski area at 284 acres, Quail Lake south of the 

Homewood Ski Area at 205 acres (all with SNPLMA/S-B funding) and Incline Lake at 753 acres 

(SNPLMA funding).

The LTBMU currently has an active land acquisition program, but at a much lower level of 

activity than at the height of the Santini/Burton small lot purchase program, when hundreds of 

purchases were completed in a single year. The LTBMU receives about 12 to 18 inquiries each 

year from potential sellers. The LTBMU does not actively seek out properties for purchase, but 

is still very successful in adding many of the key remaining parcels to the purchase program. 

3-296 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

This is a result of landowners being motivated to protect their properties from development. 

LTBMU staff screen potential purchases and conduct early negotiations. Suitable purchases are 

submitted to the Regional Land Adjustment Team for processing, as the LTBMU no longer has 

the authority from the Regional Office to process their own purchases. Primary funding is from 

the Santini/Burton SNPLMA fund, which also pays for case processing. At present, there is 

adequate funding for all properties in the current land purchase program.

The outlook for the land acquisition program on the LTBMU is that the number of suitable land 

purchase opportunities will steadily diminish. There are still properties that are suitable for 

National Forest acquisition, but most of the suitable properties have already been acquired by the 

LTBMU and state and local governments. The emphasis will be to acquire larger parcels, two 

acres or larger, that have important resource values such as recreational opportunities, watershed 

protection or wildlife values or improved public access, and to protect environmentally sensitive 

lands from development in accordance with the Santini/Burton Act. Another emphasis will be to 

acquire lands that improve management efficiency, such as inholdings or parcels that block up 

ownership or provide better access opportunities for management and project activities. 

The purchase of large numbers of small urban lots under the Santini/Burton Act as directed 

under the 1982 Land Acquisition Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final EIS and the 1988 Forest 

Plan is essentially completed and is no longer a program emphasis. With the exception of Placer 

County, the LTBMU will no longer purchase small lots that do not meet the criteria stated above. 

Essentially, the TRPA environmental thresholds for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive 

lands that are now protected from development have been met in El Dorado, Douglas and 

Washoe Counties. As a result, all lots with a TRPA Individual Parcel Evaluation Score (IPES) 

of 1 or higher can be considered as buildable in these three counties. A score of 0 is a lot in a 

Stream Environment Zone and is not considered buildable. The LTBMU policy as set out in an 

amendment to the 1982 EIS was to not purchase small lots with a buildable IPES score. 

Therefore, the only small lots in these 3 counties that qualify for purchase by the Forest Service 

are already protected from development. In Placer County, the buildable IPES score is still set at 

the original level of 725, so all lots with a lower IPES score still qualify for purchase by the 

LTBMU under the Santini/Burton Act. In Washoe County there is another factor that eliminates 

most small lots from consideration for purchase. In the late 1990s, the Office of General 

Counsel, which approves the title for all FS land acquisition, determined that the LTBMU could 

no longer purchase lots in Incline Village that were subject to the Covenants, Conditions, and 

Restrictions of the Incline Village General Improvement District, as they created conditions of 

title unacceptable to the U.S.

Therefore, emphasis on the purchase of small lots is greatly reduced. The LTBMU will consider 

the purchase or donation of IPES lots in El Dorado and Douglas Counties that improve 

management by improving overall land ownership patterns. In addition, the LTBMU will 

continue to purchase qualifying small lots from willing sellers in Placer County, as long as 

Santini/Burton funding is available, although there have been very few interested land owners in 

the last ten years.

In addition to the acquisition of lands, the land adjustment program includes the disposal of NFS 

lands in limited circumstances for specific purposes. The primary method for disposing of NFS 

lands is through land exchanges. In order to dispose of these lands in a land exchange, specific 

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-297
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

findings that the lands are suitable and have been identified for disposal are required, usually at 

the Forest Plan decision level. Reasons for disposal may include that the lands are no longer 

suitable for National Forest management. In addition there must be an overall improvement in 

public benefits from the exchange. Several small land exchanges were completed on the 

LTBMU in the 1990s.

In general, NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin have important natural resource and public 

recreation values, and most lands were acquired for specific public purposes and benefits. Other 

than small urban lots, NFS lands on the LTBMU should be retained in public ownership; no NFS 

lands are identified as suitable for disposal.

Another way NFS lands can be transferred to local, state or private ownership is through federal 

legislation. One nine-acre parcel on the LTBMU was transferred to Washoe County for the 

Incline Village Elementary School. More recently, another 22-acre parcel at Skunk Harbor was 

transferred to the Dept. of Interior to be held in trust for use by the Washoe Tribe. 

In addition, on the LTBMU, the Forest Service has a special authority in the Santini/Burton Act 

for the transfer of lands acquired under the Santini/Burton Act to state or local governments as 

set forth in Sec. 3(a)(4)(b):

“Lands acquired under the Burton Santini Act shall be administered as a part of 

the United States National Forest System; except that the Secretary of 

Agriculture, acting through the chief of the Forest Service, may, in the case of 

lands which are unsuitable for Forest Service Administration, transfer such lands 

or interests therein to an appropriate unit of State or local government with 

appropriate deed restriction to protect the environmental quality and public 

recreational uses of the lands concerned.”

This authority was used to transfer urban lots to Washoe, Douglas and El Dorado Counties and 

the City of South Lake Tahoe as part of the Erosion Control Grants Program. Under the 

Santini/Burton Act, the use of urban lots for erosion control projects was suitable and the 

construction of erosion control structures was authorized on more than 300 lots. The following 

criteria were developed to determine when lots under permit for erosion control project should be 

transferred to the responsible party:

The criteria used by the LTBMU to determine whether lands were currently unsuitable for 

Forest Service administration in these situations were:

1) A permanent urban storm water treatment structure or improvement was installed 

that requires long term maintenance, and,

2) The area of encumbrance was 25% or greater than the total size of the parcel, and

3) The parcel did not have resource or management values that required retention. 

During the late 1990s, 115 parcels were transferred under this program. Each deed for these 

transfers included extensive and specific deed restrictions to protect the parcels from other forms 

of development and to preserve public access and recreation values. There have been no 

additional transfers since that time period. There is not a specific monitoring program to ensure 

the compliance with deed restrictions. 

3-298 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

On December 15, 2000, the USDA Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on the 

LTBMU Land Acquisition and Urban Lot Management Programs under the Santini/Burton Act 

(Report No: 08003-5-SF). The report directed the LTBMU to work with the State Governments 

to find opportunities to consolidate ownership of urban lots between the agencies to improve 

ownership and management efficiencies. The LTBMU has had discussions with both Nevada 

State Lands and the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) to identify opportunities for land 

adjustments to meet this recommendation. The LTBMU is currently in active discussions with 

CTC to develop broad scale land adjustments to improve each agency’s land ownership and 

management. Since both of these state agencies are land management agencies with similar 

management objectives for their land in the Lake Tahoe Basin, land adjustments with them offer 

the best opportunity to improve overall management and present the least concern for future 

monitoring of the deed restrictions on parcels transferred to them. 

Land ownership adjustments with CTC and Nevada State Lands are the preferred means of 

improving overall ownership and management efficiency at Lake Tahoe. The primary constraint 

is the need for adequate funding and staffing to process the land adjustments.

Lands Special Uses Program

Lands (or non-recreation) special use authorizations allow occupancy, use, or rights and 

privileges on NFS lands for federal, state and local agencies, private industry, and private 

individuals. Special use authorizations may include permits, leases, or easements. Uses that can 

be authorized include public or private roads, utilities including electric, gas, cable TV, fiber 

optic, water and sewer facilities, communication sites and facilities, water quality and erosion 

control structures, research projects, monitoring facilities, filming, photography, and commercial 

education activities. The program screens proposals for use of NFS lands to determine if the 

proposed use needs to be located on NFS lands and is a suitable use, and issues permits or leases 

authorizing the occupancy of NFS lands including terms and conditions to protect resource 

values and other Forest users. Once a use is authorized, the program monitors the use for 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, collects fair market rental, unless rental 

is waived, and ensures that the use is terminated and the land restored when the use is no longer 

needed. 

The LTBMU has an active and growing Lands special uses program. As of December, 2011, the 

LTBMU administered 170 permits and leases as shown in Table 3-48.

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-299
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-48. Special Use Permits issued by the LTBMU, as of 12/9/2011

Issued Permits 170

Utilities Gas 1

Electric 2

Water 36

Sewer 10

Telephone 3

TV 1

Roads 46

Communication Sites Broadcast 3

Non-broadcast 5

Other 1

Erosion Control 30

Research Study 7

Other 26

Expired Permits 41*

* Older (long-term) permits with 

no expiration date: 31 (Mostly roads and utilities.) 

There is a backlog of expired permits. Most are still in use, and in accordance with the special 

uses handbook and policy, are still considered as active authorizations with annual rental 

collected when appropriate. The total area of NFS lands under permit for Lands uses is 841 

acres.

Once a use is authorized, it is monitored on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the terms 

of the permit and to ensure that no resource damage is occurring. In addition, there is an 

increasing emphasis on monitoring the use of Forest Service system roads and other roads for 

maintenance and repair activities to ensure that permittees are not damaging the roads and are 

3-300 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

performing their share of road maintenance. The many miles of powerlines crossing NFS lands 

require regular maintenance to remove hazard trees and maintain required line vegetation 

clearances. The work planned for each year is submitted in annual maintenance operating plans 

and reviewed and approved by the LTBMU. Hazard tree removal must be approved in a timely 

manner to ensure the integrity of electrical service and minimize fire potential.

In addition to the Lands uses under permit, there are numerous pre-existing third party rights 

located on NFS lands on the LTBMU. These are primarily in the form of easements for roads 

and utilities. Since most of the NFS lands in the LTBMU have been acquired (as opposed to 

established as public domain lands), there were often pre-existing utility and road easements in 

place when the lands were acquired by the Forest Service, and title was acquired subject to these 

easements. These easements are essentially private property rights across NFS lands, and do add 

to the complexity of managing NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Although the Forest Service cannot interfere with these private rights, the Forest Service is still 

the underlying land owner. Repairs, construction and tree removal activities on these easements 

need to be coordinated with the LTBMU. In addition, where existing facilities and roads are 

causing resource damage or erosion to adjacent NFS lands, the Forest Service can require 

corrective actions, including the installation of BMPs. Also, a good number of these easements 

do not have adequate access for the vehicles needed to maintain and repair the facilities, and the 

owners need to utilize Forest Service System roads to manage their easement. 

In the past, these third party easements often were not addressed, and third party rights to FS 

System roads were often not known by the FS. Currently, whenever a permit for utilities across 

NFS lands is amended or re-issued, a primary objective is to also identify all related facilities of 

the applicant that are located on NFS lands, and to identify all roads that need to be used to 

maintain the facilities. Although no authorization is needed for the easements, this effort allows 

the LTBMU to monitor use of the easements, manage use of system roads and prevent 

unnecessary resource damage. These easements also present a large additional workload for the 

Lands special uses program. 

The demand for lands use authorizations on the LTBMU appears to be increasing. Ten to fifteen 

proposals are submitted each year. The proposals are primarily for utility system upgrades, new 

cellular, wireless and other communication sites, erosion control structures funded by the erosion 

control grant program, new bicycle and recreation trails, and new permits to replace expired 

permits. This trend is likely to continue, especially for upgraded water systems to improve fire 

protection and for new and updated wireless communication facilities. 

Allowing the use of NFS lands for renewable energy development is a high priority for the 

Forest Service. However, the Lake Tahoe Basin is a specially designated management area 

where water quality, scenic and recreational resources are the highest priority. Therefore, the 

Lake Tahoe Basin is not suitable for large scale energy development. On the other hand, 

opportunities for small scale, site specific solar, wind, and geothermal projects that are 

compatible with visual resource and water quality objectives should still be encouraged. 

There are no major utility transmission corridors designated through the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Additionally, major efforts to identify new utility corridors throughout the western states to 

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-301
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

facilitate renewable energy development over the last 10 years have not identified the need for a 

corridor through the Lake Tahoe Basin. To preserve the scenic and recreational values at Lake 

Tahoe, and in consideration of the topographical constraints in the Basin, no major utility 

corridors should be identified or designated through the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Future requests for Lands authorizations on the LTBMU will continue to be evaluated on a case 

by case basis. The primary criteria will continue to be that the use of NFS land is necessary, the 

proposed use is a suitable and appropriate use of NFS lands, and the proposed use can be 

compatible with other existing uses and resource management objectives.

Land Boundary and Title Program

The boundary and title program involves the survey, retracement and signing of the property 

boundaries between NFS lands and adjacent private, state, local government and other federal 

lands, the maintenance of land ownership, status and title records, and the identification and 

resolution of unauthorized uses of NFS lands (encroachments) and title claims on NFS lands. 

Timely location and signing of NFS boundaries is necessary for a variety of reasons. Boundaries 

need to be located and clearly signed before the design and implementation of forest projects 

such as fuels reduction and forest health projects, ecosystem restorations projects, and special 

use authorizations to ensure that Forest Service activities do not intrude onto nonfederal land. 

Locating boundaries is necessary to identify encroachments and clearly signed boundaries are 

necessary to prevent additional encroachments. In addition, marking and signing boundaries 

identifies and locates NFS lands for public use and enjoyment.

The demand for timely location and signing of NFS land boundaries on the LTBMU in support 

of forest project work and encroachment identification is greatly increased by the large areas of 

urban interface, especially the 3,500 urban subdivision lots. Also, boundary signs and even 

survey monuments tend to be lost at a higher than normal rate in these areas. 

There are approximately 400 miles of NFS boundary that need to be maintained on the LTBMU. 

There is about another 100 miles of boundary that does not need to be maintained between 

adjacent National Forests and water bodies. The boundary program has been very active over 

the last ten years due to the large number of forest projects that have been designed and 

implemented, especially the fuels treatments of the urban lots. Over the last ten years, 376.5 

miles of boundary have been located and signed. This includes boundaries that have been 

retraced more than once due to delays in project implementation. The boundary program is 

funded almost entirely by the forest management programs needing boundary work for their 

projects. 

The priorities for boundary management are 1) support the LTBMU’s project needs, 2) identify, 

resolve, and prevent encroachments, and 3) identify NFS lands for public recreational use. 

The title program is also very active on the LTBMU. This is driven by the same factors as the 

boundary program, the ownership of numerous small subdivision lots and the many miles of 

general forest boundary adjacent to residential development. Encroachments on NFS lands 

range from wood piles and vehicle parking to landscaping, volleyball courts, horseshoe pits, 

bicycle obstacle courses, driveways, decks, and portions of garages and houses. These 

3-302 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

unauthorized uses can cause serious resource damage and must be removed before FS project 

work can proceed to eliminate liability and safety concerns. 

Since 2007, 260 encroachments have been resolved with 88 cases resolved just in 2010 and 

2011. There is a known backlog of 68 cases, with the potential for a much larger backlog that 

has been reported but not confirmed. Most of the encroachments are located on urban lots and 

identification and resolution are funded by the urban lots program. Encroachments on general 

forest lands are funded by Lands appropriated funding. 

The priorities for resolving encroachments are 1) clearing lands of encroachments for forest 

project work, 2) stopping encroachments that are causing resource damage, especially soil 

disturbance and water quality and erosion problems and restoring the damage, and 3) 

encroachments involving major improvements such as driveways, deck and buildings.

In addition to encroachments, there is a backlog of between 20 and 40 title cases on the LTBMU. 

These involve unauthorized improvements on NFS lands where the owner of the improvements 

can make a title claim against the FS for the improvements. These claims on the LTBMU nearly 

all result from the improvements having been in place when the land was acquired by the Forest 

Service and the improvements were not identified and properly removed before the Forest 

Service accepted title to the land. With Regional Office approval, these title cases are resolved 

through boundary line adjustments that give the owners clear title to their improvements. 

In the future, the level of activity in the boundary and title programs will be determined by the 

level of forest management project work on the LTBMU, since that is the primary funding 

source.

Land Withdrawals

A withdrawal closes public lands or NFS lands to entry under the general land laws, including 

the mining laws. The general land laws included entry and appropriation of public lands for 

homesteading, stock raising homesteads, desert land entries, and the filing of mining claims 

under the mining laws. Most forms of entry have been repealed, but the general mining laws are 

still in effect. National Forest System lands within the LTBMU that are not withdrawn are open 

to entry under the general mining laws. 

Withdrawals are made to protect wilderness areas, areas with special resource or cultural values, 

lands for water and hydroelectric projects, and developed recreation and administrative facilities. 

On the LTBMU a total of 31,816 acres are in withdrawals. Of these lands, 23,886 acres are 

under statutory withdrawal for designated wilderness areas. Most of these acres are for the 

Desolation Wilderness, but portions of the Granite Chief and Mt. Rose wildernesses are 

included. The remaining 7, 930 acres of withdrawals are administrative withdrawals for 

developed recreation sites, administrative sites and water project withdrawals. The statutory 

withdrawals for wilderness areas are part of wilderness designation and can only be changed by 

legislation. The administrative withdrawals can be continued as long as the purpose for the 

withdrawal continues or they can be terminated, opening the areas to entry under the mining 

laws. 

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-303
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

As long as the lands under administrative withdrawals are still being used for the purpose of the 

withdrawals, the withdrawals should be continued to protect the lands from the filing of mining 

claims.

Since there is only very limited potential for locatable minerals in the LTBMU and very few 

active mining claims, there is no specific need currently identified to pursue additional 

withdrawals on the LTBMU. If additional areas needed for administrative sites, developed 

public recreation areas, special interest areas, wetlands or preservation of cultural resources are 

identified that need additional protection from entry under the General Mining Laws, the Forest 

Service may pursue withdrawal of those areas.

3.4.13.3 Environmental Consequences 

Land Acquisition and Land Adjustment Program

The objective of acquiring the remaining qualified properties for FS management within the 

Lake Tahoe Basin depends on willing sellers with suitable properties and the availability of 

funding for the purchases. The objective and results will not be affected or changed by any of 

the five alternatives.

The objective of pursuing opportunities to consolidate ownership of urban lots with Nevada State 

Lands and California Tahoe Conservancy will be determined by available funding and staffing in 

the FS and the two state agencies. The objective and completion of land adjustments will not be 

affected or changed under any of the alternatives. 

Land Special Uses Program

The demand for additional Lands special use authorizations will be driven by the need for NFS 

lands by private and local and state governments for additional utilities, roads, communication 

facilities, erosion control projects and other uses requiring formal authorizations. This will not 

change or be affected by any of the alternatives. The goal of not authorizing additional 

infrastructure in roadless areas and environmentally sensitive or incompatible areas remains the 

same in all alternatives. 

Land Boundary and Title Program

The desired condition of this program is to have all boundaries marked and maintained to 

standard and to remove and prevent all encroachments on NFS lands. The reality is that the 

funding and accomplishments in the boundary and title program are determined by the level of 

forest management projects which does vary in the alternatives. However, whichever alternative 

is adopted, the actual level of project work will be determined by available funding. In general, 

the more forest project work that is planned and implemented, the more boundary and title 

support will be needed, and more miles of boundary will be maintained and more title cases 

resolved. 

3-304 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Withdrawals

The goal of retaining existing administrative withdrawal as long as the use or resource value for 

which the withdrawal was implemented remains, will not change or be affected by any of the 

alternatives. The acres of statutory withdrawals for designated wilderness will only change if 

additional wilderness designations are made. Alternatives C and D would both recommend 

additional wilderness designations and could result in additional acres of land being withdrawn if 

the designations are actually approved by Congress. That would be a consequence, not a 

preferred or desired condition from a program standpoint.

3.4.13.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Land Acquisition and Land Adjustment Program The objectives and accomplishments of the 

land acquisition and land adjustment program will remain the same under all four alternatives 

and will not be affected by the alternatives. 

Land Special Uses Program The objectives and accomplishments of the lands special uses 

program will remain the same under all four alternatives and will not be affected by the 

alternatives. The number and type of lands uses authorized will not change under any 

alternative. 

Land Boundary and Title Program Assuming an equal level of funding for all alternatives, 

Alternatives A, B and E would result in a similar level of accomplishments in maintaining land 

boundaries and preventing and resolving encroachments. Alternative C with a more active forest 

management approach would result in an increase in accomplishments with the most proactive 

boundary and title program. Alternative D with a lower level of active forest management would 

result in a lower level of boundary and title accomplishments. 

Land Withdrawals None of the alternatives would affect the goal of retaining existing 

administrative withdrawals as long as they are needed. Alternative C could result in additional 

acres under statutory withdrawal if the recommendation for wilderness designation for the 

Dardanelles Roadless Area is implemented. Alternative D could result in the most acres under 

statutory withdrawal if the recommendation for wilderness designation for both the Dardanelles 

and Freel Roadless Areas is implemented. Again, this is just a result and has no management 

implications from a Lands program standpoint.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

There would be no difference between the alternatives in how desired conditions are maintained 

or achieved.

Chapter 3 | Lands Program ■ 3-305
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.14 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

3.4.14.1 Introduction

The 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 

Planning Rule) requires the selection of management indicator species (MIS) during 

development of forest plans (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a) (1)). This section summarizes the MIS 

selected for the revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the conditions they 

are to represent. 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.

The Forest Service selects species as Management Indicator Species (MIS), one of a variety of 

elements to address National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements related to diversity 

of plant and animal communities. Species are selected as MIS “because their population changes 

are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (1982: 36 CFR 219 (a) (1)). They 

are to be used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a) 

(2)), and as a focus for monitoring (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a) (6)). Where appropriate, MIS shall 

represent the following groups of species (36 CFR 219 (a) (1)):

• Threatened and endangered species on State and Federal lists;

• Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs;

• Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped;

• Non-game species of special interest; and

• Species selected to indicate effects on other species of selected major biological 

communities or on water quality.

Although species from all 5 categories are to be considered, there is no requirement or 

compelling need to choose one or more species from each category. Instead, the categories 

provide a universe from which the appropriate MIS may be selected (USDA Forest Service 

2007b, p.12).

In 2007, the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Deputy Regional Forester 

amended the MIS lists and associated monitoring for 10 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada, 

including the LTBMU, to improve the effectiveness of those lists to meet their intended purpose, 

and to improve economic efficiency to make MIS monitoring affordable, and hence, more 

implementable (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Suitability and Feasibility criteria were used to 

identify the MIS. The suitability criteria used were: (a) The species is linked to a habitat or 

ecosystem component that is affected by Forest Service management activities, and (b) The 

population changes of the species are thought to primarily indicate the effects of Forest Service 

land management activities versus indicating the effects of other factors. The feasibility criteria 

used were: (a) There is an available, tested methodology (either currently being implemented or 

readily available to implement) to monitor the population or habitat of the species); (b) the 

3-306 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

methodology, including data analysis, can be implemented within budget constraints; and (c) the 

methodology gives information regarding population or habitat status and change of the species 

that is useful to informing management decisions. Additional details on these criteria and how 

they were applied can be found in USDA Forest Service 2007a, Appendix B. 

The LTBMU Revised Forest Plan proposes to adopt the same MIS that were in the 2007 

SNFMIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). As noted by the Deputy Regional 

Forester in the ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a):

• “Species selected for inclusion on the MIS list must occur in and rely on the habitat they 

are intended to represent. MIS population changes must be related to habitat changes that 

might result from forest management. 

The previous Forest MIS lists included a variety of species whose population changes were not 

clearly related to habitat changes on National Forest System lands (for example rainbow trout). 

The Deputy Regional Forester (USDA Forest Service 2007a) also pointed out that:

• “Our experience implementing forest plans shows that many management issues 

transcend individual Forest boundaries. To more clearly examine and understand the 

effects of our management activities, MIS should range across multiple forests.”

The previous Forest MIS lists were created without consideration of the MIS list on neighboring 

Forests and the lack of coordination and standardization among the Forests resulted in a lack of 

understanding of the effects of management activities on the Forests. In addition it was clearly 

noted (USDA Forest Service 2007a) that:

• “Species selected as MIS must occur on National Forest System lands in sufficient 

numbers to allow collection of meaningful information. For example, rare species are 

often difficult to find and monitor. “

• “Proven monitoring protocols must exist for each MIS selected.” 

• “Selected MIS must not be significantly affected by human influences outside the 

management prerogative of the Forest Service. “

Thus the LTBMU, based on not only its small size in comparison to other Forests in the Sierra 

Nevada, but also on the rationale provided by the Deputy Regional Forester in the 2007 SNFMIS 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a) on why a consistent species list is needed for MIS 

across the Sierra Nevada Forests, has chosen to retain the current MIS list as decided by the 2007 

SNFMIS ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

The MIS chosen from the 2007 SNFMIS ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a) that occur on the 

LTBMU are seven (7) terrestrial habitats and ecosystem components with nine (9) associated 

MIS, as well as aquatic macroinvertebrates as the MIS for lacustrine and riverine habitat. These 

MIS and their associated habitats or ecosystem components are listed in Table 3-49.

There are benefits of using a shared list, rather than coming up with a new list just for the 

LTBMU, which, due to the small size and limited resources of the LTBMU, could be limited in 

the monitoring data available, the resources for future monitoring and analysis, the reduced 

ability to ascertain the connection between habitat changes and population trends, etc.

These major habitats and ecosystem components were selected because they can be affected by 

Forest Service management on the LTBMU, as well as on other national forests in the Sierra 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-307
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2007a, pages 17-20). These species were selected as MIS because 

they are associated with the indicated major habitat or ecosystem component and their 

population changes are believed to indicate the effects of land management activities (1982: 36 

CFR 219.19(a)(1)), and were selected via a process that considered all known plant and animal 

species present on the 10 National Forests within the Sierra Nevada, including 692 terrestrial 

vertebrate species; the consideration process is documented in detail in the SNFMIS Amendment 

FEIS, Appendix B (USDA Forest Service 2007a). 

The LTBMU Revised Forest Plan also proposes to adopt the monitoring strategies identified in 

the 2007 SNFMIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). For the terrestrial MIS, the 

monitoring strategy is habitat monitoring and distribution population monitoring at the Sierra 

Nevada scale, including sampling on the LTBMU. Bioregional (Sierra Nevada scale) monitoring 

was selected because many management issues transcend individual forest boundaries and 

monitoring of MIS across neighboring forests enables a clearer examination and understanding 

of the effects of management activities (USDA Forest Service 2007b). In addition, in many 

cases, forest scale information does not provide the most meaningful biological data and 

maintaining a separate, uncoordinated monitoring effort on each individual forest is not strategic 

and is an inefficient use of money and resources (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Distribution 

population monitoring tracks the changes in the presence at the Sierra Nevada scale of the 

species across a number of sample locations. Habitat monitoring tracks the status and trends at 

the Sierra Nevada scale of each of the CWHR habitat types. For the aquatic macroinvertebrates, 

the monitoring strategy is bioregional habitat and bioregional Index of Biological Integrity. This 

bioregional monitoring has been conducted since 2008 or 2009 at the Sierra Nevada scale, 

including on the LTBMU (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

3-308 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-49. Management Indicator Species (MIS) components for the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit 

Habitat or 

Ecosystem 

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the 

habitat or ecosystem 

component1

Management Indicator 

Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

Category (s)

Riverine & 

Lacustrine

Habitats: Lacustrine (LAC) 

and riverine (RIV)

aquatic macroinvertebrates Species selected to indicate 

effects on other species of 

selected major biological 

communities or on water 

quality.

Riparian Habitats: Montane riparian 

(MRI), valley foothill riparian 

(VRI)

yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia

Non-game species of special 

interest

Wet Meadow Habitats: Wet meadow 

(WTM), freshwater emergent 

wetland (FEW)

Pacific tree frog

Pseudacris regilla

Non-game species of special 

interest

Early and Mid 

Seral Coniferous 

Forest

Habitats: Ponderosa pine 

(PPN), Sierran mixed conifer 

(SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir 

(RFR), eastside pine (EPN), 

tree sizes 1, 2, 3, and 4 all 

canopy closures

Mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

Species commonly hunted, 

fished, or trapped

Late Seral Open 

Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest

Habitats: Ponderosa pine 

(PPN), Sierran mixed conifer 

(SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir 

(RFR), eastside pine (EPN), 

tree size 5, canopy closures S 

and P

Sooty (blue) grouse

Dendragapus obscurus

Species commonly hunted, 

fished, or trapped

Late Seral 

Closed Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest

Habitats: Ponderosa pine 

(PPN), Sierran mixed conifer 

(SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir 

(RFR), tree size 5 (canopy 

closures M and D), and 

tree size 6.

California spotted owl

Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Non-game species of special 

interest; Forest Service 

Sensitive Species

Pacific marten2

Martes caurina

Non-game species of special 

interest; Forest Service 

Sensitive Species

northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus

Non-game species of special 

interest

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-309
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Habitat or 

Ecosystem 

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the 

habitat or ecosystem 

component1

Management Indicator 

Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

Category (s)

Snags in Green 

Forest

Ecosystem Components:

Medium and large snags in 

green forest

hairy woodpecker

Picoides villosus

Species with special habitat 

needs that may be 

influenced significantly by 

planned management 

programs.

Snags in Burned 

Forest

Ecosystem Components:

Medium and large snags in 

burned forest (stand-replacing 

fire)

black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus

Species with special habitat 

needs that may be 

influenced significantly by 

planned management 

programs.

1 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height; 

Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy closure); M= 

Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure); Tree size classes: 1 (Seedling)(<1" 

dbh); 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh); 6 

(Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 2 This species was classified as American marten (Martes americana) but recent genetic and morphological evidence 

classifies this species as Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and of the subspecies sierrae (Dawson and Cook 2012).

Since adoption of these regulations, the management indicator species concept has been 

reviewed and critiqued by the scientific community (Caro and O‘Doherty 1999, Simberloff 1998, 

Noss 1990, Landres et al. 1988, and Weaver 1995). These reviews identify proper uses and 

limitations of the indicator species concept. They generally caution against overreaching in use 

of indicator species, especially when making inferences about ecological conditions or status of 

other species within a community. Caution is needed because many different factors may affect 

populations of each species within a community, and each species’ ecological niche within a 

community is unique. Additional information regarding scientific criticisms of the MIS concept 

is discussed in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNFMIS) 

Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDA Forest Service 2007a, p.4).

The 2007 SNFMIS Amendment EIS and Record of Decision focused on identifying MIS which 

can be used to test the assumption that if habitat is managed a certain way, MIS populations will 

respond in a certain way (USDA Forest Service 2007a, p.4). This use of MIS has not been 

negated by the recent scientific criticisms summarized above. Thus, the selected MIS and

associated monitoring identified in the 2007 SNFMIS Amendment and the LTMBU Plan 

Revision are designed to meet the NFMA requirement for MIS in light of this current scientific 

understanding of the MIS concept. The MIS process is but one tool used to develop 

management strategies and monitoring programs designed to meet NFMA requirements related 

to diversity of plant and animal communities.

3-310 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Some of the other elements used in comprehensive planning for plant and animal diversity 

include: objectives and standards in forest plans for maintenance and restoration of desired 

ecological conditions, management of important ecosystems and ecosystem components, such as 

aspen, snags and down logs, and plants that are culturally important to Native Americans, and 

biological evaluations and assessments at both the forest plan and site-specific project levels.

Other elements important to monitoring the effects of forest plan implementation on plant and 

animal diversity include, where appropriate: monitoring key ecological conditions, monitoring 

management activity levels, monitoring species of interest, including watchlist species, change 

detection of vegetation structure and species composition, monitoring water quality, monitoring 

plants that are traditionally important to Native Americans, and monitoring of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. 

The MIS categories (1982: species (36 CFR 219 (a)(1))) applicable to the LTBMU MIS are 

identified in Table 3-49. Further information regarding these categories is in the SNFMIS 

Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007b, pp.4-5). The comparison of the effects of 

alternatives related to MIS (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a)(2)) is found in the Environmental 

Consequences section below. Monitoring related to the MIS (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)) is 

discussed in the Monitoring Plan. 

3.4.14.2 Affected Environment

The species present in the area selected as MIS for the LTMBU are identified and the reasons for 

their selection is summarized in this section, as required by (219.19(a)(1)); more detailed 

information is found in the SNFMIS Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2007a, pp.37-40) 

and ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

In addition, the status and trend of each MIS habitat and associated MIS are summarized in this 

section. The current bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the 

MIS is discussed in detail in the Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator 

Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The map of the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion in context to the ten national forests is displayed in Figure 3-87, at the end of 

this resource section.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates were selected as the MIS for lacustrine and riverine habitats because 

they represent a diverse group of relatively sedentary species that react strongly and predictably 

to management activities (Hawkins et al. 2000, Knapp et al. 2005, Fore 2007, Herbst et al. 2012). 

Variation in their relative abundance may be interpreted to determine whether water quality and 

aquatic habitats have been impaired relative to reference condition (EPA 2006) the standard for 

compliance with the Clean Water Act. Reference condition is defined as the relative absence of 

impacts from land management activities such as timber harvest, grazing, road building, and 

mining (Ode and Schiff 2009). Since it may be virtually impossible to find an undisturbed 

reference site with no road building or other land use history, a relaxed standard for reference 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-311
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

condition, allowing for some disturbance (e.g. no more than 1 km/km2 rather than no roads in the 

reference watershed) has sometimes been adopted. Sensitivity to alteration of habitat for such 

features as water temperature, riparian vegetation, sedimentation, nutrients and water chemistry 

vary within the macroinvertebrate community, allowing interpretation of what factors may be 

compromising water quality and aquatic habitats (Hawkins et al. 2000, Hodkinson and Jackson 

2005, Knapp et al. 2005, Herbst et al. 2006, EPA 2006, Ode 2007a, Fore 2007, Rehn 2009, 

Herbst and Silldorff 2009, Larsen and Ormerod 2010, Herbst and Cooper 2010, Reylea et al. 

2012, Herbst et al. 2012).

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Objectives for this habitat are the same among all Alternatives, including: achieve load reduction 

targets for select SEZs, implement BMPs to achieve 95% implementation effectiveness ratings 

forest-wide, maintain up to date inventory of water rights and uses and meet state requirements 

for maintaining water rights, restore geomorphic and habitat function to select stream reaches,

restore stream segments with degraded habitat in a minimum of two streams, restore a minimum 

of two sites with degraded aquatic habitat that historically supported native species, and screen 

hand-carried/non-motorized watercraft for aquatic invasive species (see Appendix I – Physical 

Resources Program, Conservation of Habitat and Species Diversity, and Invasive Species 

portions). 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates were designated as aquatic Management Indicator Species in the 

2007 SNFMIS ROD and sampling has occurred annually since 2009, which has not provided 

enough time to track trends in Sierra Nevada bioregional condition. However, it is possible to 

reach some conclusions about the trend of native aquatic fauna, including aquatic invertebrates, 

based upon the SNEP (1996) evaluations. A major conclusion of that evaluation was that “the 

aquatic/riparian systems are the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra.” 

In the summary volume, SNEP (1996) concluded that amphibian species at all elevations have 

severely declined throughout the Sierra Nevada. Dams and impoundments, which block fish 

access to streams, together with degraded conditions above dams, have led to loss of about 90% 

of the historic anadromous fish habitat in the Sierra. Local degradation of habitats has led to 

significant impacts on aquatic invertebrates, which make up the vast majority of aquatic species 

in the Sierra Nevada. 

This downward trend reflects a legacy of extensive past use of the Sierra Nevada Province 

resources for timber harvest, road building, mining, grazing and water diversions (Kattelmann 

1996). For the SNEP assessment, Moyle et al. (1996) summarized the status of forty fishes native 

to the Sierra Nevada: Six (15%) are formally listed by the federal and/or state government as 

threatened or endangered species, twelve (30%) are considered to be species of special concern 

because they are in trouble statewide and are potential candidates for listing or because they have 

limited distributions, four (10%) are in decline in the Sierra Nevada but are probably in less 

trouble than elsewhere, and eighteen (45%) seem to have stable or expanding populations for 

native fish species of the Sierra Nevada Province. Introduced, alien fish species were identified 

as a major reason for the declines of native fishes. The 2001 FSEIS for the Sierra Nevada 

3-312 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Province (USDA Forest Service 2001c) concluded that “fishes of the Sierra Nevada can be 

characterized as having declined in population size. Most of these declines have occurred over 

the last 50 years.”

Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date was summarized in the 2010 Sierra 

Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010). For aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, condition and trend was determined by analyzing macroinvertebrate data 

using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction And Classification System 

(RIVPACS) (Hawkins et al. 2000) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has 

been impaired relative to reference condition (Ode and Schiff 2009) within perennial water 

bodies. This monitoring consists of collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates according to a rotating 

panel design (Stevens and Olsen 2004) to assess all perennial waters and measuring stream 

habitat features according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). 

Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon the “observed to 

expected” (O/E) ratio, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site versus the 

number expected to occur there in the absence of impairment (Hawkins et al. 2000, SWAMP 

2006, Ode and Schiff 2009). Sites with a low O/E scores have lost many species predicted to 

occur there in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance, which is an indication that the site has a 

lower than expected richness of species sensitive to disturbance and is therefore impaired. 

Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates was conducted in 2009 

and 2010. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from stream sites during both the 2009 and 

2010 field seasons according to the Reachwide Benthos (Multihabitat) Procedure (Ode 2007b). 

The initial BMI data from 2009 and 2010 found 46% (6 of 13) of the surveyed streams indicate 

an impaired condition and 54% (7 of 13) indicate a reference or non-impaired condition (see 

USDA Forest Service 2010a: Table BMI-1). 

Forest (LTBMU)-Specific Data

There are currently 127,055 acres of lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) habitat in the LTBMU. 

Of this area, 122, 278 acres or about 96% include Lake Tahoe. In general, lacustrine and 

riverine habitat conditions in the LTBMU are influenced by alteration of native riparian 

vegetation, urban development and bank instability (Herbst 2005, 2009, HydroScience 2005), as 

well as the threat of aquatic invasive species becoming established within the ecosystem. In 

addition, water uses throughout the LTBMU and land uses adjacent to various lacustrine and 

riverine habitats influence the amount of water that is available in these habitats. The major focus 

of the Lake Tahoe TMDL restoration work is controlling the influx of fine sediments that enter 

Lake Tahoe from two main tributary sources: bank erosion from the Upper Truckee River and 

Blackwood Creek together provide 20% of all fine sediment delivered to Lake Tahoe. Ward 

Creek is also a major contributor of sediment to Lake Tahoe (HydroScience 2005).

The Lake Tahoe Basin has a rich data set for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Four main sources of 

data were included in this analysis. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) collected 169 

samples during 2003, with systematic sampling along major stream longitudinal profiles. Data 

with calculated RIVPACS O/E scores were also available for 1998-2007 from legacy U.S. Forest 

Service monitoring, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the State’s Surface Water 

Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and Lake Tahoe TMDL sampling. Together, these four 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-313
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

data sets provided site-condition information for 231 samples with intensive sampling along 10 

major tributaries to Lake Tahoe (Figure 3-85 and Figure 3-86). 

In general, the aquatic MIS communities of streams tributary to Lake Tahoe are in good 

condition with about 150 sites sampled (almost 65%) in reference condition according to the 

Observed to Expected ratios (i.e. 0.7 < O/E < 1.3, Figure 3-85). Sites with low O/E scores show 

a loss of sensitive-species richness. Sites with high O/E scores are degraded because they are out 

of balance with normal community composition and enhanced elevated richness may indicate 

nutrient enriched conditions. There is some indication that for samples closer to the lake margin, 

a higher proportion of sites are degraded (Herbst 2005, Fore 2007). Even though Blackwood and 

Ward creeks have experienced more impacts and have higher levels of bank erosion than other 

tributaries, it is noteworthy that the distribution of scores for these two creeks was quite similar

to the relatively un-developed sites along Meeks and General creeks (Herbst 2005, Figure 3-85).

Erosion rates are relatively high for both Blackwood and Ward creeks, but the influence of fine 

sediments is attenuated where stream gradients are high enough to prevent fine sediment 

deposition. Trout Creek site scores also reveal that site conditions deteriorate nearest to Lake 

Tahoe, again reflecting a high degree of development there (Herbst 2009). In contrast, the Trout 

Creek headwaters are generally in good to excellent condition.

Among the ten tributaries for which substantial data were available in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 

three showed degraded conditions, with median O/E scores less than reference condition: the 

Upper Truckee River, Edgewood Creek and Taylor Creek. The relatively low scores, were 

concentrated in the lower sections of the river near Lake Tahoe. Higher in the watershed (e.g. 

above the confluence with Angora Creek), all but one score were in reference condition. 

Edgewood Creek scores were depressed as would be expected since there is a high level of 

development (i.e. golf course, ski resort and roads) in close proximity. Taylor Creek had the 

lowest scores overall which is an indication of the low gradient, slack water conditions there and 

manipulations of flow by a dam operation below Fallen Leaf Lake. Taylor Creek also receives a 

kokanee salmon run each year and as a result the decomposing spawned-out salmon elevate the 

nutrient levels significantly.

3-314 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-85. Map of Lake Tahoe Basin distribution and condition of 231 aquatic MIS sites for streams 

tributary to Lake Tahoe. Site condition classes are based on RIVPACS O/E scores for data sets from the 

LTBMU, State of California SWAMP Perennial Streams Assessment, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

(TRPA) and Lake Tahoe TMDL.

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-315
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-86 Condition scores for 231 sites sampled from 1998-2007 along 10 major tributaries of 

Lake Tahoe. Condition classes were assigned based on RIVPACS Observed -to-Expected ratios, with 

reference or undegraded scores ranging from 0.7-1.3. Community composition of degraded sites varied 

from conditions predicted to occur in the absence of significant human-caused disturbance by at least 30 

percent. Box-and-whisker plots display and contrast the distribution of site conditions for 10 major 

tributaries with median, 25th and 75th percentile scores, and whiskers showing the full range of scores. 

Note that the Upper Truckee River had the greatest range of site condition scores. The poorest scores 

were concentrated in the downstream sites while the sites in the reference condition range were 

concentrated in the upstream reaches (e.g. above confluence with Angora Creek).

Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

Yellow warbler is selected as the MIS for riparian habitat. The CWHR system indicates that the 

yellow warbler is associated with riparian habitats. This species is usually found in riparian 

deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs 

typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG 2005). Yellow warbler is dependent on 

both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 1999). 

This species has been monitored since 2009 as part of the Sierra Nevada Forests bioregional 

monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010). In addition, it is also monitored via the USGS’s 

3-316 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Sauer et al. 2007) and adequate data have been obtained for 

calculating Sierra-wide BBS trends (Siegel and DeSante 1999). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Some objectives for this habitat are the same among all Alternatives, including: restore or 

stimulate regeneration of aspen (Alts A, B, D, E: 25 acres/year; Alt C : 50 acres/year), achieve 

load reduction targets for upland forest and SEZs, restore geomorphic and habitat function to 

select stream reaches; and restore stream segments with degraded habitat in a minimum of two 

streams (see Appendix I – Physical Resources Program; Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire 

Management; and Conservation of Habitat and Species Diversity portions). Alternative A 

contains a variety of standards and guidelines for riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic 

refuges. Alternatives B, C, and E contain objectives to restore a minimum of two at risk fens, 

restore a minimum of three willow flycatcher nesting habitats (e.g., meadows), and maintain or 

increase vegetation cover in meadows. 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Habitat. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). There are 

currently 38,140 acres of riparian habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two 

decades, the trend is stable. 

Forest-specific habitat data: There are approximately 1,688 acres of riparian habitat in the 

LTBMU. Riparian habitat condition is compromised by encroaching shade tolerant conifers, 

especially lodgepole pine trees that are competing with native riparian vegetation.

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Monitoring of the yellow warbler across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been 

conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring 

effort that also includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and fox sparrow (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Yellow warblers were detected on 

13.7% of 160 riparian point counts in 2009, 19.4% of 397 riparian point counts in 2010, and 

22.1% of 402 riparian point counts in 2011; additional detections were documented on upland 

point counts (Ibid). The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on riparian passive 

point count surveys) was 0.166 in 2009, 0.309 in 2010, and 0.313 in 2011. Current data indicate 

that the yellow warbler population continues to be distributed at established sample sites across

the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Forest-specific population distribution data: Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS 

includes sample points on the LTBMU; yellow warblers were detected at 4 of 15 riparian point 

count stations in 2010 and 4 of 14 riparian point count stations in 2011 

(http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). In addition, yellow warblers have been detected 

during various monitoring efforts over a number of years on the LTBMU: 

• Yellow warblers were detected at 7 of 105 forest wide monitoring sites on the LTBMU 

between 2002-2005 (LTBMU 2007a); 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-317
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

• Yellow warblers were detected at all 10 meadow sites monitored in the LTBMU in 2006 

(Borgmann et al. 2006).

Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific Chorus [Pacific tree] frog) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

The Pacific Chorus Frog (formally known as the Pacific tree frog) is selected as an MIS for wet 

meadow habitat. This broadly distributed species requires standing water for breeding; tadpoles 

require standing water for periods long enough to complete aquatic development, which can be 

as long as 3 or more months at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada (CDFG 2005). During the 

day during the breeding season, adults take cover under clumps of vegetation and surface objects 

near water; during the remainder of the year, they leave their breeding sites and seek cover in 

moist niches in buildings, wells, rotting logs or burrows (ibid). This species has been monitored 

since 2002 as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Amphibian Monitoring 

Program, and, since 2009, the monitoring has been tracked as part of the Sierra Nevada Forests 

bioregional monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Under Alternative A, objectives for the maintenance and improvement of wet meadow habitat in 

the LTBMU will follow guidance described in the current Forest Plan, as amended by the 2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Alternatives B, C, and E contain objectives to restore a 

minimum of two at risk fens, restore a minimum of three willow flycatcher nesting habitats (e.g., 

meadows), and maintain or increase vegetation cover in meadows. Alternative D contains an 

objective to allow natural processes to control the amount of vegetation cover in meadows. 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Habitat. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). There are 

currently 61,247 acres of wet meadow habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last 

two decades, the trend is stable (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Forest-specific habitat data. There are approximately 2,684 acres of wet meadow habitat in the 

LTBMU. Some wet meadow complexes in the LTBMU are at risk of desiccation from channel 

incision and adjacent land uses that influence water patterns and retention. In addition, conifers 

are encroaching on a number of meadows and meadow perimeters in the LTBMU. There are a 

number of ongoing restoration projects in the LTBMU that are aimed at restoring wet meadow 

conditions.

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Since 

2002, the Pacific chorus frog has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service 2006a, 

2007a, 2009, 2010b; Brown 2008). Almost 70% of sample watersheds were occupied by Pacific 

chorus frog at least once during the period of 2002-2007, and 79.6% of 108 historically occupied 

watersheds were found to be occupied by breeding frogs in 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

3-318 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

In 2009, an estimated 95% of likely historically occupied watersheds were occupied by the 

Pacific chorus frog (USDA Forest Service 2010b). These data indicate that Pacific chorus frog 

continues to be present at these sample sites, and current data indicate that the chorus frog 

population continues to be distributed at established sample sites across the Sierra Nevada

(USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Forest –specific population distribution data: Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS 

includes sample points adjacent to the LTBMU. In addition, Pacific chorus frogs were detected 

during 2002-2004 on the LTBMU: in 2003-2004, Pacific chorus frogs (formerly known as 

Pacific treefrogs) were detected in 87 (57.2%) of 148 lentic aquatic sites sampled using visual 

encounter surveys, in addition to being detected at 1 of 9 pitfall trap monitoring arrays in 2002 

(LTMBU 2007). 

Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

The mountain quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid seral coniferous forest (ponderosa 

pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat. The California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) system indicates that this species is highly associated

with these forest habitats. Early seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of 

seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1”-5.9” dbh), and pole-sized trees (6”-10.9” dbh). Mid seral 

coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees (11”-23.9” dbh). The 

mountain quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of conifer and 

deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, and 

broods are seldom found more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water (CDFG 2005). Historically, the 

mountain quail has been monitored by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly 

California Department of Fish and Game) as part of its program to manage harvest species 

(CDFG 2004a). Since 2009, this species has been monitored as part of the Sierra Nevada Forests 

bioregional monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Objectives for early seral habitat are the same among all Alternatives, including: create early 

seral white fir – mixed conifer type from mid seral stage (Alts A, B, D, E: 50 acres/year; Alt C: 

100 acres/year), create early seral Jeffrey pine from mid seral stage (Alts A, B, D, E: 40 

acres/year; Alt C: 80 acres/year), and create early seral red fir from mid seral stage (Alts A, B, D, 

E: 10 acres/year; Alt C: 20 acres/year). All Alternatives have objectives to thin the major forest 

types (including mid seral stage) to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects but as 

with early seral creation, each alternative varies in the amount that would be thinned each year 

with Alternative D thinning the least and Alternative C thinning the most; Alternatives A, B, and 

E would thin the same amount and in between that proposed under Alternatives C and D (see 

Appendix I – Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management). 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Habitat. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). There are 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-319
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

currently 530,851 acres of early seral and 2,776,022 acres of mid seral coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend for early seral is decreasing (changing from 9% to 

5% of the acres on NFS lands) and the trend for mid seral is increasing (changing from 21% to 

25% of the acres on NFS lands). 

Forest-specific habitat data: There are approximately 36,000 acres of early and mid seral 

habitat on the LTBMU (see Table 3-42 in section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation). This estimate was 

revised from the DEIS to be more consistent with SPECTRUM modeling data sources and 

output. Please see section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation for additional explanation of acreage 

calculation. The CWHR types defining early and mid seral habitat for the LTBMU include 

Jeffrey pine, white fir/mixed conifer, and red fir. These types differ slightly from the CWHR 

types provided in Table 3-49 in that Jeffrey pine is used instead of ponderosa pine because there 

is very little ponderosa pine in the LTBMU. Jeffrey pine category includes east side pine. White 

fir/mixed conifer is used to represent white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR types; the white 

fir/mixed conifer combined types are very similar to white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR 

types but the LTBMU generally does not have Douglas fir and Black oak which are 

characteristic of Sierra mixed conifer in lower elevations. 

Although recent fires in the LTBMU (i.e., Gondola, Showers, Angora, Washoe) have resulted in 

the creation of some early seral vegetation, they weren’t deliberate restoration efforts and there 

has not been deliberate restoration of early seral stages in the LTBMU over the life of the current 

Forest Plan. Mid seral closed canopy white fir/mixed conifer dominates the mid seral stage. 

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Monitoring of the mountain quail across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been 

conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring 

effort that also includes fox sparrow, hairy woodpecker, and yellow warbler (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a; Point Blue Conservation Science [date unk]). Mountain quail were detected on 

40.3% of 1659 point counts in 2009, 47.4% of 2266 point counts (and 56.7% of 464 playback 

transects) in 2010, and 40.8% of 2342 point counts (and 48.9% of 472 playback transects) in 

2011, with detections on all 10 national forests all three years (Ibid). The average abundance 

(number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.103 in 2009, 0.081 in 

2010, and 0.078 in 2011. These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be distributed 

across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests, and current data indicate that the mountain quail 

population continues to be distributed at established sample sites across the Sierra Nevada

(USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Forest -specific population distribution data: Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS 

includes sample points on the LTBMU; mountain quail were detected at 4 of 10 upland point 

count stations in 2009, 6 of 8 upland point count stations in 2010, and 6 of 20 upland point count 

stations in 2011, in addition to detections at the riparian point count stations in 2010 and 2011 

(Point Blue Conservation Science [date unk]). In addition, mountain quail were detected at 62 of 

105 forest wide monitoring sites on the LTBMU, and were detected in all sub-watersheds 

between 2002-2005 (LTBMU 2007a). 

3-320 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat [Sooty (blue) grouse] 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

The sooty grouse (formally known as the blue grouse) is selected as the MIS for late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside 

pine) habitat. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 

24 inches dbh) with canopy closures less than 40%. The CWHR system indicates that sooty 

grouse is highly associated with this habitat. This species occurs in open, medium to mature-aged 

stands of fir, Douglas-fir, and other conifer habitats, interspersed with medium to large openings, 

and available water, and occupies a mixture of mature habitat types, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and 

conifer stands (CDFG 2005). Empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that Sooty Grouse 

hooting sites are located in open, mature, fir-dominated forest, where particularly large trees are 

present (Bland 2006). Sooty Grouse is being monitored by California Department of Fish and 

Game as part of its program to manage harvest species (Bland 2006), as well as through the 

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Siegel and DeSante 1999, Sauer et al. 2007). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

All alternatives have objectives to thin the major forest types (mostly in the mid seral stage) to 

improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects and also promote growth to the late seral

stage. All alternatives also contain an objective to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels to 

protect the major forest types. Each alternative varies in the amount that would be thinned each 

year with Alternative D thinning the least and Alternative C thinning the most; Alternatives A, 

B, and E would thin the same amount and in between that proposed under Alternatives C and D. 

All alternatives would thin up to 2,000 acres/year in the WUI (see Appendix I – Forest

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management).

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Habitat. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). There are 

currently 63,795 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed 

conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the 

last two decades, the trend is decreasing (changing from 3% to 1% of the acres on NFS lands). 

Forest-specific habitat data: There are approximately 20,500 acres of late seral open canopy

habitat on the LTBMU (see Table 3-42 in section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation). This estimate was 

revised from the DEIS to be more consistent with SPECTRUM modeling data sources and 

output. Please see section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation for additional explanation of acreage 

calculation. The CWHR types defining early and mid seral habitat for the LTBMU include 

Jeffrey pine, white fir/mixed conifer, and red fir. These types differ slightly from the CWHR 

types provided in Table 3-49 in that Jeffrey pine is used instead of ponderosa pine because there 

is very little ponderosa pine in the LTBMU. Jeffrey pine category includes east side pine. White 

fir/mixed conifer is used to represent white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR types; the white 

fir/mixed conifer combined types are very similar to white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR 

types but the LTBMU generally does not have Douglas fir and Black oak which are 

characteristic of Sierra mixed conifer in lower elevations. As with mid seral habitat, late seral 

open canopy habitat is dominated by white fire/mixed conifer.

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-321
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The 

sooty grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter 

survey, modeling, point counts, and breeding bird survey protocols, including California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game) Blue 

(Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006); California Department of Fish and 

Wildlifee hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 2004a, CDFG 

2004b); Multi-species inventory and monitoring on the LTBMU (LTBMU 2007a); and 1968 to 

present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that 

sooty grouse population continues to be present across the Sierra Nevada, except in the area 

south of the Kern Gap where they are apparently absent (Bland 2008 referencing Bland in press). 

Sooty (blue) grouse continue to be detected and bagged through hunting across the Sierra 

Nevada (CDFW 2004b). In addition, modeling based on game take survey and habitat acres 

indicates that the spring breeding population can more than sustain the total annual mortality, 

including hunting mortality (CDFW 2004a). Blue or sooty grouse have continued to be detected 

on BBS routes in the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). As of 1999, BBS data indicate an 

increasing tendency (Siegel and DeSante 1999).

Forest-specific population distribution data: Monitoring conducted by the California 

Department of Fish and Game related to hunter surveys, modeling, and hunting regulations 

assessment includes the LTBMU (CDFG 2004a, 2004b). In addition, sooty grouse (also known 

as blue grouse) were detected at 32 of 105 forest wide monitoring sites and 10 of 148 lentic sites 

(17% of all combined sites) on the LTBMU, and were detected in all sub-watersheds, between 

2002-2005 (LTBMU 2007a). 

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl, 

Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel) 

Reasons for selection as an MIS 

California spotted owl 

The California spotted owl is selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat. The CWHR system and 

various data from the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2001) indicate that this species is 

highly associated with closed-canopy late seral coniferous forest. This habitat is comprised 

primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures 

above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous 

forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. The 

California spotted owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered 

structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure (CDFG 2005, USFWS 2006). It uses 

dense, multi-layered canopy cover for roost seclusion; roost selection appears to be related 

closely to thermoregulatory needs, and the species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures 

(CDFG 2005). Mature, multi-layered forest stands are required for breeding. The mixed-conifer 

forest type is the predominant type used by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent 

of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, with 10 percent in red fir forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2001). California spotted owl has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada since the late 

3-322 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

1980s (USDA Forest Service 2006a), and, since 2009, the monitoring has been tracked as part of 

the Sierra Nevada Forests bioregional monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

All alternatives have objectives to thin the major forest types (mostly in the mid seral stage) to 

improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects and also promote growth to the late seral

stage. All alternatives also contain an objective to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels to 

protect the major forest types. Each alternative varies in the amount that would be thinned each 

year with Alternative D thinning the least and Alternative C thinning the most; Alternatives A, 

B, and E would thin the same amount and in between that proposed under Alternatives C and D. 

All alternatives would thin up to 2,000 acres/year in the WUI (see Appendix I – Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management). Alternatives A and D maintain the Old Forest 

Emphasis Area land designation whereas Alternatives B, C, and E maintain late seral closed 

canopy conditions where they occur throughout the landscape. Alternatives A and D have a 

variety of measures to protect late seral closed canopy forest, especially connectivity of this 

habitat on the landscape. Alternative E contains a number of unique protective measures for this 

habitat type such as the retention of late seral closed canopy stands outside the WUI (and also 

inside the WUI if fire behavior objectives can be met), retention of canopy cover and basal area 

sufficient to maintain or improve habitat conditions, limitations on reduction in canopy cover in 

late seral stands (no more than 10% across a stand or not below the desired conditions for the 

area), maintenance of habitat connectivity among late seral stands, restoration of habitat in 

targeted spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) (Alternatives B, C, and E only), and

maintenance of habitat connectivity between PACs and adjacent habitat. 

Pacific marten 

The Pacific marten is selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat. The CWHR system and 

various data from the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 2001) indicate that this species is 

highly associated with closed-canopy, late seral coniferous forest. This habitat is comprised 

primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures 

above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous 

forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. 

Martens prefer coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down logs, 

moderate-to-high canopy closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows. Important 

habitat attributes are: vegetative diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; dispersal 

cover; and large woody debris (Allen 1982). Key components for westside and eastside marten 

habitat can be found in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 

2001), Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4, pages 20-21. The Pacific marten has been monitored since 

2002 as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Fisher and Marten Status and Trend Monitoring, 

and, since 2009, the monitoring has been tracked as part of the Sierra Nevada Forests bioregional 

monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-323
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

All alternatives have objectives to thin the major forest types (mostly in the mid seral stage) to 

improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects and also promote growth to the late seral 

stage. All alternatives also contain an objective to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels to 

protect the major forest types. Each alternative varies in the amount that would be thinned each 

year with Alternative D thinning the least and Alternative C thinning the most; Alternatives A, 

B, and E would thin the same amount and in between that proposed under Alternatives C and D. 

All alternatives would thin up to 2,000 acres/year in the WUI (see Appendix I – Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management). Alternatives A and D maintain the Old Forest 

Emphasis Area land designation whereas Alternatives B, C, and E maintain late seral closed 

canopy conditions where they occur throughout the landscape. Alternatives A and D have a 

variety of measures to protect late seral closed canopy forest, especially connectivity of this 

habitat on the landscape. Alternative E contains a number of unique protective measures for this 

habitat type such as the retention of late seral closed canopy stands outside the WUI (and also 

inside the WUI if fire behavior objectives can be met), retention of canopy cover and basal area 

sufficient to maintain or improve habitat conditions, limitations on reduction in canopy cover in 

late seral stands (no more than 10% across a stand or not below the desired conditions for the 

area), and maintenance of habitat connectivity among late seral stands. 

Northern flying squirrel 

The northern flying squirrel is selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat. 

The CWHR system indicates that this species is highly associated with closed-canopy, late seral 

coniferous forest. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater 

than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed 

conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine 

and Sierran mixed conifer forests. The northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in mature, dense 

conifer habitats intermixed with various riparian habitats, using cavities in mature trees, snags, or 

logs for cover (CDFG 2005). 

3-324 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

All alternatives have objectives to thin the major forest types (mostly in the mid seral stage) to 

improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects and also promote growth to the late seral 

stage. All alternatives also contain an objective to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels to 

protect the major forest types. Each alternative varies in the amount that would be thinned each 

year with Alternative D thinning the least and Alternative C thinning the most; Alternatives A, 

B, and E would thin the same amount and in between that proposed under Alternatives C and D. 

All alternatives would thin up to 2,000 acres/year in the WUI (see Appendix I – Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management). Alternatives A and D maintain the Old Forest 

Emphasis Area land designation whereas Alternatives B, C, and E maintain late seral closed 

canopy conditions where they occur throughout the landscape. Alternatives A and D have a 

variety of measures to protect late seral closed canopy forest, especially connectivity of this 

habitat on the landscape. Alternative E contains a number of unique protective measures for this 

habitat type such as the retention of late seral closed canopy stands outside the WUI (and also 

inside the WUI if fire behavior objectives can be met), retention of canopy cover and basal area 

sufficient to maintain or improve habitat conditions, limitations on reduction in canopy cover in 

late seral stands (no more than 10% across a stand or not below the desired conditions for the 

area), and maintenance of habitat connectivity among late seral stands. 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Habitat. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). There are 

currently 1,006,923 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran 

mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last 

two decades, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 7% to 9% of the acres on NFS 

lands); since the early 2000s, the trend has been stable at 9%.

Forest-specific habitat data: There are approximately 29,000 acres of late seral closed canopy

habitat on the LTBMU (see Table 3-42 in section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation). This estimate was 

revised from the DEIS to be more consistent with SPECTRUM modeling data sources and 

output. Please see section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation for additional explanation of acreage 

calculation. The CWHR types defining early and mid seral habitat for the LTBMU include 

Jeffrey pine, white fir/mixed conifer, and red fir. These types differ slightly from the CWHR 

types provided in Table 3-49 in that Jeffrey pine is used instead of ponderosa pine because there 

is very little ponderosa pine in the LTBMU. Jeffrey pine category includes east side pine. White 

fir/mixed conifer is used to represent white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR types; the white 

fir/mixed conifer combined types are very similar to white fir and Sierra mixed conifer CWHR 

types but the LTBMU generally does not have Douglas fir and Black oak which are 

characteristic of Sierra mixed conifer in lower elevations. Late seral closed canopy habitat is 

comprised primarily of white fir/mixed conifer and red fir types. Jeffrey pine represents many 

fewer acres of this seral stage in the LTBMU. 

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-325
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

California spotted owl 

California spotted owl has been monitored in California and throughout the Sierra Nevada 

through general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds, and demography studies 

(Verner et al. 1992; Gutiérrez et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; USDA Forest Service 2001, 2004, 2006; 

USFWS 2006; Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). A meta-analysis of data 

from 1990 to 2005 for the four spotted owl populations in the demography study areas (Eldorado 

NF, Lassen NF, Sierra NF, and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park) concluded that, with the 

exception of the Lassen study area, owl populations were stable, with adult survival rate highest 

at the Sequoia-Kings Canyon study site (Blakesley et al. 2010). The 95% confidence limit for 

lambda in the Lassen study area ranged from 0.946 to 1.001 (estimated value 0.973), which 

barely included 1, and the analysis estimated a steady annual decline of 2 – 3% in the Lassen 

study population between 1990 and 2005 (Blakesley et al. 2010). More recent analyses from the 

same four demography study areas suggest a decline in the owl populations in the Lassen, Sierra, 

and Eldorado National Forest study areas and an increase in owl populations in the SequoiaKings Canyon National Park study area. However, all estimators of population change in these 

studies had confidence intervals that overlapped 1.0 (Conner et al. 2013, Tempel and Gutiérrez 

2013). The 95% confidence interval represents the reliability of the estimate of lambda (annual 

rate of population change) and delta (realized population change). Managers typically view a 

population as stable if the 95% confidence interval overlaps a lambda of one. As stated in 

Conner et al. (2013) “If a population is growing (lambda greater than 1), managers cannot tell 

whether the growth is from internal recruitment or immigration. Likewise, if a population is 

declining, managers cannot determine whether the declines are due to deaths within the 

population or emigration. Thus, additional information on specific vital rates is necessary to 

understand what is driving lambda and ultimately, the mechanisms driving population 

dynamics.” Therefore, although there is concern that there may be localized declines in the 

spotted owl populations, the confidence intervals overlapping one (1) makes it difficult to assess 

the probability of a decline. Causation for any potential decline in occupancy is unknown. Owls 

continue to be distributed throughout their existing geographic range. For more detailed 

information regarding the regional status of the spotted owl, please see section 3.4.23, Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species and Habitat.

Forest-specific population distribution data: There are currently 22 California spotted owl 

PACs (and associated HRCAs) on the LTBMU, following a re-mapping effort in 2008 to 

incorporate the most up-to-date detection, nest location, and land boundary information 

available. One PAC was added in 2013 following an assessment of new nesting behavior during 

the 2012 season. During the last 10 years (2003-2012), spotted owls have been detected in 16 

(76%) of the 21 PACs that were monitored during this time (excludes the PAC added in 2013). 

Data for California spotted owl found in the LTBMU are stored on the USDA Natural Resource 

Manager Natural Resource Information System (NRM NRIS) 

(http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/Wildlife/index.shtml). For more detailed information 

regarding the local status of the spotted owl, please see section 3.4.23, Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species and Habitat.

Pacific marten 

Pacific marten has been monitored throughout the Sierra Nevada as part of general surveys and 

studies since 1996 (e.g., Zielinski et al. 2005, Moriarty 2009). Since 2002, the Pacific marten

3-326 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a, 2006a, 2007c, 2009, 

2010b). Current data indicate that, although marten appear to be distributed throughout their 

historic range, their distribution has become fragmented in the southern Cascades and northern 

Sierra Nevada, particularly in Plumas County. The distribution appears to be continuous across 

high-elevation forests from Placer County south through the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, 

although detection rates have decreased in at least some localized areas (e.g., Sagehen Basin area 

of Nevada County). For more detailed information regarding the regional status of marten and 

their habitat, please see section 3.4.23, Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat.

Forest-specific population distribution data: Within the LTBMU, marten appear to be well 

distributed in the western and southern portions but are comparatively rare in the northern and 

eastern portions (Slauson et al. 2008). Slauson et al. (2008) analyzed data from several marten 

surveys that were conducted in the LTBMU between 1993 and 2005 and found that marten were 

detected at 36% of all sample units that were surveyed, occupying areas supporting mesic conifer 

forest typically dominated by red fir, white fir, western white pine, and lodgepole pine (Slauson 

et al. 2008). The majority of detections were made in the western (50% of sites) and southern 

(31% of sites) regions of the LTBMU. Detections in the northern and eastern portions of the 

LTBMU were scarce despite 30% of the total survey effort occurring in these two areas, and the 

authors suggested that these areas may have supported less suitable habitat conditions (e.g., open 

canopy) due to drier conditions and also likely influenced by the development that has altered the 

composition and connectivity of suitable habitat along the transition from mesic to xeric forest 

types from west to east in the LTBMU (Slauson et al 2008). Due to the contemporary 

development patterns on the southern end of the LTBMU combined with natural factors, the 

southern distribution of martens in the LTBMU is most likely a peninsular distribution, 

extending from the southwest (Luther Pass area) where martens are likely able to move in and 

out the southern portion of the LTBMU. This peninsular distribution in the south portion of the 

LTBMU has no potential for input of martens from the north, south, or east due to the lack of 

suitable habitat combined with the substantial level of development that has occurred. 

Peninsular distributions of martens are more reliant on the existing conditions within their 

distribution to support their persistence than portions of the distribution better connected, such as 

the west shore population.

Slauson et al. (2008) stressed the importance of the west shore as the only known linkage for 

populations north and south of the LTBMU. Recent modeling suggests that the west shore of 

Lake Tahoe is part of an important corridor linking northern and southern populations (Spencer 

and Rustigian-Romsos 2012). Consistent with Slauson et al. (2008), there is a gap in marten 

occupancy and habitat just west of the LTBMU but suitability increases again just west of this 

gap, creating another parallel habitat corridor (Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos 2012) that may 

not have been identified in Slauson et al. (2008).

Two marten dens have been positively identified in the LTBMU with a third possible, although 

there are likely greater than 30 breeding females in the LTBMU in any given year, each using 

many dens for kit rearing (Slauson, pers. comm. 2011). All known/possible dens were 

discovered opportunistically in 2009 and 2012 and are predominantly on the west and southern 

portion of the LTBMU. One den that was positively identified in 2012 is located at an elevation 

of approximately 6650 feet and within the CWHR Jeffrey Pine type, class 5M. The den 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-327
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

identified in 2009 is located at an elevation of approximately 6560 feet and within the CWHR 

Sierra Mixed Conifer type, class 4M. Table 1 in Moriarty et al. (2011) indicates that various 4M 

habitat types (lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir, subalpine conifer, and white fir) are 

considered “high quality habitat” for marten. CWHR also classifies some 4M habitat as high 

quality denning habitat for marten. 

Preliminary data from a study of marten in the Lake Tahoe Basin suggest that areas used by 

females for reproduction were stable and did not change annually which suggests that 

reproductive habitat is a limiting factor for marten populations (Slauson and Zielinski 

unpublished data). Thus the maintenance of existing suitable reproductive habitat is one of the 

most critical factors for maintaining marten populations and distributions.

Northern flying squirrel 

The northern flying squirrel has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations 

by live-trapping, ear-tagging, camera surveys, snap-trapping, and radiotelemetry: 2002-present 

on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 

2010), and 1958-2004 throughout the Sierra Nevada in various monitoring efforts and studies 

(see USDA Forest Service 2008d, Table NOFLS-IV-1). These data indicate that northern flying 

squirrels continue to be present at these sample sites, and current data indicate that northern 

flying squirrel populations are still widely distributed across the Sierra Nevada. 

Forest-specific population distribution data: Northern flying squirrel were detected at 17 of 

105 small mammal live trapping surveys on the LTBMU, and were detected in 6 of 9 subwatersheds, between 2002-2005 (LTBMU 2007a).

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

The hairy woodpecker is selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green 

forests. The CWHR system indicates that this species is strongly associated with this ecosystem 

component. Medium (diameter breast height between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter breast 

height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important. The hairy woodpecker uses stands of 

large, mature trees and snags of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree 

cavities (CDFG 2005). Mature timber and dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are 

apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and DeSante 1999). Historically, the hairy 

woodpecker has been monitored by the USGS’s the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Sauer et al. 

2007) and adequate data has been obtained for calculating Sierra-wide BBS trends (Siegel and 

DeSante 1999), as well as monitoring on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada 

Research Center 2010). Since 2009, this species has been monitored as part of the Sierra Nevada 

Forests bioregional monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Under Alternative A, objectives for the maintenance and improvement of snags in green forest 

ecosystem component in the LTBMU will follow guidance described in the current Forest Plan, 

as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Many of these objectives and 

3-328 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

standards and guidelines are also included in Alternatives B, C, D and E. These measures 

include the management of snags for wildlife habitat as part of forest health or fuels reduction 

treatments and during post-disturbance (e.g., beetle outbreak) restoration projects, management 

actions that provide for a sustainable population of medium- and large-diameter snags that 

exhibit characteristics important to wildlife (e.g., broken tops, large cavities, etc.), prioritization 

of retaining snags with cavities or consideration to install nest boxes for cavity nesters, and 

retention of a minimum number of the largest snags in each of the representative forest types 

(e.g., red fir). All Alternatives generally provide for the same management of snag in green 

forest habitat component but Alternative E provides additional clarification for the desire to 

create snags during various types of vegetation treatments.

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend 

Ecosystem Component

Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 Sierra Nevada 

Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The current average number of 

medium-sized and large-sized snags (> 15" dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major 

coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, 

productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in 

eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these types ranged from 1.4 per acre 

in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in 

total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate 

that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir 

(+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine 

(-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14) 

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 

SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Forest-specific ecosystem component data: There are approximately 1.1 million snags greater 

than 15 inches dbh in the LTBMU with an average of about 7.15 snags/acre. Of the total snag 

count, approximately 850,000 are estimated to be snags in green forest. Total number of snags 

was derived by obtaining snags/acre Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for each strata 

from the USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab (RSL) website Tree Report for the Lake 

Tahoe Basin and linking with the LTBMU GIS strata layer and acreage within each strata on the 

LTBMU. The highest number of snags/acre is found in the mixed conifer-white fir and Jeffrey 

pine medium size class 920-30 inches QMD), medium density (40-70%). The mixed coniferwhite fir type has the highest total number of snags, in part because this habitat type has the 

largest acreage in the LTBMU. 

Population Distribution. Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized 

in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Monitoring of the hairy woodpecker across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has 

been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a 

monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, fox sparrow, and yellow warbler (USDA 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-329
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Forest Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Hairy woodpeckers were 

detected on 15.1% of 1659 point counts in 2009, 16.7% of 2266 point counts (and 28.6% of462 

playback transects) in 2010, and 11.8% of 2342 point counts (and 23.5% of 472 playback 

transects) in 2011, with detections on all 10 national forests in all years. The average abundance 

(number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.116 in 2009, 0.107 in 

2010, and 0.100 in 2011. These data indicate that hairy woodpeckers continue to be distributed 

across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests.

Forest-specific population distribution data: Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS 

includes sample points on the LTBMU; hairy woodpecker were detected at 5 of 10 upland point 

count stations in 2009, 1 of 8 upland point count stations in 2010, and 5 of 20 upland point count

stations in 2011, in addition to detections at the riparian point count stations in 2010 and 2011 

(Point Blue Conservation Science 2013)

In addition, hairy woodpecker were detected at 75 of 105 forest wide monitoring sites on the 

LTBMU, and were detected in all sub-watersheds, between 2002-2005 (LTBMU 2007a).

Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (Black-backed woodpecker) 

Reason for selection as an MIS 

The black-backed woodpecker is selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in 

burned forests. Recent data indicate that black-backed woodpeckers are strongly associated with 

snags created by mid- and high-severity fires (severity classes indicating moderate to complete 

mortality of the tree layer) (Hutto 1995, Kotliar et al. 2002, Smucker et al. 2005, Saracco et al. 

2011, Siegel et al. 2011), although some birds also forage in unburned forest (Fogg et a. 2012, 

Siegel et al. 2013). In a telemetry study, Siegel et al. (2013) found a strong negative relationship 

between average snag basal area density and home range, and a positive relationship between 

average live tree basal area density and home range size. Black-backed woodpecker nests are 

typically in snags, but in unburned forests can also be in living trees, including dead portions of 

live trees (Bond et al. 2012). 

Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for this MIS by Alternative 

(219.19(a))

Under Alternative A, objectives for the maintenance and improvement of snags in burned forest 

ecosystem component in the LTBMU will follow guidance described in the current Forest Plan, 

as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Alternatives B and C follow 

direction similar to Alternative A. Alternative D does not allow the removal of tree from burned 

forest habitat beyond activities that would be needed to meet public safety. Under Alternative E,

following a fire, the decision to restore a burned area would be made on a project-specific basis, 

the level of retention would be decided on a project basis, involve an Interdisciplinary team, and 

prioritize wildlife objectives. 

Sierra Nevada Bioregional Status and Trend. 

Ecosystem Component

Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS to date is summarized in the 2010 Sierra Nevada 

Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The current average number of 

3-330 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

medium-sized and large-sized snags (> 15" dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major 

coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, 

productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in 

eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these forest types ranged from 1.4 per 

acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in 

total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate 

that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir 

(+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine 

(-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14). 

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 

SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

These data include snags in both green forest and burned forest. Between 2000 and 2007, 

211,000 acres underwent severe burn and 176,000 acres underwent moderate burn in the Sierra 

Nevada. 

Since 2009, the bioregional monitoring effort for black-backed woodpecker has created a 

sampling frame of all fires that occurred within the 10 preceding years that included at least 

124ac (50 ha) of conifer forest that burned at mid-severity and/or high-severity on one or more of 

the ten national forest units within the Siera Nevada. The acreage within this sampling frame 

was 271,788 ac in 2009, 252,673 ac in 2010, and 543,917 ac in 2011.

Forest-specific ecosystem component data: Over the last 10 years, approximately 4500 acres 

have burned from wildfire in the LTBMU. Current wildfire severity monitoring studies in mixed 

conifer forests in the northern and central Sierra Nevada (USDA 2008) indicate that fires greater 

than 300 acres in mixed conifer forest under current conditions burn at severity proportions of 

24% low severity (>40% mortality), 29% moderate severity (40-80% mortality) and 37% high 

severity (>80% mortality). We estimated the number of snags in burned forest based on the total 

number of snags estimated to be in the LTBMU (1.1 million), the assumptions for fire severity 

and mortality described above, and the assumption that the average stand in the LTBMU has 

approximately 100 trees/acre that are greater than 15 inches diameter-at-breast-height (dbh). 

Approximately 750 acres (approximately 24% of total burned area) of forest burned from the 

Angora fire have had most of the snags removed so this area does not have the same level of 

standing snags as other burned areas. Based on these assumptions, total estimated number of 

snags in burned forest in the LTBMU is 246,000. 

Population Distribution. Monitoring of the Black-backed Woodpecker across the 10 National 

Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted in partnership with The Institute for Bird 

Populations (IBP) (Forest Service 2010a, IBP 2002). The project began with a pilot study in 

2008 (Siegel et al. 2008) and has subsequently been implemented fully in 2009-2012 (Siegel et 

al. 2010, 2011, 2012, and in preparation). Surveys of randomly selected fire areas 1-10 years 

post-fire have generally yielded Black-backed Woodpecker detections at around half (min = 48% 

in 2011; max = 75% in 2012) of the fires surveyed, and around 20% of the individual survey 

points surveyed (Table 3-50). During the years of full survey implementation (2009-2012), 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-331
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Black-backed Woodpeckers were detected in fire areas on all ten National Forest units surveyed 

in 2011 and 2012, and on all National Forest units surveyed except for Sierra National Forest in 

2009 and 2010. These data indicate a stable population distribution in the Sierra Nevada in which 

black-backed woodpeckers continue to be distributed across the 10 National Forests in the study 

area (ranging from the Modoc National Forest in the north to the Sequoia National Forest to the 

south).

Table 3-50. Number of surveyed fires with Black-backed Woodpecker detections, points surveyed

(each with a transect of 10-20 survey points), and points with Black-backed Woodpecker detections 

during each year of MIS surveys for Black-backed Woodpecker. 

Year No. of

Fires 

Surveyed

No. (Percent) of Fires with 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker Detections

No. of

Points 

Surveyed

No. (Percent) of Points with 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

Detections

20081 19 10 (53%) 371 68 (18%)

2009 51 28 (55%) 899 169 (19%)

2010 49 29 (59%) 860 132 (15%)

2011 50 24 (48%) 895 148 (17%)

2012 52 39 (75%) 953 207 (23%)

1

Pilot study in which methods differed slightly from methods in subsequent years.

Forest-specific population distribution data: Bioregional monitoring for Sierra Nevada MIS 

includes sample points on the LTBMU; black-backed woodpecker were detected within 3 of 3 

surveyed fire areas (Angora, Gondola, and Showers) in both 2009 and 2010 and within 1 of 1 

surveyed fire area (Angora) in 2011, and within 3 of 3 surveyed fire areas in 2012 (Angora, 

Gondola, and Showers) (IBP 2002, Siegel, pers. comm). Black-backed woodpeckers were also 

detected at the following LTBMU sites during the green forest MIS bird monitoring conducted 

by PRBO: 6 of 15 upland points in 2009 (no riparian sites were visited), 1 of 16 riparian points 

in 2010 but zero of 20 upland points, 3 of 20 upland points in 2011 but zero of 16 riparian points, 

and 3 of 20 upland points but zero of 16 riparian points in 2012. All upland detections were on 

the TB01A or TB01B transects which are within approximately 1km of the Angora Fire 

perimeter (Point Blue Conservation Science 2013; Roberts 2013).

Black-backed woodpeckers were also detected at the following LTBMU sites during the green 

forest MIS bird monitoring: 6 of 10 upland sites in 2009, 1 of 15 riparian sites in 2010, and 3 of 

20 upland sites in 2011 (http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). At the Angora Fire, 15 

Black-backed Woodpecker nests were found in 2009 and 24 nests were found in 2010 by PSW 

3-332 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

researchers (Manley and Tarbill, 2012).

3.4.14.3 Environmental Consequences

This section evaluates the planning alternatives of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land 

and Resources Management Plan in terms of both amount (range of percent change) and quality 

of habitat and of animal population trends of the MIS, and documents the effects of the planning 

alternatives on the habitats of the MIS, as required by the 1982 Planning Rule (1982: 36 CFR 

219.19(a)(1)). Descriptions of the Forest Plan alternatives are found in Chapter 2. 

Effects are described at the scale of the LTBMU and are based on an evaluation of the proposed 

management activities that differ under each alternative. Effects are not evaluated for actions 

that are not directly associated with management direction. For example, the evaluation of 

effects to snags in green forest does not include effects from hazard tree removal which is not 

part of direct management activities. 

The SPECTRUM model was used to estimate trends towards achieving desired conditions for 

forest health and fuel reduction management under the five alternatives over a fifty year period 

after Plan implementation. A description of the model, including assumptions, applicability, and 

limitations, can be found in the section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). It should be noted that the 

model was designed to meet the desired conditions of forest health and fuel reduction 

management and not to create wildlife habitat or evaluate condition or trends of wildlife 

habitat. For example, the model was provided with minimal information regarding wildlife 

habitat, only locations and restrictions on treatments in spotted owl and goshawk Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs) and spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs). The model did not 

contain any other guiding parameters for wildlife habitat such as standards and guidelines related 

to the protection of den locations, nest locations for other bird species, connectivity of late seral 

habitat, or any other more qualitative guiding principal under each alternative. Furthermore, 

habitat associations and analysis of effects for terrestrial wildlife are based on CWHR 

classification which defines “open” canopy as S (10-24% canopy closure) and P (25-39% canopy 

closure), and “closed” canopy as M (40-59% canopy closure) and D (>60% canopy closure) but 

the model parameters differ from this definition for “open” canopy in the white fir and red fir 

forest types which is defined as <50% canopy closure, a 10 percent difference (see Forest Plan

Table 1, located after the Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Desired Conditions. 

We don’t anticipate this difference to significantly alter our interpretation of model output at the 

level of the Forest Plan but some late and mid seral open habitat may actually be considered 

closed (40-50% canopy closure) according to CWHR classification of wildlife habitat. Most 

importantly, the SPECTRUM model does not use an adaptive management framework which 

would serve as the cornerstone of the management approach under any alternative. Therefore, 

although the model results are described in this section as they would relate to trends in 

terrestrial wildlife habitat interpretations of model output should be made with caution. 

Percent changes in seral stages predicted by the model for all alternative are categorized as: No 

change (0-10 percent change); or Increase or Decrease that is either Slight (11-20 percent 

change), Moderate (21-50 percent change), or Substantial (>50 percent change). These categories 

were selected to express predicted trends because there are a variety of limiting factors (e.g., 

den/nest locations, habitat connectivity, climate change) that would influence prescriptions and 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-333
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

treatment decisions that are not incorporated into the model. Therefore, by using a range, we 

have conservatively estimated modeled predicted change.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) 

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat

The acres of lacustrine and miles of riverine habitat are not expected to change over the next 15-

20 years across the five Plan alternatives and all alternatives contain the same objectives to 

maintain and improve the conditions of this habitat type. 

The emphasis of this alternative is to protect and conserve aquatic habitat. Alternative A would 

continue to recognize the need and importance of healthy watersheds, stable stream channels, as 

well as the critical role of SEZs for their contribution to local water quality and lake clarity goals. 

This alternative would continue to recognize that activities adjacent to SEZs have the potential to 

deliver sediment to stream channels. Restoration of streams and related watershed processes is 

primarily linked to decreasing or eliminating sediment sources (stream banks, roads, and other 

infrastructure) and other non-point pollution sources with improving aquatic habitat conditions 

as secondary goals. The highest priority if a conflict in management would occur was given to 

‘the protection of water quality and the enhancement of the clarity of water in Lake Tahoe.” The 

benefits of this work would be measured through assessments of watershed and stream channel 

condition, and contributions to achieving total maximum daily load (TMDL) milestones.

Vegetation resources management techniques under all alternatives pose some level of short term 

risk of soil erosion and subsequent impacts to water quality. These risks will be managed by a 

variety of established BMPs, and the standards and guidelines. BMPS and standards and 

guidelines are “measures to mitigate adverse effects” under all alternatives. Vegetation 

management activities will not adversely affect current 303d listings, or impact the forests ability 

to achieve TMDL milestones for upland source areas. The most significant risk to water quality 

as it relates to vegetation management practices are those associated with both permanent and 

temporary roads utilized as part of vegetation management projects. This is because roads can 

create linear conduits for concentrating flows and eroded sediments, if BMPS are not properly 

implemented and maintained. 

Although there are currently no active allotments on the LTBMU, livestock grazing is considered 

a suitable use and often impacts stream, wetland and meadow form and function within a 

designated allotment. Livestock grazing has been known to widen channels, reducing the amount 

of pool habitat and raising water temperatures thus reducing dissolved oxygen (Hubert et al. 

1984, Stuber 1985). These alterations in channel form and function reduce spawning habitat for 

salmonids and other aquatic organisms.

Alternative A allows for approximately 10% expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces. Alternative A also identifies a number of site-specific 

areas where recreation facilities could be expanded and new recreation facilities could be 

developed based on direction from the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended). If pursued, new 

facilities, such as a new boat launch facility, or increased recreation activity pose high potential 

for both expansion of existing AIS and new introductions where developed recreation sites 

3-334 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

expand and provide direct/indirect access to waterbodies. Both water quality and biological 

communities are impacted by AIS.

For example, Asian clams, which are established in Lake Tahoe: 1) excrete elevated levels of 

nitrogen and phosphorus into the water at the lake‐sediment interface where they reside, 2) filter 

high volumes of water (Way et al. 1990), and 3) are strongly correlated with algal growth, and 4) 

are an actively reproducing community in Lake Tahoe—producing at least two cohorts per 

season. Potential impacts include increases in benthic algal blooms, the decline of phytoplankton 

and zooplankton communities, degradation of aesthetic and recreational beach use through 

excess shell material deposition, disruption to Lake Tahoe fishes, increased levels of calcium 

through the concentration of dead shell matter with a promotion of other regional exotic species 

(e.g., the quagga mussel 2 Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), and out‐competing Tahoe’s native 

benthic invertebrates such as the Montane Pea clam (Pisidium spp.) and the Ramshorn snail 

(Planorbidae). Additionally, dense Eurasian watermilfoil mats alter water quality by raising pH, 

decreasing oxygen under the mats, and increasing temperature (Whittman et al. 2008).

Although newly established or expanded recreation infrastructure could contribute to increased 

potential for AIS establishment, other potential consequences of recreation expansion on soil 

erosion and water quality would be minimized through established standards and guidelines and 

BMPs. These measures would be part of any proposed changes in recreation infrastructure as 

well as roads, trails, and associated access facilities. In addition, the LTBMU will continue to 

pursue opportunities to either retrofit, relocate, or decommission roads and trails to reduce 

potential sediment and nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe, as part of the Uplands Forest TMDL 

management strategy. 

The status of aquatic macroinvertebrates would be influenced by trends in the condition of 

lacustrine and riverine habitats. Because these habitats are anticipated to remain stable or 

improve over the life of the Plan in the LTBMU, the status of aquatic macroinvertebrates in this 

location is expected to remain stable. However, there is potential for challenges to the status of 

macroinvertebrates where AIS and/or livestock grazing could degrade habitat quality.

Alternative B 

This alternative does not differ substantially in actions that would have anticipated effects on 

lacustrine and riverine habitat nor in the strategies, objectives, and standard and guidelines 

proposed except there is less potential for recreation expansion. Therefore, effects, protection 

measures (e.g., BMPs), and conditions of lacustrine/riverine habitat as described in Alternative A 

are expected to be the same as those for Alternative B with minor reductions in the threat of AIS 

invasion or expansion with reduced potential for recreation expansion. 

Alternative C 

Restoration efforts are expected to maintain or improve aquatic habitat condition under this 

alternative. However, aquatic habitat condition has the potential to diminish as miles of road 

open to passenger vehicles increases, which includes a combination of native, graveled, and 

paved surfaces. Where roads are paved, surface runoff of substances such as motor oil, gasoline, 

heavy metals, as well as toxic substance used in de-icing programs has the potential to reach 

aquatic habitats (Noss, 1995). However, an aggressive BMP retrofit program has disconnected 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-335
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

most roads from stream channels. The recommendation for wilderness designation of 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area under Alternative C could result in limitations on any 

future watershed restoration activities that would involve the use of mechanical equipment. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, additional future projects would not be planned to actively restore degraded 

stream channels. Some implementation of the National Watershed Improvement Program would 

occur, through removal of existing active stressors on these systems, (such as poorly designed 

stream channel crossings or hydrologic diversions). However systems that are out of equilibrium 

(as exhibited by headcuts, incision, accelerated bank erosion) as a result of past land use 

practices, climate change or other stressors not under the control of the USFS management, 

would be allowed to adjust through natural processes.

Currently planned USFS stream channel and watershed improvement restoration projects are 

expected to be achieved within the next 15-20 years, and the benefits of this work measured 

through assessments of watershed and stream channel condition, and contributions to achieving 

TMDL milestones. However under Alternative D, the achievement of longer term TMDL 

stream channel milestones and geomorphic equilibrium from reaches on NFS lands, may take 

several decades longer than could be achieved through active restoration.

Alternative D creates a greater risk to water quality with a reduction in vegetation management 

activities, because with limited active fuels management there is a subsequently greater risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. A synthesis of research on the impacts of wildfire on water quality was 

published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the US Forest Service (RMRS, 2005). 

The results from this synthesis conclude that the magnitude of effects on water quality is driven 

primarily by fire severity, which is a qualitative term describing the amount of fuel consumed. 

Wildfires are more severe than prescribed fire, and as a result are more likely to produce 

significant effects on water quality in terms of sediment and nutrients. Canopy-consuming 

wildfires are expected to be the greatest concern to managers because of the loss of canopy 

coupled with the destruction of soil aggregates. These losses present the worst-case scenario in 

terms of impacts to water quality, particularly if followed by heavy rains on recently burned 

lands. A variety of studies in the Lake Tahoe Basin have found that fire suppression/exclusion 

has resulted in an accumulating forest floor with a build-up of large nutrient pools (Karam et al. 

2013, Miller et al. 2010) that now provide a natural source of long term nutrient availability to 

surface waters in Lake Tahoe (Miller et al. 2010). As a consequence, stand and forest floor 

replacing wildfire may cause a large magnitude nutrient mobilization impact on runoff water 

quality (Johnson et al. 2007, Miller et al. 2010).

Through the passive management approach proposed in Alternative D, which includes removal 

of only high priority AIS and passive restoration, lacustrine and riverine habitat status and trend 

could decline through the life of the plan as there is a potential for a reduction in water 

quality/chemistry, lack of flood plain connectivity and associated stream shade, increased w/d 

ratios, increase of warm water fish and other medium to low priority AIS species, such as 

bullfrogs. Improvements, beyond just removing known stressors, to physical, chemical, or 

biological habitat elements would only be employed in cases that are needed to restore TE, 

candidate, or proposed species life history traits.

3-336 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Finally, recommendation for wilderness designation of Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried 

Roadless Areas under Alternative D would result in limitations on any future watershed 

restoration activities that would involve the use of mechanical equipment. 

The status of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the LTBMU is expected to remain stable with 

potential for challenges to status where restoration is not implemented and habitat conditions do 

not meet life history requirements. 

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of actions that would 

have anticipated effects on lacustrine and riverine habitat. Therefore, effects, protection 

measures (e.g., BMPs), and conditions of lacustrine/riverine habitat are similar to those described 

in Alternative B. 

Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) 

Alternative A 

The acres of riparian habitat are not expected to change over the next 15-20 years across the five

Plan alternatives. 

Under this alternative, watershed and aquatic habitat restoration would continue to maintain and 

improve riparian habitat where possible. Ongoing restoration projects in the LTBMU plant 

native riparian vegetation such as willow and aspen in project locations. Restoration projects 

also remove encroaching conifers from riparian habitat as part of the project design. In addition, 

a number of current projects focus on the restoration of aspen stands throughout the LTBMU by 

removing encroaching conifers. Although these efforts have been successful, limits on the size 

of trees (30 inch dbh) that can be removed from stands under this alternative can substantially 

restrict the ability of these activities to remove larger encroaching conifers from aspen and other 

riparian stands. 

The integrity of riparian habitat under this alternative can be challenged if livestock grazing is 

authorized and by increased developed recreation infrastructure. Livestock may not only 

degrade water quality but also feed and trample on native riparian vegetation. Livestock grazing 

is considered a suitable use under all alternatives. Therefore, effects from this activity are shared 

by all alternatives.

Alternative A allows for approximately 10% expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces. Alternative A also identifies a number of site-specific 

areas where recreation facilities could be expanded and new recreation facilities could be 

developed based on direction from the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended). If pursued, new 

and expanded facilities could degrade riparian habitat where it exists in proximity to this habitat 

type. 

The status of yellow warbler in the LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current 

condition with potential for improvement where restoration of riparian vegetation meets the life 

history needs of the species and facilitates riparian vegetation recruitment in future years. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-337
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Challenges to this species in the LTBMU could occur with implementation of grazing in suitable 

habitat for yellow warbler and/or where expanded developed recreation occurs within or adjacent 

to occupied or otherwise suitable habitat. 

Alternative B 

Restoration of riparian habitat would be the same as that described for Alternative A except this 

alternative allows the removal of larger conifers from stands, including riparian stands, under 

limited circumstances. Therefore, restoration of riparian habitats that are threatened by 

encroaching conifers may be more effectively restored under this alternative. In addition, this 

alternative allows for the potential expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces by approximately 5%, half of what is allowed under 

Alternative A. This alternative would focus on deferred maintenance of a facility before 

construction of a new one. 

The condition of riparian habitat could face challenges. Similar to Alternative A, grazing is 

considered a suitable use under this and all alternatives. Grazing can degrade riparian habitat.

Riparian habitat can also face challenges where recreation facilities are expanded but at a level 

less than Alternative A. Unlike Alternative A, improvements to forest access through trail and 

road upgrades could challenge the condition of riparian habitat where these access points 

traverse or occur in proximity to riparian habitat. 

The status of yellow warbler in the LTBMU is expected to remain in current condition with 

potential for improvement where restoration of riparian vegetation meets the life history needs of 

the species and facilitates riparian vegetation recruitment in future years. Challenges to this 

species in the LTBMU could occur where expanded developed recreation occurs, grazing is 

implemented, and trail/road improvements are conducted within or adjacent to occupied or 

otherwise suitable habitat. 

Alternative C 

The status of riparian habitat condition and yellow warbler are expected to be the same as that 

described under Alternative B except that this alternative includes the potential for up to 15% 

expansion of developed recreation sites, an increase in road and trail upgrades, and the 

recommendation of Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area as a Wilderness Area. Increased 

developed recreation, and trail and road access could challenge riparian habitat conditions where 

these facilities or features traverse or occur adjacent to riparian habitat. Habitat could be 

degraded from infrastructure construction and or increased human use, and fragmented by trails 

or roads. The recommendation for wilderness designation of Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless 

Area could reduce disturbance to this habitat type but could also limit future watershed 

restoration activities in this area. 

Although riparian habitat condition and the status of yellow warbler in the LTBMU are expected 

to remain in current condition with the potential to improve under this alternative from 

restoration activities targeting riparian habitat, there is a potential for diminished condition in 

habitat or status of the yellow warbler in the LTBMU where recreation and access degrade or 

fragment habitat and/or where restoration opportunities are limited within a new Wilderness 

Area.

3-338 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, future projects would not be planned to actively restore degraded riparian 

habitat following the completion of currently planned projects. Natural processes would be 

favored as a means of maintaining riparian habitat condition. 

Vegetation management under this alternative emphasizes the use of prescribed and managed 

wildfire to meet desired conditions. Wildfire can assist in riparian habitat improvements such as 

aspen suckering and is a valuable restoration tool. However, implementation of prescribed fire 

as the primary tool for vegetation treatments could be complicated by the need for ideal weather 

conditions, air quality concerns, and public safety concerns. This alternative also limits the size 

of trees that can be removed (similar to Alternative A) and such limitations could impede 

restoration activities.

This alternative proposes a potential for reduction of recreation facilities by up 15% at each site, 

a perceived benefit where facilities that are decommissioned occur in or adjacent to riparian 

habitat. The potential for fewer facilities and visitors in these areas could have beneficial results 

for riparian areas. However, riparian habitat could face challenges where recreation capacity is 

unable to meet demand and visitors continue to use now unmanaged areas or begin to use areas 

that previously experienced relatively low user levels.

Livestock grazing is also considered a suitable use under this alternative and this activity could 

degrade riparian habitat.

Recommendation for Wilderness designation of Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried Roadless 

Areas under Alternative D could reduce disturbance to this habitat type but could also limit 

future watershed restoration activities in this area. 

The condition of riparian habitat and status of yellow warbler in the LTBMU is expected to 

remain the same as the current condition with potential for improvement where recreation 

pressures may be alleviated. Conversely, there is potential for diminished productivity and 

distribution where restoration is not implemented and habitat conditions no longer meet life 

history requirements. 

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of actions that would 

have anticipated effects on riparian habitat. Therefore, effects, protection measures, and 

condition of riparian habitat are similar to those described in Alternative B. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-339
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific Chorus (Pacific tree) frog) 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue ongoing restoration efforts that are expected to benefit wet 

meadow condition. Therefore, the condition of wet meadow habitat is anticipated to stay the 

same with potential to improve throughout the LTBMU with ongoing and future restoration 

projects. 

Vegetation management may improve meadow conditions where encroaching conifers are 

thinned from meadows and meadow perimeters and where prescribed fire is used as a restoration 

tool. However, meadow condition in the LTBMU is challenged by encroaching conifers and the 

limit under this Alternative on the size of trees that can be removed can substantially restrict 

restoration. 

The condition of wet meadow habitat could experience pressures from the potential expansion of 

developed recreation under this alternative. The potential expansion of developed recreation 

facilities by 10% at each site and creation of new sites could cause habitat degradation if 

recreation facilities are built in proximity to wet meadow sites and/or attract visitors to use wet 

meadow sites more frequently. 

Additionally, wet meadow habitat could be challenged as a result of livestock grazing, which if 

authorized could reduce native vegetation, increase soil compaction, increase erosion and 

sediment transport, and reduce water quality. These and other potential impacts could be 

confounded as a result of climate change which could reduce water availability to wet meadows.

The status of the pacific tree frog in the LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current 

condition under this alternative with potential to improve where restoration efforts improve wet 

meadow condition. Habitat condition and status of the pacific tree frog in the LTBMU could be 

challenged where recreation expansion and livestock grazing degrades wet meadow habitat.

Alternative B 

Similar to Alternative A, watershed and aquatic habitat restoration projects are expected to 

benefit wet meadow condition. Likewise, vegetation management that involves conifer removal 

and the use of prescribed fire within or at the perimeter of meadows is also expected to benefit 

meadow condition. The vegetation management strategy for this alternative allows for the 

removal of larger diameter trees than Alternative A; the ability to remove larger diameter trees 

may assist in reclaiming meadows and meadow perimeters under this alternative where meadow 

condition is threatened by large conifers. These effects could also reduce the impacts of climate 

change within wet meadows.

This alternative includes additional objectives for the maintenance and protection of wet meadow 

conditions that are not included under Alternative A. This alternative also includes objectives to 

restore historic and occupied willow flycatcher habitat (wet meadows). Both of these objectives 

could improve wet meadow condition.

The condition of wet meadow habitat could experience pressures from developed recreation 

under this alternative but at a level less than Alternative A. The potential expansion of 

3-340 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

developed recreation sites, overnight accommodation units, and parking spaces by approximately

5% at each site could cause habitat degradation if recreation facilities are built in proximity to 

wet meadow sites and/or attract visitors to use wet meadow sites more frequently. The potential 

for enhanced access to dispersed recreation activities under this alternative could also contribute 

to degraded meadow condition where trails would be in close proximity to this habitat type.

This alternative also allows grazing as a suitable use which could have negative consequences 

for wet meadow habitat.

The status of the pacific tree frog is expected to remain the same as the current condition under 

this alternative with potential to improve where restoration efforts improve wet meadow 

condition. Similar to Alternative A, habitat condition and status of the pacific tree frog in the 

LTBMU could be challenged where recreation expansion and livestock grazing degrades wet 

meadow habitat.

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B with respect to restoration, vegetation management 

strategies, and meadow protection and restoration objectives except Alternative C has the 

potential to increase developed recreation facilities by 15% at each site and proposes a number of 

upgrades for trails and roads. 

This alternative allows the most potential expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces (up to 15% at each site) of all alternatives. However, 

Alternative A also proposes the creation of a number of new sites in addition to the potential for 

up to 10% expansion of existing sites. In addition, the potential for enhanced access under 

Alternative C to dispersed recreation activities through road and trail upgrades could also 

contribute to degraded meadow condition where roads and/or trails are created in close proximity 

to this habitat type. As with the other alternatives, grazing is considered a suitable land use 

under this alternative.

Wilderness recommendation of Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area could have positive and 

negative consequences for wet meadow habitat. The designation could increase dispersed 

recreation in wet meadow habitat and thereby increase recreation pressure but also reduce certain 

types of recreation (e.g., mechanized equipment) that may negatively influence wet meadows 

and associated species. There is potential for an increase in hiking, camping, pack animals, and 

domestic animals (dogs) to impact wet meadows. In addition, where the condition of wet 

meadows is being compromised in this area, future opportunities for restoration are limited.

The status of the pacific tree frog is expected to remain the same as the current condition in the 

LTBMU under this alternative with potential to improve where restoration efforts improve wet 

meadow condition. Habitat condition and status of the pacific tree frog could be challenged due 

to recreation expansion and grazing activities that could degrade wet meadow habitat.

Alternative D 

In the absence of restoration under Alternative D, following the completion of currently planned 

projects, it can be expected that the condition of wet meadows would remain stable but have the 

potential for diminished condition from conifer encroachment and possible meadow desiccation. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-341
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

This alternative also places a 12 inch dbh limit on trees that can be removed outside the WUI 

defense zone. This limit could restrict removal of encroaching conifers from meadows and 

meadow perimeters. The emphasis on the use of prescribed fire under this alternative would 

potentially be a preferred disturbance used to improve meadow conditions but the feasibility of 

implementation given weather conditions, air quality concerns, and public concerns, is low. 

As active restoration activities decline, potential impacts of climate change could result in 

reduced habitat conditions as water availability declines.

Wilderness recommendation of Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area could have positive and 

negative consequences for wet meadow habitat. The designation could increase dispersed 

recreation in wet meadow habitat and thereby increase recreation pressure but also reduce certain 

types of recreation (e.g., mechanized equipment) that may negatively influence wet meadows 

and associated species. There is potential for an increase in hiking, camping, pack animals, and 

domestic animals (dogs) to impact wet meadows. In addition, where the condition of wet 

meadows is being compromised in this area, future opportunities for restoration are limited.

The status of the pacific tree frog is expected to remain the same as the current condition in the 

LTBMU under this alternative with potential to improve where restoration efforts improve wet 

meadow condition. There is a potential for diminished condition of habitat and challenges to the 

status of the pacific tree frog where meadow conditions are degraded or lost.

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of actions that would 

have anticipated effects on wet meadow habitat. Therefore, effects, protection measures, and 

condition of wet meadows are similar to those described in Alternative B. 

Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) 

Alternative A 

Early seral habitat is predicted to experience a moderate decrease for all forest types combined as 

well as for Jeffrey pine and red fir forest types under this alternative. Early seral habitat is 

predicted to experience a substantial decrease in the white fir/mixed conifer forest type. Under 

this alternative, an objective is to create early seral stage habitat from the mid seral stage. 

However, because there are limitations on the size of a tree that can be thinned (<30 inches in 

diameter), early seral creation faces challenges under this alternative.

Mid seral habitat is predicted by the model to decrease under this alternative for all forest types 

and in individual forest types (see Table 3-71 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). Under the 

current direction, mid seral is moved to late seral conditions by cutting smaller diameter trees 

which changes the forest type. Therefore, changes in mid seral habitat under this alternative 

represent the movement of mid to late seral habitat as well as the current method of treatment 

that can change stand size which can be influenced by a large proportion of smaller diameter 

trees in the understory.

3-342 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The condition of early and mid seral habitat could experience pressures from developed 

recreation under this alternative. The potential expansion of developed recreation sites, 

overnight accommodation units, and parking spaces by 10% at each site and creation of new sites 

could cause habitat degradation if recreation facilities are built in proximity to these habitat types 

and/or attract visitors to use these sites more frequently. Moreover, this alternative proposes the 

largest expansion of ski areas which could fragment and/or reduce mid seral habitat. 

Mountain quail have been detected at many upland sites within the LTBMU. The status of the 

mountain quail in the LTBMU is expected to remain the same as in current condition under this 

alternative. However, there is potential for challenges where early and mid seral moves to late 

seral and without replacement. The status of mountain quail could also face challenges where 

expanded or newly created developed recreation sites are in close proximity to suitable habitat 

and cause increased disturbance.

Alternative B 

The forest vegetation goal of this alternative (and Alternatives C and E) is to restore forest 

structure which would include the creation of early seral openings from the mid seral stage. 

However, early seral is predicted to decrease slightly under this alternative for all forest types 

combined and in the white fir/mixed conifer forest type. Early seral is predicted to experience no 

change in the Jeffrey pine forest type but decrease moderately in red fir. Although early seral

creation proposed under this alternative is not predicted to keep pace with loss (natural 

conversion) of this habitat type, the decrease is less than under Alternative A. Creation of early 

seral stages where it would occur can not only improve long-term sustainability but also increase 

habitat heterogeneity on the landscape, promote use of this habitat and increased productivity by 

early seral associated species such as mountain quail, and increase foraging habitat condition and 

productivity in predators of early seral associated species. 

Mid seral closed canopy habitat is predicted to decrease moderately in all but red fir forest type 

where it is predicted to increase substantially (see Table 3-71 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial 

Wildlife). Mid seral open canopy habitat is predicted to increase moderately in Jeffrey pine but 

decrease substantially in red fir. Elsewhere mid seral open canopy habitat would experience no 

change. Some mid seral habitat would be converted under this alternative to early seral and mid 

seral open (from mid seral closed) and facilitated towards growth to late seral where appropriate 

to meet vegetation restoration objectives. But it can be seen from modeled predictions that mid 

seral habitat would also trend positively in some of the forest types.

The condition of early and mid seral habitat could experience pressures from developed 

recreation under this alternative but at a level less than Alternative A, although potential effects 

would be location-specific. The potential expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces by up to 5% at each site could cause habitat 

degradation if recreation sites are expanded near these habitat types and/or attract visitors to use 

these sites more frequently. The potential for enhanced access to dispersed recreation activities 

under this alternative could also contribute to degraded habitat condition where trails would 

traverse or be in close proximity to this habitat type.

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-343
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

The status of mountain quail in the LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current 

condition under this alternative with potential for the status to improve where early seral is 

created but could face challenges where creation does not keep pace with predicted decrease of 

this seral stage but at a level less than Alternative A. The predicted changes in mid seral habitat 

is not expected to result in an adverse effect on the status of mountain quail in the LTBMU 

because much of this habitat would be converted to early seral stages or to mid seral open, 

habitat types that are used by mountain quail. 

Alternative C 

Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative C also proposes to create early seral habitat from mid 

seral habitat as well as promote the trend of some mid seral habitat towards late seral conditions. 

However, Alternative C (and B and E) also proposes to create mid seral open habitat from mid 

seral closed. This Alternative also proposes to thin more acres/year than any other alternative. 

Therefore, this alternative has a greater potential for short term (i.e., implementation) effects. 

However, effects would depend on location, resources, and scope of the project. Early seral 

habitat is predicted to experience no change for all forest types combined and in Jeffrey pine 

forest type. This stage is predicted to increase substantially in the red fir type but decrease 

slightly in white fir/mixed conifer forest type. This Alternative is more successful than 

Alternatives A and B at preserving early seral habitat on the landscape.

Overall mid seral closed canopy habitat is predicted to decrease under this alternative except in 

red fir where it would stay the same (see Table 3-71 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). 

Conversely, mid seral open canopy habitat is predicted to increase under this alternative in all 

forest types except red fir where it would moderately decrease. These predicted trends suggest 

that Alternative C is effective at converting some of the mid seral closed canopy habitat (except 

in red fir) to mid seral open canopy habitat to restore forest structure.

This alternative allows the most potential expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight 

accommodation units, and parking spaces (up to 15%) of all alternatives. However, Alternative 

A also proposes the creation of a number of new sites. The potential expansion could cause 

habitat degradation if recreation expands near early and mid seral habitat types and/or attract 

visitors to use these sites more frequently. In addition, the potential for enhanced access to 

dispersed recreation activities through road and trail upgrades under this alternative could also 

contribute to degraded habitat condition where roads and/or trails would be in close proximity to 

this habitat type. Moreover, this alternative proposes a relatively large expansion of ski areas (but 

less than Alternative A) which could fragment and/or reduce mid seral habitat. 

Overall, Alternative C appears to be more successful in creating and maintaining early and mid 

seral habitat than the other alternatives. The mountain quail could benefit from these predicted 

trends in habitat. The mountain quail could be challenged by increased developed recreation as 

well as increased use of roads and trails throughout the LTBMU.

Alternative D 

Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative D also proposes to create the same amount of early seral 

habitat from mid seral habitat each year as well as promote the trend of some mid seral habitat 

towards late seral conditions. However, this alternative emphasizes the use of hand thinning and 

prescribed fire to achieve desired conditions for these seral stages which can be a useful tool, 

3-344 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

especially for the maintenance of early seral habitat. However, the use of prescribed fire as the 

primary tool for forest structure restoration is limited by the need for appropriate weather 

conditions to burn, air quality concerns, public safety concerns, among others. Early seral 

habitat is predicted to decrease under this Alternative but not as significantly as under 

Alternative A. Overall, the predicted trend in mid seral habitat is similar to Alternative A (see 

Table 3-71 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). 

The status of the mountain quail in the LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current 

condition under this alternative. However, the condition of habitat and status of the mountain 

quail in the LTBMU could be challenged where early seral and mid seral stages move to mid and 

late seral stages and is not replaced on the landscape. 

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of management 

approaches that would have anticipated effects on early and mid seral habitat. Therefore, effects, 

protection measures, and condition of early and mid seral habitat are similar to those described in 

Alternative B. 

 

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (Sooty blue grouse) 

Alternative A 

Late seral open canopy habitat is predicted to increase moderately under this alternative in all 

forest types and increase substantially in red fir forests. The status of the sooty grouse is 

expected to remain the same as the current conditions under this alternative but could improve 

because of the increasing trend in associated habitat.

Challenges to habitat condition and status of sooty grouse could occur where developed 

recreation expands or new facilities are created in late seral open canopy habitat in the LTBMU. 

The potential expansion of developed recreation sites, overnight accommodation units, and 

parking spaces by up to 10% at each site and creation of new sites could cause habitat 

degradation if recreation facilities are built in proximity to these habitat types and/or attract 

visitors to use these sites more frequently. The potential for nearly double acres of ski areas 

could challenge the species and habitat where habitat is degraded or removed and where use 

creates increased disturbance.

Alternative B 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative A in terms of management 

approaches that would have anticipated effects on late seral open canopy coniferous forest 

habitat. And late seral open canopy habitat is predicted to increase under this alternative. 

Therefore, as with Alternative A, the status of the sooty grouse is expected to remain the same as 

the current conditions under this alternative. However, this alternative proposes less overall 

recreation expansion than Alternative A and may have less potential for effects but effects would 

depend upon location and scope of project activities. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-345
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Alternative C 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative A in terms of actions that would 

have anticipated effects on late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat. And late seral open 

canopy habitat is predicted to increase under this alternative. Therefore, as with Alternative A, 

the status of the sooty grouse is expected to remain the same as the current conditions under this 

alternative. However, this alternative proposes more overall recreation expansion than 

Alternative A (and B) and may have greater potential for effects but effects depend upon location 

and scope of project activities. Additional challenges to habitat condition and status of sooty 

grouse could occur where upgrades to roads and trails allow for more dispersed recreation in this 

habitat type.

 

Alternative D 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative A in terms of desired conditions 

for late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat. And late seral open canopy habitat is 

predicted to increase under this alternative. However, this alternative emphasizes the use of 

prescribed fire and hand treatments to achieve desired conditions which are considered preferred 

techniques (especially fire) for reintroducing disturbance to the landscape but feasibility of 

implementation is limited. This alternative also includes the potential for a reduction in 

developed recreation sites, overnight accommodation units, and parking spaces by up to 15%. 

The status of the sooty grouse is expected to remain the same as the current conditions in the

LTBMU under this alternative.

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of management 

approaches that would have anticipated effects on late seral open canopy coniferous forest 

habitat. Therefore, effects, protection measures, and condition of this habitat type are similar to 

those described in Alternative B. 

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl, 

Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel) 

Alternative A 

The goal for Alternative A is based on the current forest plan (as amended) to promote late seral 

closed canopy habitat for species associated with this habitat. And late seral closed canopy 

habitat is predicted to increase in all forest types under this alternative except red fir where it is 

expected to decrease slightly (see Table 3-70 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). This 

alternative also uses OFEAs to designate late seral forest areas. Unfortunately, the OFEAs under 

this alternative were not delineated by the local unit, but through a regional process, and for the 

purpose of connecting habitats of old forest dependent species Sierra Nevada wide. These areas 

in the LTBMU do not contain all of the old or late seral forest stands in the LTBMU and lack 

standards and guidelines. Still, many spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) in the 

LTBMU overlap OFEAs. 

3-346 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat condition under this alternative could be challenged by the potential for recreation sites

to expand by up to 10% and the potential for the acreage of ski areas to double. Expansion of 

recreation infrastructure, especially ski resorts, can cause adverse effects on species associated 

with late seral habitat. Expansion of ski areas can lead to habitat degradation and fragmentation, 

high levels of human disturbance that may create effective use barriers for wildlife, loss of snags 

because of safety hazards, and increased night disturbance from lighting and trail grooming 

(Manley et al. 2010). Moreover, standardized Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) that are in 

place to protect nests and dens do not apply to recreation areas under this alternative but only to 

vegetation treatments. 

The status of the California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel in the 

LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current condition under this alternative with 

potential to improve because of the increasing trend in mature forest habitat. Challenges to 

habitat condition and the status of these species could occur where dense conditions compromise 

stand resiliency and where recreation expansion and activities degrade habitat and disturb 

individuals. 

Alternative B 

The vegetation management goal for Alternative B (and C & E) is to restore forest structure. 

Under this alternative, late seral closed canopy habitat is predicted to experience no change for 

all forest types combined and the white fir/mixed conifer forest type, increase moderately in the 

Jeffrey pine forest type, and decrease moderately in the red fir forest type (see Table 3-70 in 

Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). The decrease in red fir is primarily driven by a substantial 

decrease in CWHR type 6 (decreases under all alternatives) and a slight decrease in 5M. CWHR 

type 5D is predicted to increase substantially in red fir under all alternatives.

Alternative B (and E) would emphasize the same concepts (desired conditions) originally 

designed for Alternative A OFEAs, but apply them to each location of late seral closed canopy

forest throughout the LTBMU. That is, treatments would be designed to enhance/perpetuate the 

existing late-seral forest stands while enhancing/promoting mid-seral adjacent stands that most 

effectively connect late-seral habitats (e.g. spotted owl (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas 

(HRCAs)). In order to enhance or perpetuate late-seral stands, in some cases on a project-specific 

basis, prescriptions will need to have some flexibility in order to accomplish this objective. That 

is, have the ability to kill or remove trees greater than 30 inches in diameter. This option, though 

an exception, will become more essential as larger trees become more prevalent, but still need 

space to grow. Such a prescription that includes this exception will focus primarily on outcomes 

with wildlife habitat in mind. 

These flexibilities, although intended to improve the condition of late seral forests, have the 

potential to affect species associated with mature forest like marten, spotted owl, and northern 

goshawk. For example, removal of trees larger than 30 inches in diameter could alter the prey 

base, reduce the canopy cover, and/or increase potential for predation where the tree provided 

protection for nesting or denning locations. Nest trees would not be removed. All of these 

potential impacts are dependent on the treatment and scope of activities, a level of detail that is 

beyond the scope of this analysis since projects and locations are not assigned by any alternative. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-347
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

The removal of large trees could also benefit the habitat of species associated with mature forest 

conditions. The limited exceptions under which a tree greater than 30 inches in diameter would 

be removed are focused, for the most part, on the enhancement of a stand and directed towards 

improving resiliency and reducing susceptibility to insects, disease, drought, and large-scale 

catastrophic fire over the long term. Removal of some larger trees could also promote the 

accelerated growth of adjacent trees to even larger diameters and reduce the risk for catastrophic 

fire where these trees are densely packed. 

The lack of one-size-fits all minimum canopy retention levels for the general forest under this 

alternative (and C) as opposed to Alternative A (and D) could have negative impacts on species 

associated with dense canopy cover such as spotted owl, northern flying squirrel, and marten. 

Reducing the canopy cover in a stand could increase the risk of predation, alter thermal 

conditions of the stand, and cause displacement of individuals and/or their prey depending on the 

location and scope of treatments. These types of impacts could be of short duration and also be 

mitigated by strategic spatial and temporal spacing of treatments as well as the implementation 

of resource protection measures and LOPs at the project level. LOPs under this alternative apply 

to vegetation treatments. Reduction in the canopy of late seral closed canopy habitat is not 

expected to have lasting negative effects on these and other late seral associated species since the 

canopy would not typically be reduced to a point where late seral closed becomes late seral open 

canopy habitat. Ultimately, the purpose of treating late seral stands is to promote resiliency of 

this habitat for the long term. 

PACs continued to be protected under all alternatives. Restoration of PAC habitat under 

Alternatives B (and C and E) although intended to benefit the long term condition of habitat for 

the species, could temporarily affect habitat for spotted owls and goshawks. The potential for 

impacts would depend on the location and scope of the specific restoration project. However, 

the intent of restoration is to improve habitat for the specific benefit of the spotted owl and 

goshawk and therefore, impacts, if they were to occur, would be temporary. Many potential 

impacts are not expected to occur because PAC restoration projects would be driven solely by 

the purpose and need to maintain and/or restore suitable habitat for spotted owls (and goshawks). 

Resource protection measures would be in place for any PAC restoration project (e.g., snag 

retention, canopy cover, etc.) in order to retain suitable habitat, including important structures, 

and limit the operating period to times of year when individuals are not breeding. 

The long term benefit that can be realized by conducting focused restoration activities to 

maintain and/or improve habitat condition for spotted owls and goshawks in PACs, as opposed 

to doing nothing, may outweigh the short term impacts that could occur. Under the current 

direction under Alternative A (and Alternative D), treatments allowed in PACs are intended to 

reduce fuels and are permitted where PACs overlap the WUI. Many PACs overlap the WUI in 

the LTBMU. Fuel reduction treatments are an ongoing activity under all alternatives and would 

be designed to be consistent with achieving PAC desired condition. Still, many forested stands 

in the Sierra Nevada (and the LTBMU) that are outside WUI, are becoming increasingly stocked 

with trees, particularly smaller, shade tolerant trees. Many stands also contain unusually high 

levels of slash and large downed wood. These dense, thicket-like conditions of trees can 

compromise the suitability of spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat and make it 

more susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. Without some type of focus-driven restoration for the 

benefit of the stand condition for these species, PAC habitat could deteriorate over time and 

3-348 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

become more susceptible to widespread negative effects from insects, drought, disease, and 

catastrophic stand replacing fire. 

Although fire is a historic part of the processes affecting habitat in the Sierra Nevada and insect 

outbreaks are also part of the ecological processes that influence forests within this region, the 

forested stands within the LTBMU are outside of their natural range of variability and more 

susceptible to high severity crown fires and massive, widespread die offs from insect outbreaks. 

Stand replacing fires and insect outbreaks that completely remove nest and roost trees, and that 

are on a large geographic scale (especially compared to the relatively small size of the LTBMU) 

are not likely to benefit these species. Therefore, the long term benefit of these focused 

restoration efforts are believed to outweigh the potential for short term effects. 

Habitat condition under this alternative could be challenged by the potential for an increase in 

developed recreation (including ski facilities) but at a level less than Alternative A. Increased 

access to NFS lands through upgraded roads and trails could degrade habitat where they traverse

late seral closed canopy forest and disturb wildlife species.

The status of the California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel in the 

LTBMU is expected to remain the same as the current condition under this alternative with 

potential for short term challenges where large trees are removed and/or canopy cover is reduced 

as part of forest health treatments. However, the magnitude of such impacts would depend on 

location and scope of treatments as well as existing sensitive resources that are present. The 

treatments to enhance late seral closed canopy conditions are expected to have an overall positive 

effect on the long term condition of the habitat and improve resiliency and reduce the potential 

for large-scale catastrophic wildfire. The predicted decrease in late seral closed canopy red fir 

forest could challenge these species but an increase in red fir 5D may provide additional denning 

or nesting habitat. Challenges to these species could also occur where developed recreation 

expands and where enhanced access to NFS lands degrades habitat and/or disturbs individuals. 

Alternative C 

Late seral closed canopy forest is predicted to decrease moderately in red fir forest under this 

alternative but increase in Jeffrey pine and stay the same in white fir/mixed conifer forest types

(see Table 3-70 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife). Alternative C is similar to Alternative B 

in desired conditions, strategies, and standards and guidelines for late seral closed canopy forest 

and associated species. However, Alternative C would include the treatment of more acres/year 

than Alternative B. As a result, Alternative C has a greater potential for short term impacts but 

the magnitude of effects would depend on location and scope of project activities. Alternative C 

also has a greater potential for expansion of developed recreation sites (including ski areas but 

less than A) and roads and trails which could challenge the status of spotted owl, marten, and 

northern flying squirrel in the LTBMU where such expansion is in close proximity to occupied 

or otherwise suitable habitat. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, late seral closed canopy habitat is predicted to increase moderately in white 

fir/mixed conifer forests, increase substantially in Jeffrey pine forests, but decrease moderately in 

red fir forests (see Table 3-70 in Section 3.4. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife).

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-349
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

This alternative emphasizes the use of fire and hand treatments to restore forest structure, type, 

and resiliency. Under ideal conditions, fire would be considered a preferred disturbance type to 

reintroduce and improve forest health conditions. However, there are limited times throughout 

the year when fire can be safely used in the LTBMU to achieve these goals. Therefore, this 

alternative could have the potential for marked enhancement of late seral closed canopy habitat 

but it could be that logistical issues limit the applicability of this alternative. 

Where fire is not used and hand treatments are incorporated as surrogates, this alternative limits 

the size of trees that can be cut outside the WUI to 12 inches in diameter. Although this 

approach does not risk the short term loss of any large trees that are preferred by wildlife, the 

potential long term decline in forest health conditions may outweigh the potential short term 

risks associated with loss of a large diameter tree. Without the ability to continue to thin stands 

of trees where diameters exceed 12 inches dbh, the health of forest stands would steadily decline

because of the inability to remove competing trees in overly stocked stands (see 3.4.11, Forest 

Vegetation section of FEIS). As with Alternative A, dense stand conditions under this 

alternative could have disastrous consequences on the longevity and health of the habitat and 

increase susceptibility to large-scale catastrophic fire.

The status of California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel in the LTBMU 

is expected to remain the same as the current condition under this alternative and could benefit 

from the reintroduction of fire to habitat, reduction in developed recreation sites, and increase in 

preferred habitat in white fir/mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine but could also face challenges where 

dense conditions compromise stand integrity.

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of the management 

approach and predicted trends in late seral closed canopy habitat that would have anticipated 

effects on late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat. Therefore the predicted status of 

spotted owls, martens, and northern flying squirrels is similar to that described under Alternative 

B. However, this alternative provides for clearer direction in the standards and guidelines and 

strategies to preserve late seral closed canopy habitat. For example, this alternative contains 

additional standards for the retention of canopy cover and basal area where late seral-associated 

species could be affected, including a standard to not reduce canopy lower than 10%. This 

alternative also includes a desired condition that spotted owl PACs have a minimum of 70%

canopy cover and standards and guidelines for the minimum canopy cover retention levels. The 

standards and guidelines under this alternative also clarify the limited circumstances under which 

trees greater than 30 inches diameter can be removed. This alternative also clarifies that selected 

trees would not need to be removed but could be girdled for snag creation or felled for coarse 

woody debris. Alternative E proposes to restore the same number of PACs as Alternatives B and 

C but this alternative, more than the other alternatives, provides the clearest guidance for suitable 

PAC conditions. 

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the number of snags greater than 15 inches dbh is expected to increase over 

time. Once a tree exceeds 30 inches dbh, the LTBMU is limited in the ability to remove this tree 

3-350 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

due to the standards and guidelines in place. Therefore, stand density would be expected to 

increase in such a way that would make the stand more vulnerable to stress from competition or 

drought. More importantly, over the life of the Plan, the stand would be at a high risk for insect 

(e.g., beetle) outbreak that could exponentially increase tree mortality. 

It is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would remain the same as 

the current condition under this alternative. This species has been detected at a number of 

upland and riparian sites and in every subwatershed of the LTBMU. Because snags are expected 

to increase under this alternative, it is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the 

LTBMU would continue to be the same as previously documented but may also respond 

positively to the increase in potential habitat. However, stands under this alternative may be 

more dense than conditions that are considered suitable for the hairy woodpecker, a species that 

is strongly associated with stands of sparse to intermediate density.

Alternative B 

Snags greater than 15 inches dbh are expected to increase over time under this alternative but 

with a potentially slower rate of snag recruitment than under Alternative A. Under this 

alternative, there are fewer constraints for removal of large trees through forest health-related 

treatments. Trees greater than 30 inches dbh can be removed where necessary to maintain the 

health of the stand and of nearby trees. Therefore, stands managed under Alternative B could 

experience fewer incidences of insect outbreaks, lower rates of disease transmission, and die offs 

from stress-related causes (i.e., drought, competition, etc.) than under Alternative A. Under this 

alternative, stands may have larger live trees than under Alternative A as well as conditions 

where snags are recruited over time and not created all at once.

It is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would remain the same as 

the current condition under this alternative. This species has been detected at a number of 

upland and riparian sites and in every subwatershed of the LTBMU. Because snags are expected 

to increase under this alternative, albeit at a rate potentially slower than Alternative A, it is 

expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would continue to be the same 

as previously documented. The status of this species may improve where there is an increase in 

stands of large and mature trees of sparse to intermediate density.

Alternative C 

Snags greater than 15 inches dbh are expected to increase over time under this alternative but 

with a potentially slower rate of snag recruitment than under Alternatives A and B. Similar to 

Alternative B, trees greater than 30 inches dbh can be removed under this alternative as part of 

forest health-related treatments. However, management under this alternative can reduce stand 

density further than under Alternative B and in twice as many acres over the life of the Plan. 

Alternative C may not always thin to a stand density less than proposed under Alternative B but 

does have more flexibility to accomplish forest health and restoration goals by allowing for more 

intense treatments than Alternative B. In the long term (i.e., 50 years), the forest conditions under 

this alternative are expected to be more resilient than those under Alternative B because 

neighboring trees are expected to have less competition for limited resources, and snag 

recruitment will occur but is projected to occur at a rate less than under Alternative B. 

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-351
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

It is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would remain the same as 

the current condition under this alternative. This species has been detected at a number of 

upland and riparian sites and in every subwatershed of the LTBMU. Because snags are expected 

to increase under this alternative, albeit at a rate potentially slower than both Alternatives A and 

B, it is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would continue to be the 

same as previously documented. The status of the species may face shorter term challenges in the 

LTBMU where treatments reduce the potential for widespread snag creation from insect 

outbreak, disease transmission, stress, or other mortality agents associated with dense stand 

conditions. However, in the long term, the status of the species may respond positively to the 

potential for an increase in stands of large and mature trees of sparse to intermediate density.

Alternative D 

The effects of this alternative are expected to be similar to those under Alternative A but with a 

greater potential for snag recruitment from even more limited restrictions on the size of trees that 

can be removed (12 inches dbh) outside of the WUI. Therefore, there is expected to be much 

greater stand competition for limited resources, greater vulnerability to insect outbreak and 

wildfire than under any other alternative. As a result, there may be a higher potential for 

widespread snag creation from insect outbreak or other stress agent over several years as 

compared to all other alternatives. 

It is expected that the status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would remain the same as 

the current condition under this alternative. This species has been detected at a number of 

upland and riparian sites and in every subwatershed of the LTBMU. Because snags are expected 

to increase under this alternative, and at the fastest rate of all alternatives, it is expected that the 

status of the hairy woodpecker in the LTBMU would be the same as previously documented but 

may also improve in response to an increase in potential habitat. However, stands under this 

alternative may be more dense than suitable for the hairy woodpecker, a species that is strongly 

associated with stands of sparse to intermediate density.

Alternative E 

This alternative does not differ substantially from Alternative B in terms of actions that would 

have anticipated effects on snags in green forest habitat component. Therefore, effects are 

similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (Black-backed woodpecker) 

 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, current procedures for prescribed fire would continue. An estimated 

1,900 acres of prescribed fire (pile and understory burning) would be conducted annually under 

this alternative. The acceptable mortality of trees under prescribed burning is generally less than 

20%. Therefore, it would be expected that the number of snags produced and recruitment of 

snags in burned forest would be similar to current conditions.

3-352 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under this alternative, it is estimated that approximately 290 acres would burn annually as 

managed wildfire which burns in varying degrees of intensity. This alternative would produce 

the least amount of snags in burned forest from managed wildfire because it allows managed 

wildfire in the fewest number of acres annually (only in Desolation Wilderness). See the Fire 

and Fuels section for details on modeling for managed wildfire.

This alternative allows the removal of snags after a large, catastrophic fire in all but a minimum 

of 10% of the total area affected by the fire. 

It is expected that the status of black-backed woodpeckers in the LTBMU would remain the 

same as current condition under this alternative but could experience challenges where snags are 

removed following a fire event, depending on the location and timing of removal (scope of a 

specific project). 

Alternative B 

In general, the acreage of prescribed fire and acceptable mortality from prescribed burning are 

the same as in Alternative A. Therefore, the effects on snags in burned forest from prescribed fire 

are expected to be similar to those under Alternative A.

In terms of managed wildfire under this alternative, it is estimated that approximately 1,100 acres 

would burn annually. Alternative B permits managed wildfire on all NFS lands except the WUI 

defense zone. Therefore, it could be expected that Alternative B has a greater potential to 

produce snags in burned forest from managed wildfire than Alternative A. However, this 

alternative allows for the removal of snags after a fire event; medium and large snags would be 

retained in at least 10% of a burned area and 10% of high and mid severity patches would be 

retained.

It is expected that the status of black-backed woodpeckers in the LTBMU would remain the 

same as current condition under this alternative with potential to improve where managed 

wildfire is allowed outside of Desolation Wilderness but could face challenges where snags are 

removed following a fire event, depending on the location and timing of removal (scope of a 

specific project).

Alternative C 

This alternative proposes to conduct prescribed burning on more acres (approximately 2300 

annually) than any other alternative. The acceptable mortality is the same as Alternatives A and 

B. Depending on mortality levels, more prescribed burning under this alternative could produce

more snags in burned forest.

In terms of managed wildfire, Alternative C permits managed wildfire on all NFS lands except 

the WUI Defense and Threat Zones (a larger area than Alternative A but smaller than Alternative 

B). It is estimated that approximately 720 acres would burn annually as managed wildland fire. 

Therefore, managed wildfire under this alternative could produce fewer snags in burned forest

than Alternative B but more than under Alternative A. In addition, this alternative allows the 

removal of snags after a fire event under the same direction as Alternative B.

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-353
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

It is expected that the status of black-backed woodpeckers in the LTBMU would remain the 

same as current condition under this alternative with potential to improve where managed 

wildfire is allowed outside of Desolation Wilderness but face challenges where snags are 

removed following a fire event, depending on the location and timing of removal (scope of a 

specific project). 

Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes to conduct prescribed burning on the same number of acres annually as 

Alternative C which is more than that proposed under Alternatives A, B, and E. Acceptable 

mortality levels would be the same under all alternatives. The difference between Alternatives C 

and D is that Alternative D proposes to accomplish forest health objectives using fire as the 

primary tool (with some hand thinning) whereas Alternative C has the ability to prepare the 

landscape for fire by using mechanical treatments of stands first. Therefore, this alternative 

could potentially create the most snags in burned forest of all the alternatives from prescribed 

burning because fire is used as the primary tool and stands would have more dense pre-burn

conditions. However, this alternative has significant implementation limitations that could 

restrict the ability of this alternative to meet desired conditions. Some limitations include current 

forecasted weather conditions, public concern, safety concerns, and air quality concerns.

It is estimated that the same number of acres would burn as managed wildfire annually under 

Alternative D as Alternatives B and E which is more than under Alternatives A and C. However, 

stands would be thinned more conservatively under Alternative D (12 inch dbh limit) and more 

snags may be produced because of a greater potential for crown fire. If wildfire were to occur 

under this alternative, the potential for mortality from wildfire is greater than under any other 

alternative because of denser pre-burn stand conditions. Therefore, this alternative may produce 

more snags from managed wildfire than any other alternative. This alternative does not propose 

the removal of snags from burned areas unless where needed for public safety. Therefore, this 

alternative could feasibly retain more burned snags than any other alternative but depends on the 

location, severity, and extent of specific fires.

It is expected that the status of black-backed woodpeckers in the LTBMU would remain the 

same as current condition under this alternative with the potential for a positive benefit because 

of the emphasis of this alternative on prescribed fire and managed wildfire to achieve desired 

conditions as well as the emphasis on retention of snags in burned areas.

Alternative E 

This Alternative is similar to Alternative B in term of the strategies, acreage of prescribed fire 

and managed wildfire treated, and acceptable mortality levels. However, this alternative 

includes a standard and guideline that more clearly articulates the value of snags in burned forest 

habitat and does not place a one-size-fits all retention level on this habitat type following a fire. 

Rather, restoration of habitat following a wildland fire requires the prioritization of wildlife 

objectives. Therefore, the effects of this alternative are similar to those described for Alternative 

B but this alternative has a greater potential to retain more acres of this habitat component on a 

project-specific basis.

3-354 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-87. Map of the Sierra Nevada bioregion for MIS, comprised of ten 

national forests (including the LTBMU)

Chapter 3 | Management Indicator Species ■ 3-355
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.15 Minerals

3.4.15.1 Introduction

The minerals program includes locatable minerals under the general mining laws, leasable 

minerals under the mineral leasing laws, and common variety minerals which can be sold or 

leased. Many of the National Forest System lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin are open to the filing 

of mining claims for locatable minerals, mostly metallic minerals, under the general mining laws. 

Under the mineral leasing laws, leases can be issued for energy development, although the only 

potential resource for energy development in the Basin is geothermal. In addition, mineral sales 

can authorize the extraction of common variety minerals such as sand, gravel or stone for 

landscaping or building. 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the minerals 

program that may result from the adoption of Alternative A, B, C, D, or E.

Methodology

No statistical or analytical models were utilized. Current mining claim status is from the Bureau 

of Land Management Mining Claim Geographical Index Report for Dec. 13, 2012.

3.4.15.2 Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• The location and filing of mining claims under the general mining laws through the BLM 

on National Forest System Lands that are open to mineral entry is not a discretionary 

action. 

• Most of the NFS land on the LTBMU is not withdrawn, and does not have Weeks Law 

Status, so is open to the filing of mining claims.

• The issuance of mineral leases under the minerals leasing laws and the sale of common 

variety minerals are discretionary actions.

• The TRPA Regulatory Code, Chapter 18, and TRPA’s Plan Area Statements and 

Community Plans, do not list mining or mineral extraction as an allowable use anywhere 

in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Therefore, such activities will not be permitted by TRPA.

3.4.15.3 Overview of the Affected Environment

Locatable minerals under the general mining laws include gold, silver, copper, uranium and rare 

earth elements, but can also include unique or special varieties of otherwise common variety 

minerals such as building stone or even pumice. Locatable minerals are appropriated by the 

filing of mining claims through the BLM, which give the claim holder the right to develop the 

claim to extract the valuable minerals located on it. A mining claim owner can retain their claim 

by filing annual assessment fees or paying mining claim maintenance fees to the BLM. Under 

the 1872 General Mining Law if they can prove a valuable, economically viable mineral deposit, 

they can file for patent which when granted, puts the claim under private ownership although 

3-356 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

there has been a budgetary moratorium on BLM accepting and processing new mining claim 

patent applications since October 1994 and BLM will not accept patent applications until the 

moratorium is lifted.

The Lake Tahoe Basin, which is located between the Mother Lode of the Sierra foothills in CA, 

and the Comstock Lode around Virginia City, NV, has had a low level of historic mining 

activity. Even though several thousand acres have been identified as having a high probability 

for the occurrence of metallic minerals, and about 30,000 acres have been identified with a low 

to moderate probability, there are only 10 known historic mining sites in the LTBMU. Even 

with the recent record high prices for gold, no new claims were filed on the LTBMU. Of the 

historic mining sites, all four mines with high safety hazards were fully decommissioned as of 

2010, and the remaining sites are classified as low safety hazards. 

All NFS lands within the LTBMU with federal minerals that are not withdrawn or have Weeks 

Law acquired land status are open to entry for prospecting and the filing of mining claims. On 

the LTBMU, 31,816 acres are withdrawn from entry under the mining laws: 23,886 acres of 

wilderness areas and 7,930 acres for recreation and administration site and water projects. The 

amount of land with Weeks Law status is unknown, but is probably less than a thousand acres. In 

addition, on another approximate 10,000 acres of acquired land, the minerals were outstanding 

and are under private ownership, and thus are not available for mining claims, but could be 

developed by the owners of the mineral estate. 

There are currently eight active mining claims on the LTBMU. Five claims are located adjacent 

to the Mount Rose Wilderness above Incline Village, NV, and three are located around Lake 

Louise above the Homewood Ski Area in Placer County, CA. None of the claim holders have 

filed any notice or plan of operations for development of their claims. If these claimants or 

holders of any future claims filed suitable plans of operations, with adequate mitigation to 

protect water quality and other resource values and existing uses, and adequate reclamation 

bonds, the Forest Service would approve the plans. However, since TRPA would not permit the 

mining activity, the holders could not obtain the required state and county permits to actually 

start operations, and therefore mining is essentially precluded in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Leasable minerals include oil, natural gas, coal, sodium, potassium and phosphate. There are no 

known occurrences of these minerals in the Lake Tahoe Basin and there have not been any 

requests to the BLM to offer leases in the Basin for these minerals. In addition to leasable 

minerals, geothermal energy is subject to leasing. There is some potential for low temperature 

geothermal energy suitable for direct heating on the North Shore, but no geothermal 

development has occurred, nor have any requests for geothermal leases been submitted. 

Leasable mineral development is a low priority for the LTBMU, and the LTBMU would 

probably object to any proposals by the BLM to offer leases for mineral or non-renewable 

energy development on the LTBMU except for small scale geothermal projects, due to conflicts 

with water quality and other resource and management objectives. 

Common variety minerals include sand, gravel and cinders for construction or road use, and 

building stone, river cobbles and granite boulders for landscaping or building. Use of these 

materials can be authorized through mineral material sales, or small volume collecting permits. 

The current policy on the LTBMU is not to authorize removal of common variety minerals 

Chapter 3 | Minerals ■ 3-357
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

through sale or permit. This policy was implemented to meet water quality standards by 

preventing soil disturbance, to protect other resource values including scenic, recreational and 

wildlife and aquatic values, and to comply with TRPA’s regulations. Currently the only mineral 

materials used by the LTBMU within the Basin are rock and soil extracted and used within a 

project area, and granite boulders removed from project areas to allow construction. The 

boulders are stockpiled for use as barriers to control off-road parking and driving. All other 

mineral materials for FS projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin are brought in from sources outside 

the Basin. The current policy will continue. 

The only other existing mineral removal activity on the LTBMU is unauthorized mining of 

quartz crystals. There are deposits of very large smoky quartz crystals on the LTBMU. These 

are very popular and much of this activity is probably commercial, with the crystals appearing in 

rock shops adjacent to the Basin. This unauthorized activity causes resource damage and 

significant public safety concerns as well as safety issues for those digging for the crystals. 

Several of these mines have been vertical pits up to thirty feet deep. One was located 

immediately adjacent to the Tahoe Rim Trail, and another was found within a ski area last year. 

Two of the largest mines were decommissioned in 2010, and three more will be decommissioned 

this year. 

 3.4.15.4 Environmental Consequences 

Mineral extraction activities are a low priority for the use of the National Forest System lands in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin as they are likely to conflict with the goals of protecting water quality and 

the outstanding scenic, recreational and natural resource values of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 

addition, most mineral extraction activities are precluded by TRPA regulations. However, much 

of the LTBMU is open to the filing of mining claims and the submittal of Plans of Operation to 

develop any claims. All mining proposals under the mining laws would be thoroughly evaluated 

and mitigated through review and NEPA preparation for any Plans of Operation submitted, even 

though TRPA would not permit the activity. This objective will be consistently applied for all 

five alternatives and will not change by alternative. 

The only potential impact of the alternatives to the mineral program will be that Alternatives C 

and D could result in less land available for the filing of mining claims if the additional roadless 

area designations resulted in additional wilderness area designations, which would withdraw the 

areas from the filing of mining claims. There are no existing mining claims in either roadless 

area.

Alternatives A, B and E would have no effect on the acreage available for the filing of mining 

claims. Alternative C could result in the Dardanelles Roadless Area being withdrawn from 

mining if it becomes designated wilderness. Alternative D could result in the most acreage 

withdrawn if both the Dardanelles and Freel Roadless Areas are eventually designated as 

wilderness. These potential environmental consequences are of minimal concern as no known 

minerals or interest in developing them have occurred in the roadless areas, and development 

would be precluded by TRPA.

3-358 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

There are no programmatic differences between the alternatives, except that Alternatives C and 

D could result in withdrawal of land from mining because of potential wilderness designation.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

There would be no difference between the alternatives in how desired conditions are maintained 

or achieved.

Chapter 3 | Minerals ■ 3-359
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.16 Natural Hazards 

3.4.16.1 Introduction

This section evaluates the environmental consequences of the alternatives as it relates to natural 

hazards, primarily in terms of geologic hazards. Geologic hazards include a litany of processes 

such as landslides (i.e., rockfall, landslides, debris flows and torrents), snow avalanches, seismic 

activity, lake tsunamis (i.e., seiches), and volcanic activity.

Methodology

Estimation of natural hazard risk potential based on the Natural Hazard Study for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit (Kohler, 2008). 

3.4.16.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The Lake Tahoe area, including the LTBMU, is geologically active with the potential for a 

variety of geologic hazards to occur, however the risk is relatively low. 

Currently the risk from geological hazards and floods to existing roads, houses and other 

infrastructure is relatively low in the Tahoe Basin, because these features are not located in areas 

of high geologic hazards (ie. steep slopes and avalanche paths). For future development, the 

current Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory information provides a starting point for land use 

planning and permitting by both the USFS and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

The available information provided and cited in the Natural Hazards Study (Kohler, 2008) 

should be considered in evaluating the potential impacts of geohazards to projects and the 

potential impacts that the projects may have on underlying or adjacent geohazard-prone areas.

3.4.16.3 Environmental Consequences 

Hazard and risk are not synonyms in the risk management sciences. In a geologic risk analysis 

the hazards are evaluated for the likelihood (i.e., chance or probability) that the geologic process 

will occur. The next step in the risk analysis is to predict what the consequences will be for a 

particular hazard likelihood. 

We determined the likelihood by using two approaches in this project. In the first approach, for 

landslides and snow avalanches, we used the steepness of the hill slope. In the second approach, 

for seismic activity, seiches and volcanic activity, we used the geologic history of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. In the first approach we know from the scientific literature as well as empirical 

studies on the adjacent Eldorado National Forest, that the hill slopes with gradients of 60% or 

greater are more likely to have landslide movement than the gentle slopes of 59% or less. 

Therefore the hill slope gradient of 60% was used as a “threshold value” for assigning a high 

likelihood of landslide movement. For the gentle slopes the hazard was assigned lower 

likelihoods. 

3-360 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

In the second approach we know from the geologic history of the Basin that volcanism last 

occurred sometime between several thousand years ago to a few million years ago. Therefore, in 

the next ten to fifty years it is unlikely that a volcanic event will occur (if it last occurred several 

thousand years ago it is unlikely that it will occur again soon). And in a similar vein we did the 

same with lake tsunamis (seiches). Although seiches do occur on Lake Tahoe, they are not 

known to occur with any regularity and the most recent is estimated to have occurred several 

hundred years ago. Therefore seiches were assigned lower probabilities for occurring than for the 

landslides. Table 3-51 displays the estimated geologic hazards, consequences and risks within 

the LTBMU.

Table 3-51. Estimated geologic hazards, consequences and risks within the LTBMU

Delineation between slopes with greater than 60% and those with 60% or less is based on a shear 

strength study by Prellwitz and Koler (2003).

Hazard GIS Geomorphic 

Map Unit 

Estimated 

Hazard Rating 

Possible 

Consequences 

Estimated 

Risk Rating 

Possible Mitigation Options 

> 60% Hill Slope 

Gradient

≤ 60% Hill Slope 

Gradient 

> 60% Hill Slope Gradient ≤ 60% Hill Slope Gradient 

Snow 

Avalanche 

Chutes 

GE1 Possible 

to Almost 

Certain 

Rare Some damage to 

Highway 50 (Minor to 

Medium) 

Low to High Very Low 

to Low 

Caltrans currently 

provides mitigation 

for minimizing 

avalanche hazards 

from occurring 

Rockfall MW2 MW/

GE and 

MW/GD3

Unlikely 

to Almost 

Certain 

Rare Medium to 

Catastrophic 

Low to Very 

High 

Very Low 

to 

Moderate 

Warning systems, 

deflection walls, 

and nets 

Landslides MW4 Unlikely 

to Almost 

Certain 

Rare 

to 

Poss

ible 

Medium to 

Catastrophic 

Low to Very 

High 

Very Low 

to High 

Warning systems, 

retaining structures, 

dewatering of 

landslide mass 

Debris 

Flows and 

Torrents 

MW Possible 

to Almost 

Certain 

Rare 

to 

Poss

ible 

Medium to 

Catastrophic 

Moderate to 

Very High 

Very Low 

to High 

Warning systems 

and deflection 

structures 

Seismic ---- Rare to Almost 

Certain 

Minor to Catastrophic Very Low to 

Very High 

All structures meet seismic 

design criteria under the Unified 

Building Code 

Seiches ---- Rare to Possible Minor to Catastrophic Very Low to 

High 

Warning systems

Volcanic ---- Rare Minor to Catastrophic Very Low to 

Moderate 

----

1 Although there are no avalanche chutes mapped within the LTMBU GIS geomorphic layer, they are included as inclusions 

within the glacial erosional map unit (GE). 

2 MW represents mass-wasting which not only includes rockfall but also landslides and debris flows. 

3 MW/GD represents mass-wasting within glacial deposits (GD). 

4 MW may also include secondary geomorphic processes such as fluvial (F), glacial erosional and depositional processes 

(GE and GD). For the polygons that have a fluvial dominate process with mass-wasting as a secondary process (F/MW), the 

mass-wasting is usually stream bank failure or the materials through which the stream is cutting its course may be masswasting deposits.

Chapter 3 | Natural Hazards ■ 3-361
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.16.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

There is no difference in environmental consequences between any of the alternatives as it 

relates to natural hazards. Projects would include site-specific hazard evaluation. Risks would be 

mitigated through project design, either through use of BMPs or through avoidance of the 

hazardous areas.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Under all the alternatives standards and guidelines and the available information provided and 

cited in the Natural Hazards Study (Kohler, 2008) will be considered in evaluating the potential 

impacts of geohazards to projects and the potential impacts that the projects may have on 

underlying or adjacent geohazard-prone areas. There would be no difference between the 

alternatives in how desired conditions are maintained or achieved.

3-362 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.17 Noise

3.4.17.1 Introduction 

Noise by definition, is “unwanted sound,” and is a subjective reaction to acoustical energy or 

sound levels. It was identified in the 1988 Forest Plan as a resource environment concern within 

the National Forest. The LTBMU adopted the TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) noise 

thresholds for the Tahoe Basin for the NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin. The LTBMU 

Forest Plan FEIS identifies noise as a potential environmental consequence that needs to be 

addressed.

Visitors and residents have expressed concerns about the level of noise they’ve encountered from 

such sources as off-highway vehicles, on-highway traffic, over-snow vehicles, chainsaws, 

watercraft, aircraft, and occasionally from other forest visitors. While noise levels within the 

LTBMU lands have been generally stable since the 1988 Forest Plan, increasing urbanization 

and visitation have contributed to some increases. In recent years, management of noise has 

become a growing concern in the Tahoe Basin and on lands administered by the Forest Service. 

A Monitoring Plan was identified in the 1988 Forest Plan to determine if activities on NFS lands 

are within human and animal tolerance levels. The Plan also stated that the Forest Service would 

cooperate with the TRPA and other agencies in the reading of single and cumulative noise event 

levels at selected locations. Noise monitoring was intended to occur annually, however noise 

monitoring on the LTBMU has been limited to random monitoring of snowmobiles and offhighway vehicles. 

The Plan also contained a summary of noise environmental thresholds, which were developed by 

the TRPA and adopted by the LTBMU. The TRPA as recently as 2013, has been conducting a 

noise monitoring program, sampling noise levels around the basin (Community Noise Equivalent 

Levels or CNELs, and single noise events). In 2010 their noise monitoring focused on watercraft 

generated noise around the basin. Monitoring reflects there is a general compliance with 

established noise thresholds, however there are exceptions.

Research needs were also identified in the Forest Plan to determine the natural background levels 

for noise in the environment, especially in the wilderness, and for habitat of wildlife indicator 

species, along with a determination of the level of change that can be tolerated by wildlife. To 

date, research has been limited, inconclusive or non-existent regarding the impacts of noise on 

indicator wildlife in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Effects of noise on wildlife are discussed in the 

wildlife sections of this document.

Methodology

 

Monitoring Noise 

Noise monitoring has been conducted throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by the TRPA, using 

calibrated sound level meters. Monitoring is conducted to evaluate compliance with single event 

noise (e.g. aircraft, watercraft, motor vehicles, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles), and community 

noise standards. Noise monitoring systems use sound level meters meeting ANSI Type 1 and 

IEC Class 1 technical specifications. TRPA has established a noise standard for various land use 

categories ranging from wilderness areas to industrial areas. In addition, LTBMU law 

Chapter 3 | Noise ■ 3-363
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

enforcement officers occasionally monitor noise levels of individual off-highway vehicles and or 

snowmobiles using A-weighted sound meters, and tested using established protocols as adopted 

by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) under Standard J-1287 as applicable. 

Monitoring Noise in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Noise monitoring has been focused on specific sources and areas. The sources and areas where 

the Forest Service monitors include:

• Off-Highway Vehicles are monitored for noise. The noise threshold for off-highway 

vehicles is 72 dB at a speed of less than or equal to 35 mph and a standard of 86 dB at 50 

feet at speeds over 35 mph. TRPA OHV standards are both more and less restrictive than 

the California Vehicle Code standards, which are not speed dependent (limit is 82 dB at 

50 feet). The California standards are applied to the sale of a new OHV. There is also a 

standard that requires in-use OHVs be equipped with a silencer to meet a standard of 96 

dB at a distance of 20 inches, using techniques established by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE J-1287). This is the same standard enforced by the Forest Service under 

the Federal Code of Regulations that requires the USFS to apply established state 

standards (Nevada has no such standard).

• Over-Snow Vehicles (e.g. snowmobiles) are monitored for noise. Environmental 

Threshold for over-snow-vehicles (OSVs): 82 dB at 50 feet at less than 35 mph. TRPA 

monitoring has reflected that most OSVs are in compliance. The Forest Service also 

monitors stationary OSV noise to determine if applicable standards developed by the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (as adopted by the State of California) are being met. 

LTBMU monitoring also has reflected that most OSVs have been in compliance.

Most noise sources are outside of the Forest Service's authority to regulate (e.g. transportation, 

aircraft, urban noise sources, boats, on-highway motorcycles). However, the Forest Service does 

have some regulatory authority over general noise sources that occur on NFS lands within the 

Lake Tahoe Basin.

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• Noise monitoring will continue, with potential changes in the noise thresholds and 

standards as established by the TRPA. Much of the sound level monitoring and noise 

compliance monitoring will continue to be conducted by the TRPA within the Tahoe 

Basin, The LTBMU will continue to check compliance with CFR and State of 

California regulations respective to noise issues, through occasional random monitoring. 

Monitoring will follow established acoustical procedural methodology or appropriate 

SAE standards.

• Noise generated by recreation activities such as events, and over-snow vehicle uses may 

receive more attention because of public concerns. 

• Prior to the issuance of a special use permit for an event or a new activity on NFS lands, 

compliance with existing noise standards are considered. 

3-364 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.17.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Noise monitoring has been conducted around the Lake Tahoe Basin for over 20 years. In some 

areas, noise levels have increased, while in other situations, noise levels have been stable and 

occasionally decreasing. As stated in the 1988 Forest Plan: “noise is becoming a major concern 

in administering the National Forest. There are occasional complaints about chain saws, OHV 

and low-flying aircraft over Desolation Wilderness. As noise measurements are taken in the 

future, actions may be necessary to meet single event and cumulative event noise standards that 

have been established for the area. Monitoring Plan directions at the time were to “cooperate 

with TRPA and other agencies in the reading of single and cumulative noise event levels at 

selected locations.” Since that time, the LTBMU has cooperated with TRPA and other agencies 

to conduct noise monitoring. 

TRPA has conducted a focused review of Basin noise standards and thresholds as part of the 

Regional Plan Update, and staff forwarded a number of recommendations that have yet to be 

adopted. The goal is to develop the necessary noise monitoring strategies needed to preserve 

community serenity and also provide abundant quiet recreation areas. 

Overall, the Existing Condition for noise remains the same as identified in the 1988 Forest Plan 

for the LTBMU: noise remains an issue within the LTBMU, and the Forest Service has limited 

noise enforcement authority or responsibility, however to meet the Desired Conditions, the 

LTBMU addresses single noise event issues respective to recreation events, motorized vehicles 

(including snowmobiles), and noise generated by either resource management and/or recreation 

activities on the National Forest. The LTBMU will continue to encourage use of the best 

available technology to minimize noise levels in excess of acceptable quantities, along with 

operating practices that minimize noise levels.

3.4.17.3 Environmental Consequences 

Noise is not a resource condition that is “desired,” as by its definition is “unwanted sound.” 

Noise can be an intrusion on the recreational experience of forest visitors, and negatively impact 

the tranquility of neighborhoods. Noise can also be impacting on wildlife, though more research 

on this is needed. 

Noise is partially subjective, as tolerance does vary according to such factors as its intensity, 

time of occurrence, duration, proximity to the source and individual sensitivity based upon 

factors such as individual expectations and values.

Noise will be generated from various activities including:

• Access and Travel Management, 

• Recreation Development, 

• Dispersed Recreation (Summer and Winter Motorized ) 

• Watershed restoration, 

• Vegetation and Fuels Treatment, 

Chapter 3 | Noise ■ 3-365
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Most of the noise generated from these activities is of short term duration: From hours, days, to 

several months or a year. 

Other actions generated from other resource management activities are not considered in this 

analysis as they are not anticipated to affect the character of the existing general noise settings 

and they are not monitored by the TRPA for single or cumulative noise events. For example 

resource management or activities that would not be monitored include: 

• Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species management.

• Managing wildlife.

• Dispersed summer and winter non-motorized recreation activities. 

• Wilderness Recommendations. 

Consequences Related to Noise

Access and Travel Management

Much of the noise generated from Access and Travel Management activities from the 

construction and decommissioning of roads, trails and parking areas generates noise from asphalt 

grinding and the grading of roads and parking areas with heavy equipment, and the use of 

chainsaws and other mechanical devices in both developed and rural settings. As mentioned 

above, much of the impacts generated from these activitites are primarily the intensity, time of 

occurrence, duration, proximity to the source and individual sensitivity based upon factors such 

as individual expectations and values. Generally stated, more noise will be generated from the 

construction and maintenance of the higher condition class roads and trails (Classes 4 and 5) than 

from the lower condition class roads and trails (Classes 1-3). It is also anticipated that noise will 

increase as roads are upgraded and road speed and traffic volumes increase.

As stated in the access section of this FEIS (3.4.1), there will be more road and parking 

improvement projects in Alternative C than the other alternatives. Alternative C would tend to 

shift the most automobiles towards higher condition class roads, consolidated access routes and 

parking facilities. More class 2 and 3 roads open to high clearance vehicles and OHV will be 

available in alternative D and more Trails open to OHV will be in Alternative C (See Table 2-1 

in Chapter 2).

In Alternatives A, B, C, and E where roadside parking is reduced or eliminated outside of 

developed recreation sites, some of the parking demand would be absorbed within managed 

recreation sites or by expanding associated parking facilities. There is less potential for noise 

generating activates in Alternative D, because the reduction in overall developed recreation sites 

could result in reduced construction and maintenance of parking facilities. 

Recreation Development 

The degree of modification to recreation infrastructure will vary as each alternative provides 

more or less supply by expanding or reducing developed infrastructure in response to future 

recreation demand. In general, noise will be generated by activities such as: initial site 

construction (grading of sites for roads, campsites and parking spurs), clearing of vegetation (tree 

removal), grading of sites, asphalt and concrete installation (non-permeable surfaces such as 

roads, parking lots, and structures), and trenching for utilities. 

3-366 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

As measured by the metrics of overnight accommodations and day use parking spaces, 

Alternatives A (10%) and C (15%) will have the most potential to generate noise due to the 

retrofitting of existing facilities or building new ones. Alternative B will allow up to a 5% 

increase in new or expanded facilities. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative E will allow a 5% 

increase in dayuse parking opportunities, and a 10% increase in overnight accommodations. 

There will be fewer short term noise impacts in Alternative D than in the other alternatives since 

there will be fewer construction projects although Alternative D will have some short term 

increases in noise generation where developed recreation infrastructure is lost to the noise

generating activities of resource restoration. 

Dispersed Recreation (Summer and Winter Motorized)

Summer Motorized – Summer motorized vehicles (passenger cars, high clearance vehicles and 

OHVs) and the noise they generate are monitored by the TRPA, and Forest Service law 

enforcement officers randomly monitor OHVs for single event noise standards. Historically, the 

large majority of these vehicles are in compliance with adopted standards. The TRPA standards 

for noise are described in the Affected Environment section above. 

As stated in the Access and Travel Management section (FEIS, 3.4.1), there is more potential for 

noise generated from OHV use on remote roads in Alternative D, because there are more road 

miles available for that use than in the other Alternatives. Conversely, there are fewer OHV 

opportunities on trails in Alternative D and thus less potential noise. Alternative C offers the 

most miles of trail available for OHV use and thus more potential for noise in remote areas from 

this activity. 

Winter Motorized –The TRPA and the Forest Service monitor OSVs (over-snow vehicles) for 

single event noise standards. Monitoring has reflected that most OSVs have been in compliance 

with adopted noise standards. Alternatives A, B, C, and E all maintain the same level of access 

for OSVs on NFS lands. Dardanelles recommendation for Wilderness designation would have 

minimal effect on noise levels since the area is already non-motorized (summer and winter). 

Designation of the Freel Wilderness area would contribute to a “quieter” noise environment with 

lower overall sound level due to the elimination of OSV use. 

Watershed (Stream Channel and Habitat) Restoration

Chapter 3 | Noise ■ 3-367
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Watershed restoration projects would create short term noise impacts (1 month to 1 year) from 

stream channel restoration on developed recreation resources results from the use of heavy 

equipment (excavators, dozers, dump trucks) and from restoration activities such as sod 

borrowing, stock piling materials, and de-watering streams. Meadow restoration activities such 

as mechanical thinning also generate short term impacts. These restoration activities are 

generally transitory in nature but would affect nearby visitors and residents by the creation of 

noise, for the life of the project. The public may be temporarily inconvenienced by these 

activities. 

Under all of the alternatives, currently planned stream channel and habitat restoration projects 

are expected to be accomplished. Short term noise from these activities on the public are more 

likely under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, as they will be continuing planning for implementation 

of both large and small scale restoration projects. In Alternative D, the strategy for watershed 

restoration will be to rely primarily on natural processes for recovery and would not have short 

term noise impacts from these activities beyond the currently planned projects. 

Vegetation and Fuels Treatment 

Noise from vegetation and fuel treatments generally include noise generated from: hand and 

mechanical thinning, masticators, aerial tree removal with helicopter or small mobile yarding, 

and temporary road construction and rehabilitation. Temporary roads are often constructed as a 

part of vegetation management projects to access areas not accessible from the permanent road 

system. Although these roads are temporary and closed to vehicle traffic from the general 

public, they are often used by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers. These short-term 

impacts generally range from 1 day to 1 month. Noise generated by these activities would 

mostly be heard from those recreating nearby, recreation sites and neighborhoods situated close 

to Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zones. 

People who recreate in WUIs or live near them will experience more potential noise impacts in 

Alternatives C and D as they would treat 300 more acres per year than Alternatives A, B and E. 

Alternatives A, B, and E will treat 3,800 acres per year and Alternative C and D would treat 

4,100 acres/year.

For those who recreate in Backcountry, General Conservation, and on Santini-Burton/Urban 

Forest Parcel Management Areas, Alternatives A, B, and E propose 750 acres of fuels and 

vegetation treatments. Alternative C would propose to treat 1,500 acres/year (double the acreage

in Alternatives A, B, and E), therefore resulting in more short-term noise impacts to dispersed 

recreation resources. Noise impacts from forest thinning would be lesser under Alternative D, 

which proposes the least amount of forest vegetation treatment at 450 acres. 

3.4.17.4 Analytical Conclusions

Noise levels are expected to increase because of projected increases in visitation and population 

levels over the coming years. Noise management will be dependent upon a number of factors, 

including the ability to monitor and enforce regulated noise sources, of which the Forest Service 

3-368 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

has limited authority (being dependent upon multiple agencies and enforcement authorities as 

identified in the “relevant laws, regulations, and policy” section). The LTBMU will continue to 

consider any “significant” noise impacts that might be the result of a resource management 

decision. Since noise is partially a “social” issue and a “quantitative” issue, it has been identified 

as a “resource” issue, with many sources that will remain as a “challenging” issue on the 

LTBMU. 

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Within each alterative noise mitigation actions can be considered at the project level, such as 

allowed uses, time of day those activities are allowed (i.e. noise generated during daylight hours 

is not weighted (penalized) as noise that occurs during evening and overnight hours because of 

the intrusive nature of noise during those periods). Management could also include such 

mitigations as overall decibel levels allowed in a single event, seasonal closure periods or hours 

for noisy events or activities.

It is anticipated that Alternatives A, B, C and E will generate noise increases to varying degrees 

as roads are upgraded and road speed and volume will likely increase, as will any expansion of 

recreation access or facilities. Resource restoration activities would likely generate some shortterm noise (especially when mechanical forest vegetation treatment is involved), and effects on 

any adjacent urban areas would need to be evaluated prior to field operations. Alternative C 

would likely generate the highest noise levels of the alternatives because it proposes more of 

these noise generating activities. The inclusion of the Dardanelles recommendation for 

Wilderness designation in Alternative C would have minimal effect on noise levels since the area 

is already non-motorized (summer and winter).Alternative D will most likely result in the lowest 

overall noise being generated in that it reduces or constrains public uses and resource activities 

more than the other alternatives. An indirect effect of a Freel Wilderness designation would be 

the elimination of winter OSV use and the noise generated from that activity. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Respective to noise, the Desired Condition is to control noise to maintain community and 

neighborhood serenity, provide abundant quiet recreation, and protect wildlife. The presented 

alternatives do not specifically address noise levels or potential noise mitigation measures. 

Alternative D would most effectively meet the Desired Conditions; Alternatives A, B, C, and E 

would adequately meet the Desired Conditions, but less than Alternative D.

Chapter 3 | Noise ■ 3-369
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.18 Range Resources

3.4.18.1 Introduction

Grazing on NFS lands in the LTBMU takes place under two types of permits, term-grazing 

permits and special use permits. Term grazing permits are issued for ten-year periods and are 

defined legally as "licenses in real property". They convey to the permittee "privileges" to graze, 

not "rights". Grazing permits are always issued for a specific area, specific time, and specific 

number and kind of livestock. The actual date livestock enter and leave an allotment will vary 

each year with weather and resource conditions. In addition to term grazing permits, temporary 

permits may be issued on a yearly basis. Grazing is included in a special-use permit rather than a 

grazing permit, when grazing is a secondary use of an area or the permittee does not qualify for a 

term-grazing permit.

Methodology

The purpose of this section is to evaluate effects on Range resources from Alternatives A, B, C,

D, and E. The Forest Plan includes unit-wide land management direction for the following 

program and sub-program areas, which could affect Range resources: 

• Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration

• Biological Resources

- General/Native Species Conservation

- Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs)/Species Refuge Areas

- Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) 

- Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species 

• Forest Vegetation

- Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

- General Forest (Non-WUI)

- Managed Wildfire

• Recreation

- Developed

- Dispersed

- Wilderness

- Backcountry

• Access to NFS Roads and Trails 

• Permitted Land Uses

3-370 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Assumptions

In addition to universal assumptions (see Section 3.3), the following Range resource specific 

assumptions have been made:

• Any changes to current range management (term grazing permit or special use permits) 

would be analyzed under project specific NEPA and would include a capability and 

suitability analysis.

• Range management activities would comply with all management direction (Standards

and Guidelines) applied to invasive species and biological resources.

3.4.18.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The LTBMU currently has three vacant allotments (Meiss, Cold Creek, and Trout Creek), one 

closed allotment (Baldwin), and one special-use pasture (Fredricks Pasture). 

The Baldwin Allotment was closed in 2008 and included the 232 acres (20 acres private)

allotment located in the Tallac Watershed. The ten year term grazing permit for 45 horses and 

mules from July 1 through October 15 expired 12/31/2006. A Notice of Violation due to inability 

to meet water quality standards was issued in 1999 from the Lahontan Water Quality Board. A 

capability and suitability analysis was completed as well as an Environmental Assessment in 

2008 to determine if grazing should continue on the allotment. The determination and decision 

made by the Forest Supervisor in 2009 was to close the Baldwin allotment to future grazing

(USFS LTBMU 2009).

The Meiss Allotment is an 11,275 acres allotment located in the headwaters of the Upper 

Truckee River Watershed. This allotment is in vacant status. The previous term-grazing permit 

for 200 cow-calf pairs was not reissued in 2002 due to resource concerns and inability to meet 

resource protection standards. A capability and suitability analysis as well as NEPA analysis 

would be needed prior to issuing another term-grazing permit. 

The Cold Creek Allotment is a 5,026 acre allotment located in the headwaters of Cold Creek 

within Trout Creek Watershed. The term grazing permit for this allotment was canceled in 2003 

as part of the High Meadows Land Acquisition and has remained in vacant status. A capability 

and suitability analysis as well as NEPA analysis would be needed prior to issuing another termgrazing permit. 

The Trout Creek Allotment is 15,032 acres and located in the headwaters of the Trout Creek 

Watershed. Within the allotment boundary is a 160 acre private in-holding. The ten year term 

grazing permit expired 12/31/2011. Another permit was not requested and, therefore, this permit 

was canceled leaving the allotment in vacant status. A capability and suitability analysis as well 

as NEPA analysis would be needed prior to issuing another term-grazing permit. 

The Fredericks Pastures are adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake and total 145 acres. These pastures 

were historically associated with a Special Use Permit for Camp Richardson Corral. The grazing 

portion of this permit was not reissued in 2005. A capability and suitability analysis as well as 

NEPA analysis would be required prior to issuing another Special Use Permit. 

Chapter 3 | Range Resources ■ 3-371
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

A forest-wide capability and suitability analysis was completed for the 1988 Forest Plan. 

Capability and suitability would be re-analyzed on a site specific basis if any future grazing 

permits are requested.

3.4.18.3 Environmental Consequences 

 

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Under Alternative A, B, C, and E, range resources would stay in current condition or improve as 

restoration activities in vacant range allotments are implemented. Where restoration activities 

restore stream and floodplain conditions or where riparian conditions (e.g conifer removal) are 

enhanced, range resources will improve as herbaceous vegetation increases in abundance and 

vigor. Season of use could be shortened due to more frequent flooding following restoration 

activities. 

Under Alternative D, range resources will stay in current condition or improve where active 

restoration improves stream and floodplain condition and riparian habitat. Where passive 

restoration is implemented, there could be a loss of riparian or open meadow habitat, which 

would reduce availability of forage for livestock as meadow habitat shift to more upland species 

composition.

Biological Resources 

Under Alternative A, B, C, D and E, range resources would stay in baseline condition. Where 

TESPC species are detected, LOPs may be enforced, limiting grazing opportunities in terms of 

both grazing season and, perhaps livestock numbers.

Grazing opportunities could be limited in terms of grazing season and livestock numbers if 

western bumble bees are detected within allotment boundaries. This mitigation may be required 

because heavy grazing and high forage utilization reduces flowering plants that provide 

necessary nectar and pollen. 

Forest Vegetation 

Under Alternative A, B, C and E the potential impacts to range resources would not vary. Where 

vegetation restoration activities restore areas outside the WUI and in active grazing allotment, 

herbaceous vegetation is expected to improve, which could provide more and higher quality 

forage for livestock. 

Under Alternative D, there is an increased risk of unplanned, catastrophic wildfire that could 

cause mortality of livestock as well as impacts to herbaceous vegetation and woody shrubs.

Additionally, some areas, due to passive management direction, could shift from riparian to more 

upland habitat, further reducing forage availability.

3-372 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation 

Under Alternative A, B, and E, range resources would stay in baseline conditions or improve 

through management actions. Where visitor use increases, specifically dispersed use, there could 

be an increase in user conflicts. 

Under Alternative C and D, if grazing were designated as a nonconforming use in the 

designation of wilderness, there would be no impacts to grazing resources through the 

designation of wilderness. Visitor use could increase if additional wilderness were designated. 

Range resources could be impacted through increased user conflicts such as domestic animal 

conflicts, fence tampering or unclosed gates.

Access to NFS Roads and Trails 

Under all alternatives, range resources would stay in baseline conditions or decrease as trail and 

increased visitor use could increase conflict between domestic animals and livestock. 

Additionally, gates could be left open, impacting pasture maintenance and allowing animals to 

move into unauthorized portions of the landscape.

3.4.18.4 Analytical Conclusions

The overall condition of range resources across the LTBMU is expected to improve, stay at 

current baseline levels or adjust with the on-set of climate change in relation to management 

direction from all alternatives. Management direction in Alternatives B, C, and E more clearly 

and contemporarily outlines restoration and enhancement of watershed and aquatic habitat 

specific to the Lake Tahoe basin. The restoration of watershed and aquatic habitat will indirectly 

affect range resources by increasing forage availability and vigor. Additionally, forest vegetation 

management direction in Alternatives B, C, and E would provide the greatest benefits to range 

resources through removal of conifers within meadows and/or meadow edges; increasing 

meadow habitat. Increased recreation, and road and trail use in all alternatives could potentially 

increase conflicts between livestock, recreationist, and/or domestic animals. This potential would 

be prevalent in all alternatives, but could be greatest in Alternative C and D where areas are 

proposed for wilderness designation, which could increase visitor use. 

Chapter 3 | Range Resources ■ 3-373
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Table 3-52. Range Resources Impact Summary

Range Resources

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Range resources 

would a) improve 

as result of 

restoration and 

enhancement or 

areas treated in 

forest vegetation 

actions near 

vacant allotment 

boundaries or b) 

decrease where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

where expansion 

of dispersed 

recreation 

increases 

potential user

conflicts.

Range resources 

would a) improve 

as result of 

restoration and 

enhancement or 

areas treated in 

forest vegetation 

actions near 

vacant allotment 

boundaries or b) 

decrease where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

where expansion 

of dispersed 

recreation 

increases 

potential user 

conflicts.

Impacts on Range 

resources are 

same as Alt. A. 

Range resources 

would a) improve 

as result of 

restoration and 

enhancement or 

areas treated in 

forest vegetation 

actions near 

vacant allotment 

boundaries or b) 

decrease where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

where expansion 

(wilderness) of 

dispersed 

recreation 

increases 

potential user 

conflicts.

Impacts on 

Range resources 

are greater than

Alt. A.

Range resources 

would: a) improve 

as a result of 

currently planned 

restoration and 

enhancement b) 

decrease where 

restoration 

(including forest 

vegetation 

treatments) or 

enhancement is 

needed but not 

permitted, c) 

decrease where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

where expansion 

of dispersed 

recreation 

(wilderness) 

increases 

potential user 

conflicts.

Impacts on 

Range resources 

greater than A, B, 

C, and E 

Range resources 

would a) improve as 

result of restoration 

and enhancement or 

areas treated in 

forest vegetation 

actions near vacant 

allotment 

boundaries or b) 

decrease where 

impacted by land 

uses, especially 

where expansion of 

dispersed recreation 

increases potential 

user conflicts. 

Impacts on Range 

resources are same 

as Alt. A.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

The desired conditions for Range Resources will be met through the implementation of 

management direction set forth by multiple program areas, such as water quality, soil quality, 

SEZs, and biological resources (including botanical resources and terrestrial invasives). Resource 

protection measures proposed under Alternatives B, C, D, and E address contemporary desired 

conditions tied to species life history, habitat needs, and overall community-level management in 

the LTBMU. Specifically, the biological resources protection measures provide clear and 

proactive management direction for special-status species protection and habitat restoration. 

If a permit were requested for an existing vacant allotment, the analysis to determine what level, 

if any, of grazing was appropriate would need to show that the proposed use is consistent with 

the Forest Plan, as described in the Forest Plan Consistency section of the Plan Introduction.

3-374 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.19 Recreation 

3.4.19.1 Introduction 

This section establishes the affected environment and discloses the potential environmental 

consequences on recreation resources that may result with the adoption of a revised land 

management plan. It examines, in detail, five different alternatives for revising the 1988 Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan as amended 

(LTBMU 1988). 

Methodology

The National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys (NVUM 2000, 2005, and 2010) and the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 2005) are two valuable studies used to help 

characterize recreation use on the Basin by measuring quality trends in recreation demand and 

visitor satisfaction. Effects will be assessed by analyzing the following management activities 

that influence the quality and quantity of recreation resources:

• Modification of developed recreation facilities; 

• Access and travel management;

• Watershed (stream channel and habitat) restoration;

• Vegetation and fuels management;

• Aquatic invasive species management; and

• Species recovery habitat restoration.

• Wilderness recommendations;

• Changes in recreation opportunity spectrum; and

• Ongoing dispersed recreation. 

For purposes of analysis, recreation resources are generally characterized as:

• Recreation Opportunities

o Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

• Public Access -Dispersed Recreation

o Visitor Access –Summer

 Non-Motorized and Mechanized

 Motorized

o Visitor Access – Winter

 Non-Motorized 

 Motorized

• Recreation Development

o Developed Recreation

o Ski Areas and Slopes

• Climate Change

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-375
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Recreation Issues and Indicators 

Issues 

Public participation and collaboration identified several key issues as discussed in Chapter 1, 

Recreation Issues. They include:

Recreation Opportunities - Having a continued range of desired recreation opportunities and 

settings. 

Public Access - Providing recreation access to public lands and shorelines. 

Recreation Development - Maintaining recreation development to respond to recreation 

demand and enhance economic opportunities.

Indicators 

Measurement indicators respond to the Issues and allow for analysis of the recreation resource by 

alternative. These recreation indicators are depicted in detail below and in Chapter 2 

(Table 2-1).

1. Recreation Settings – Acres of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes are used 

to measure the existing supply of recreation settings. The degree that alternatives 

increase, decrease, or change the various ROS classes will be used to compare the impact 

of alternatives. 

2. Public Access to Dispersed Recreation – Miles of roads and trails and number of 

trailheads available to the public that reflects accessibility to dispersed recreation 

opportunities (see Table 2-1).

3. Developed Recreation – Acres of developed recreation sites, often under special use 

permit, are used as a measure of existing recreation opportunities. The degree to which

alternatives respond to demand by increasing or decreasing the available developed 

recreation acres will be used to compare the impacts of alternatives. 

4. Developed Overnight – Overnight accommodation units are an indicator of the number 

of cabins, lodges, and campsites available to the visiting public. The degree to which 

alternatives increase or decrease overnight accommodations reflects our ability to 

accommodate overnight recreation demand and will be used to compare the impacts of 

alternatives. 

5. Developed Day Use – The number of day use parking spaces is a function of the public 

ability to access developed day use recreation opportunities. The degree to which

alternatives increase or decrease day use parking spaces reflects our ability to 

accommodate recreation demand and will be used to compare the impacts of alternatives. 

6. Ski Area Operational Boundary – The acres within a ski area and ski slope permit 

boundaries that are used for development (e.g., runs, lifts, and structures). 

3-376 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Metrics

The following metrics were used to quantify the above mentioned measurement indicators. 

These include:

1. Recreation Site Acres –Recreation site acres on National Forest System lands.

2. Overnight Accommodations – Lodging and campsite units on National Forest System 

lands.

3. Day Use Parking Spaces – Parking spaces available for day use located at developed 

recreation sites on National Forest System lands.

Assumptions 

Recreation Demand – Recreation demand is expected to grow in all alternatives for the life of 

the plan. While the Forest Service strives to respond to growing user demands, it recognizes that 

meeting all user demand remains unfeasible. The Agency cannot sustainably—environmentally, 

economically, or socially— provide for all recreation demand in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Demand

will continue to exceed capacity at some recreation sites during peak seasons in all alternatives. 

Recreation Conflict Strategy– The strategy to manage recreation conflicts will consistent for all 

alternatives as stated in the Revised Forest Plan: “Recognizing and accepting that some conflict 

between user groups in natural, the LTBMU will manage user interaction by using a variety of 

methods, including educating visitors on shared and multiple use concepts (e.g. signage, 

information kiosks, interpretive programs), managing visitor expectations, and recreation setting 

design.”

Special Use Permits – Special use authorizations for management and operation of resorts, ski 

areas, and recreation sites (campgrounds and day use areas) will continue under all alternatives.

Recreation Infrastructure – Recreation infrastructure will continue to be upgraded, retrofitted, 

relocated, or decommissioned in order to reduce deferred maintenance, facilitate recreation 

demand, and protect natural resources in all alternatives. Examples of these activities include:

• Implementing BMPs and universal accessibility upgrades at recreation sites. 

• Updating existing lodging and support facilities at resorts and recreation sites to provide 

quality recreation experiences.

• Replacing or repairing existing restrooms at recreation sites (includes adding showers at 

campgrounds) 

• Decommissioning sites that are not in use or are economically infeasible to maintain. 

• “Hardening” sites - in order to protect natural resources and to allow recreation use to 

continue into the future, developed recreation sites are made more sustainable through

design and construction principles that increase a site’s ability to withstand use without 

facility or natural resource deterioration. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-377
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Recreation Expansion

Under all alternatives, the LTBMU recreation program will work towards the sustainable 

integration of environmental, social, and economic conditions. This is achieved in part by 

adapting to changing user demands, trends, and preferences, including modifying existing sites 

and infrastructure to improve natural resource conditions and recreation settings. During the 

Forest Plan scoping and public comment process, infrastructure expansion and permanent 

development of general forest areas were identified as an issue of concern. The Forest Service 

undertakes recreation expansion to address socioeconomic challenges, improve management of 

existing developed sites, and mitigate adverse effects to natural resources resulting from 

recreation activities. 

The EIS describes this issue as ‘recreation expansion’ and defines it as an increase of 

infrastructure in support of additional recreation opportunities over the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit landscape. Each alternative describes a range of recreation expansion by 

percentage. Alternatives A, B, and C would allow for expansion up to 10%, 5%, 15%, 

respectively, whereas Alternative D would allow up to a 15% reduction. Alternative E would 

allow a 5% increase in developed site acres, day use parking, and ski area operational footprint 

acres, and a 10% increase in overnight accommodation units. These percentages correspond to 

the following measurement indicators: recreation site acres, overnight accommodation units, and 

day use parking spaces.

Management activities that are, and are not considered as recreation expansion are discussed in 

section 3.3.1 Recreation Expansion under all Alternatives.

3.4.19.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Current Conditions

Recreation Setting 

The Lake Tahoe Basin is a world-renown tourism destination providing year-round outdoorrecreation opportunities nestled in a scenic, high-alpine setting. The Lake Tahoe area offers 

diverse outdoor recreation activities ranging from the highly challenging, thrill-seeking 

experiences sought in popular resort settings to the tranquility of remote areas where visitors can 

find solitude and spiritual renewal. People live in Lake Tahoe to enjoy the quality of life benefits 

associated with a mountain environment; people visit Lake Tahoe to test their outdoor skills, 

escape the stresses of day-to-day life, and take advantage of the restorative opportunities the area 

provides. 

Lake Tahoe is commonly known as the “Jewel of the Sierra”—its’social, economic, and 

environmental value cannot be overstated. The deep azure lake is the region’s central iconic 

feature and draws well over 5.7 million visitors annually – the highest concentration of visitor 

use among national forests. The challenge is to sustain Lake Tahoe’s intrinsic character, while 

providing high-quality recreation settings and opportunities that contribute to a thriving 

economic base. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) is 154,850 acres in size and spans two 

states. Elevations range from 6,225 feet at Lake Tahoe’s shoreline to 10,891 feet at the rounded 

3-378 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

top of Freel Peak. Much of the LTBMU’s landscapes remain natural appearing and provide the 

beautiful visual backdrop that draws visitors from around the world. The area’s seasonal changes 

are dramatic, with snowy winters, vibrant fall colors, and mild spring and summer periods. With 

the exception of periods of inclement weather, the skies are clear, providing a picturesque 

contrast to the verdant mountains that rim the basin. There are cultural and historic sites 

representing many periods of the LTBMU’s history. 

The LTBMU has four resorts that provide world-class downhill skiing opportunities. There are 

337 miles of non-motorized trails that provide day use and overnight opportunities for hiking,

biking, horseback riding and camping into remote areas of the National Forest. The Pacific Crest 

Trail traverses the Basin on its western boundary. There are 12 developed campgrounds (three

are operated by resorts) and eight day use sites for picnic and scenic viewing. There are six

designated swimming beaches that are included in approximately 14 miles of publicly accessible 

shoreline that provide opportunities for water play and other water-related activities. The 

LTBMU provides 84 miles of passenger-vehicle roads that are outstanding for viewing the 

region’s natural features; and 115 miles for more rugged backcountry motorized touring for high 

clearance vehicles. Over 64% of the LTBMU is classified as being in a “semi-primitive” 

condition as defined by ROS classes, with 24,670 acres of the area currently designated as 

wilderness.

Sustainable Recreation 

The aim of sustainable recreation management is to integrate recreation program activities with 

landscape processes, social values, and economic consideration to provide high quality 

recreation opportunities can be perpetuated through the long term. 

Sustainable recreation is a systems-based approach to managing recreation within the larger 

context of landscape values, services, and processes. The three themes encompassed by 

sustainability are social (recreation opportunities), economic (built environment), and 

environmental (natural setting). No one theme is prescriptive of sustainability in and of itself; all 

three must successfully be integrated in the landscape in order to achieve sustainable recreation. 

By addressing facilities issues in concert with resource protection, sustainable recreation 

management increases the longevity and quality of developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Recreation Visitation 

Based upon the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey that monitors visitor use every 

5 years, the LTBMU receives visitors primarily from California and Nevada (76%). This 

constitutes the LTBMU’s primary market area. The ethnic and racial make-up of the primary 

visitors are more than 90% white, which does not reflect the general composition of these 

counties (See Appendix F – Social and Economic Assessment for more information regarding the 

demographic profile of visitors). The remaining 24% of visitors come from other parts of the 

United States and abroad. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-379
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

More specifically, these surveys found that 52% of visitors to the Lake Tahoe basin come from a 

distance of 200 miles for recreation opportunities. Supporting data from the National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) indicates that the larger visitor market for the LTBMU 

includes the majority of California, southern Oregon, and western and southern Nevada. 

Based upon the NVUM data there were an estimated 5.7 million national forest visits to the Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit in 2010 (NVUM 2010). This figure is higher than what was 

projected in the 1988 Forest Plan. The increase in visitation has resulted in increased demands 

for site access during peak seasons, related transportation congestion, and a perception of 

crowding in some recreation areas. Table 3-53 provides annual visitation estimates.

Table 3-53. National Forest Visits to the LTBMU 

(1988 Forest Plan, NVUM 2000/05/10)

Forest Visits § 1988# 2000* 2005* 2010*

Total Estimated 

National Forest 

Visits 

1,081,000

(Under reported)

3,105,000 4,391,000 5,786,000

§ A National Forest Visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate 

in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of 

multiple Site Visits.

# 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan

*Actual NVUM values. These individual values are estimates with a 90% confidence level based 

on NVUM surveys, for example if the visitation estimate is 100 +/-5%, one would say “at the 90% 

confidence level visitation is between 95 and 105 visits.

As discussed in the 2006 Comprehensive Evaluation Report, the annual number of basin visitors 

has been higher than was projected in the 1988 Forest Plan. As visitation has increased, the 

LTBMU has not expanded its capacity, but has strived to maintain and improve the quality and 

level of services through recreation site improvements, special use authorizations and 

partnerships. 

 

Recreation Visitor Demand 

As shown in the table above, the demand for national forest recreation opportunities and services 

in the Lake Tahoe Basin has grown since 1988. Most developed facilities however, have not 

increased in design capacity and at peak periods these facilities often reach vehicle site capacity. 

Assuming this trend persists, recreation managers anticipate rising demand will continue to place

additional pressure on existing sites, services, and facilities. In addition, managers anticipate 

areas that currently receive relatively less use (based on previous NVUM statistics as well as 

anecdotal observations) might experience increased pressure from displaced visitors. Demand 

will continue to outstrip supply during peak periods at popular areas. 

Similar impacts are expected to occur in dispersed recreation areas as more users share the same 

general forest or trail system, which could result in a rise in user conflicts between motorized and

non-motorized users. Agency managers will face increasingly difficult decisions about 

3-380 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

recreation management and resource protection conflicts as the demand for recreation 

opportunities grows. 

Currently, visitors to the LTBMU participate in a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities. 

Table 3-54 provides a snapshot of the order of popularity of the primary activities reported in the 

2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey.

Table 3-54. 2010 Recreation Activity Participation on LTBMU 

Activity % Participation* % Main Activity‡ Average Hours Doing 

Main Activity

Relaxing 65.5 11.2 9.2

Downhill Skiing 62.5 55.9 8.9

Viewing Natural Features 56.3 5.6 4.3

Hiking / Walking 47.0 8.8 3.5

Viewing Wildlife 43.2 1.5 3.6

Driving for Pleasure 31.8 2.1 3.5

Visiting Historic Sites 15.1 0.4 2.1

Other Non-motorized 14.9 2.8 3.7

Nature Center Activities 13.2 0 2.0

Bicycling 11.0 3.1 3.0

Resort Use 10.7 0.2 59.4

Cross-country Skiing 9.8 1.5 4.1

Nature Study 9.6 0.1 3.6

Picnicking 9.5 0.6 4.5

Non-motorized Water Activities 6.9 1.7 2.4

Motorized Water Activities 6.8 0.9 3.0

Snowmobiling 6.2 1.0 2.0

Fishing 5.6 0.4 3.3

Some Other Activity 5.3 1.6 3.0

Developed Camping 5.2 0.4 68.5

Gathering Forest Products 4.7 0 0

Backpacking 4.4 0.2 48.2

Primitive Camping 2.4 0.1 1.0

Horseback Riding 2.0 0 1.0

OHV Use 1.7 0.4 3.3

Motorized Trail Activity 1.4 0 0

Other Motorized Activity 1.3 0 0

Hunting 0.1 0 0

No Activity Reported 0 0 0

* Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.

‡ Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some 

respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-381
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

It is expected that popular short-term day-use recreation activities will continue to be the primary

activities as opposed to extended-duration activities such as staying at resorts and camping. 

 

Recreation Visitor Satisfaction 

An important element of the outdoor recreation program delivery is evaluating customer 

satisfaction with the supply of recreation settings, facilities, and services provided. Satisfaction 

is a core piece of data for national and forest level performance measures. Satisfaction 

information helps managers decide where to invest in resources and how to allocate resources 

more efficiently toward improving customer satisfaction. 

Based upon NVUM data, the overall LTBMU recreation visitor satisfaction results are very high; 

98% of visitors gave a rating of very satisfied or somewhat satisfied for their overall recreation 

experience. The agency’s national target for this measure is 85%. Visitors are generally satisfied 

when there is an ample supply of facilities for lodging, camping, picnicking, beach use, skiing, 

trailheads, visitor information and the like, to support the demand. Table 3-55 depicts overall 

satisfaction ratings for visitor experiences in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in 2005 

and 2010.

Table 3-55. NVUM overall satisfaction ratings 2005 and 2010

Satisfaction Rating Percent Satisfied 

2005

Percent Satisfied 

2010

Very Satisfied 85.0% 89.8%

Somewhat Satisfied 13.1% 8.8%

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 1.8% 0.7%

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0.1% 0.3%

Very Dissatisfied 0.1% 0.4%

Satisfaction ratings are expected to remain high during the planning period if the Forest Service 

continues its ability to maintain a supply of high quality developed facilities and services, 

provide suitable access, and continue providing a feeling of safety. 

Recreation Opportunities 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

For planning purposes, recreation supply is defined as the opportunity for recreationists to 

participate in a desired recreation activity in a preferred setting to realize desired and expected 

experiences. Recreationists choose a setting and activity to create a desired experience. While 

the goal of the recreationist is to obtain satisfying experiences, the goal of the recreation resource 

manager is to provide the opportunities for obtaining these diverse experiences while 

maintaining the balance of natural resource concerns. Managers provide a supply of recreation 

3-382 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

opportunities by managing settings, activities, and facilities, which in turn allow visitors to have 

recreation experiences.

One of the tools that Forest Service managers use to help provide a variety (supply) of 

appropriate recreation settings is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (see FEIS Map 

10). The ROS system (USDA Forest Service 1982) is used as a guide to assign a variety of 

existing and potential recreation activities and opportunities to NFS lands. The tool identifies the 

supply of recreation settings on NFS lands by evaluating various levels of access, remoteness, 

naturalness, facilities, social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management. The spectrum 

employs six classifications: 1) Primitive (P), 2) Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SPNM), 3) 

Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM), 4) Roaded Natural (RN), 5) Rural (R), and 6) Urban (U). 

Definitions of these classifications are provided in the Glossary. 

ROS Classes on National Forest System lands were remapped in 2011 using updated 

classification criteria (USDA Forest Service 2003) to include additional National Forest System 

acreage gained via land acquisitions since completion of the 1988 LRMP. Table 3-56 lists the 

2011 ROS Class inventory. Only four of the classifications have been inventoried on the 

LTBMU. There are no areas on the LTBMU that met the inventory criteria for Primitive. 

Though there are portions of the three Wilderness Areas in the Basin that are managed as 

primitive, their proximity to roads and urbanization and the intensity of use, rules out a ROS 

Primitive designation. There were also no areas on the LTBMU that met the inventory criteria 

for Urban. Though some undeveloped NFS lands may exist within urban neighborhoods in the 

form of scattered parcels, they are classified as rural as they offer visual and recreational relief 

from the adjacent urban development. 

Table 3-56. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification for NFS lands in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin (2011)

2011 ROS Class ROS Class 

Acres 

ROS Class 

Percent 

Primitive (P) 0 0

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

(SPNM) 78,521 51%

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) 20,370 13%

Roaded Natural (RN) 39,812 26%

Rural (R) 16,081 10%

Urban (U) 0 0

Total 154,784 100%

Today, approximately 64% of LTBMU lands provide a semi-primitive recreation setting while 

36% of the NFS lands provide a more developed environment. In general, developed recreation 

occurs in the RN and R classes. Conversely dispersed recreation activities are more common in 

the semi-primitive ROS classes (SPM and SPNM). 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-383
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Applying these classes to all land ownerships, the LTBMU provides the majority of the SPNM 

(94%), SPM (85%), and RN (77%) opportunities in the basin, and slightly less than half of the R 

(44%) opportunities. The ROS map (FEIS Map 10) shows the distribution of ROS classes, with

relatively undeveloped lands outside the ring of urban and rural settings that surround Lake 

Tahoe’s shoreline.

It is important to note that ROS classifications are a tool that serves to guide management. 

Management consistent with the ROS class helps to ensure that the desired opportunities are 

maintained. However, there is no regulatory requirement that all activities be consistent with the 

ROS class, or that summer and winter uses be managed the same within a given ROS class. 

OSV designations on the LTBMU are an example – while most of the designated OSV areas are 

located in a SPM ROS class, some are located in areas that, when free of snow, are managed as 

SPNM.

Public Access - Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation activities on NFS lands are defined as those activities that occur outside of 

developed recreation sites. Dispersed activities typically do not require the use of improved 

facilities other than access points such as trailheads and the roads and trails systems themselves. 

Dispersed recreation activities are categorized for management purposes as either Dispersed 

Summer or Dispersed Winter and are further categorized by the mode of Access. Public access 

is categorized as either:

• Summer – Non-Motorized (hiking and equestrian) and Mechanized (mountain bikes) 

or Motorized (Off Highway Vehicles –OHV).

• Winter – Non-Motorized (cross-country skiing, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing etc.) 

and Motorized (over snow vehicles).

Much of the outdoor recreation occurring in the Lake Tahoe Basin is dispersed recreation that 

occurs at more remote locations. Some of the more popular areas include Desolation 

Wilderness, Meiss Country, and East Shore Beaches. There were 1,300,000 dispersed site visits 

(General Forest visits plus Wilderness visits) to the LTBMU in 2010 or roughly 23% (22.4) of 

the total forest site visits (NVUM 2010). Approximately 54% of the main activities reported by 

forest visitors were dispersed activities. Popular dispersed recreation activities reported by 

visitors include hiking and walking, relaxing, viewing natural features, driving for pleasure, 

picnicking, viewing wildlife, and bicycling (Table 3-41). Other popular activities include

horseback riding, dispersed camping, rock climbing, and non-motorized water activities (e.g., 

swimming, paddling, beach, and water play). Winter dispersed recreation activities include 

cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, and snow play (e.g. sledding). A large 

amount of the current use occurs because of the existence of forest, state and county highways 

that provide access, and local communities which provide visitor services that often happens 

without any inducement by the Forest Service. In addition, land acquisitions such as High 

Meadows and the Dreyfus Estate have expanded access opportunities for the public to recreate 

on NFS lands. 

Dispersed Camping - Dispersed Camping is allowed in specific areas on the LTBMU and is 

categorized as either overnight backpacking or vehicle camping. The LTBMU provides a unique 

niche for this activity as it provides the majority of the dispersed backcountry camping in the 

Basin. Overnight backpacking is allowed primarily in wilderness areas such as Desolation, Mt. 

3-384 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rose and Granite Chief, the Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area (Meiss Management Area), 

and along the Pacific Crest Trail and the Tahoe Rim Trail. The Desolation Wilderness is one of 

the most heavily used wilderness areas in the nation.

Though backpacking in the Lake Tahoe Basin is not a high participation activity as defined by 

NVUM surveys, less than 1%, it is an activity that visitors are very passionate about and the 

Forest Service goes to great lengths to assure that high quality opportunities continue to be 

available. The Desolation Wilderness is managed to very high standards as is reflected by the 

Chief of the Forest Service awarding Desolation managers the Aldo Leopold National 

Stewardship Award for Excellence in 2006. 

Most areas are patrolled on a regular basis by rangers and volunteers who contact and educate 

the public on ‘Leave No Trace’ backcountry ethics and regulate user impacts such as campfires, 

litter, and sanitation. Camping along the PCT and TRT is only allowed within 300 ft. of the trail 

corridor to protect sensitive resources. 

Dispersed vehicle camping on the LTBMU is unlike that approved in many national forests that 

allow camping in most General Forest Areas. In the Basin, vehicle camping is limited to a 300 

ft. corridor along certain sections of the Genoa Peak Road, Logan House Loop and along the 

McKinney-Rubicon Road. The intent of this regulation is to continue to allow dispersed 

camping opportunities while still constraining vehicles primarily to the roadway for resource 

protection.

Dispersed Permitted Activities - Resorts and outfitter guides currently offer services for 

snowmobile tours, cross country skiing, horseback riding, and weddings. Numerous requests 

have been received for outfitter/guide permits to lead tours on NFS lands. New special use 

permits may be granted for outfitting and guiding based on need assessments or capacity analysis 

that are used to assure compatibility with public use of the National Forest. Limitations on 

activities that potentially damage or disrupt sensitive species and habitat areas are generally 

included as conditions for permit approval. There are also several annual events under special 

use permit such as the Lake Tahoe Marathon and the Renaissance Fair. 

 

Dispersed Summer Recreation, Non-Motorized/Mechanized 

Summer non-motorized access to more remote areas of the national forest is gained primarily via 

trails that are shared by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers alike. Trails in the Basin, 

similar to roads, are maintained by miles of trail available primarily to these different user 

groups. There are currently 337 miles of total trails available in basin, all of which are available 

for hiking and equestrian and 217 miles available for mechanized use. The Lake Tahoe area is 

popular as a mountain biking destination, and many trails throughout the Basin are now designed 

specifically to appeal to different levels of mountain biking abilities. Mountain biking is allowed 

anywhere in the Basin with the exception of wilderness areas, the Pacific Crest Trail and along 

sections of the Tahoe Rim Trail. 

There are 10 trailheads in the Tahoe Basin that receive significant use by hikers that provide 

developed parking and accessory facilities. The rest of the trailheads are dirt turnouts on the 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-385
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

shoulders of roads. Soil erosion, adverse visual quality impacts, and highway safety problems 

are often associated with these undeveloped trailheads. 

Nationally recognized trails within the Tahoe Basin include the Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail and National Recreation Trails including the Hawley Grade Trail and portions of the Tahoe 

Rim Trail. From 1999 to 2002, the entire trail network on LTBMU managed lands was 

inventoried and cataloged. (Please see Access Section for a more comprehensive discussion of 

trails, trailheads, and general access.) 

Dispersed Summer Recreation, Motorized

The LTBMU has managed OHV routes as a designated system since the 1976 Off-Highway 

Vehicle Plan was completed (1976 Off Highway Vehicle Plan adopted in the 1988 LRMP ROD). 

The Plan established policies and provided for procedures that helped to ensure that the use of 

off-road vehicles on public lands would be controlled and directed in order to protect the 

resources, promote the safety of all users of the public lands, and to minimize conflicts among 

the various users of these lands. The majority of the managed road system has been upgraded as 

a result of the Road Access and Travel Management Plan that was completed in 1999. 

Designated road systems are now depicted on the resulting Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

Roads and trails in the Basin are generally maintained to different class levels available to 

different user groups: Passenger cars, high clearance vehicles and OHV. Generally speaking, the 

higher the class of road and trail the more improved it is. Class 5 and 4 roads are accessible to 

passenger cars and serve those visitors who enjoy driving for pleasure and witnessing forest 

settings from a high quality road in the comfort of their passenger cars. Class 3 roads generally 

allow use by high clearance 4x4 vehicles for those visitors who have the equipment to travel 

those more rugged roads that lead to more remote locations in the forest. Class 2 roads and trails 

are open to unlicensed OHV operators who appreciate the challenges and rewards of navigating 

very rough terrain. 

The 1976 Off-Highway Vehicle Plan adopted a restrictive policy towards the management of 

summer OHV activity on NFS lands. This was due to the emphasis placed on protecting the 

water quality of Lake Tahoe and concerns for minimizing the social conflicts between area 

residents and OHV users. This policy recognized OHV activities as a legitimate use of the 

national forest, but permitted them only on designated routes or areas. This recreational activity 

is not permitted or encouraged where urban areas interface the National Forest, in 

environmentally sensitive areas, or within administratively closed areas of the Basin. In general, 

OHV routes have not expanded since adoption of the 1988 Forest Plan. 

The LTBMU has designated OHV summer routes/sites and areas throughout the basin while 

closing those existing routes/areas where these activities are not considered as either compatible 

or suitable with the environment or other uses. Route designation requires environmental 

analysis and public review. Designated routes and areas are shown on readily available maps 

and signed so that recreationists will know where they can legally operate vehicles. Providing 

adequate signage is a management challenge and users are sometimes not aware that they are 

using closed roads and trails. 

3-386 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Enforcement of OHV regulations remains a challenge because of limited Forest Service funding.

Even though OHV use still remains a source of controversy, particularly where use is occurring 

near residential areas, progress has been made since 1980. Many areas have been successfully 

closed to use, signing has been installed, education programs have helped change behavior, and 

steps have been taken toward the designation of routes. OHV user groups have volunteered to 

correct damage and to implement OHV management. Much of the recent success has resulted 

from the availability of "Green Sticker" OHV funds from the State of California. 

Dispersed Winter Recreation, Non-Motorized

The LTBMU offers many winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, backcountry skiing, snow play, sledding, and snow camping, though parking and 

access are often limited. The majority of NFS lands in the Basin are available for non-motorized 

winter pursuits. Groomed cross-country ski trails are popular and are provided on NFS lands by 

resorts, private businesses and local municipalities. Some of these trails on NFS lands are under 

permit and others are not. Backcountry skiing and snowshoeing have become popular 

alternatives for adventure seekers who would otherwise ski at resorts. While there are many high 

quality backcountry ski routes within the Tahoe Basin, few have established winter parking. 

State and county highway departments plow mostly roadways and a few emergency turnouts. 

The California State Sno-park program plows and maintains some of the most popular parking 

areas for dispersed winter sports. There are many areas that are not accessible even after snow 

removal has been completed, depending upon county ordinances for winter parking. Specifically 

many county snow removal and winter parking ordinances do not allow for roadside parking 

when snow is present which has eliminated many winter dispersed recreation opportunities such 

as backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing. 

The current trend of growth in dispersed winter recreation on the LTBMU is associated with

increased competition for parking, crowding, and conflict between non-motorized and motorized 

recreationists. Areas that have traditionally been enjoyed by cross-country skiers are now also 

accessed by OSV users and vice versa, which is resulting in some user conflicts. Noise from 

OSV use in certain areas may negatively affect some cross-country skiers’ experiences. In 

addition, the combination of motorized and non-motorized uses may lead to potential safety 

concerns. Areas that are designated open and closed to motorized winter use are currently shown 

on the LTBMU Snowmobile Guide map and differences in opinion persist within the OSV and 

cross-country skier communities as to what areas should be available to OSV’s. Use of the map 

allows non-motorized users options in choosing locations that provide the experience they are 

seeking. (See the Dispersed Winter Recreation Motorized section below and 2.5.3 Revise the 

Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designations for more discussion of winter access).

Dispersed Winter Recreation Motorized 

Over snow vehicles have become more popular since the LTBMU published the 1988 Forest 

Plan. OSV use is managed in accordance with the OSV designations defined by the 1988 Forest 

Plan and enforced through a Forest Order. The criteria used to determine areas either open or

closed were based on combination of jurisdictional boundary’s (e.g. State Parks and wilderness 

designations), species protection areas, and urban buffers. Buffered areas were implemented to 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-387
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

minimize conflicts between user groups with differing recreation values. In general, riding areas 

for OSVs have been stable since the 1988 Forest Plan. 

Recreation Development

Developed Recreation 

The LTBMU provides a wide variety of developed recreation sites that offer different levels of 

user comfort and convenience. Developed recreation facilities have been constructed to offer 

sustainable recreation opportunities, protect resources, and otherwise manage visitor activities in 

different outdoor settings. Developed recreation sites typically represent a significant investment 

in facilities and management, and include downhill ski areas, resorts, campgrounds, picnic areas, 

swimming beaches, interpretive sites, visitor centers, historic sites, and trailheads (Table 3-57 –

Inventory of Developed Recreation Sites). Often site amenities such as restrooms and 

footbridges are provided for the protection of resources. In some locations, developed recreation 

sites are “built out,” and expansion is unlikely or limited due adjacent sensitive resources. Fees 

may be charged at developed recreation sites under a variety of authorities. 

In general, as visitation has increased, the LTBMU has focused primarily on eliminating deferred 

maintenance, modernization, meeting universal accessibility standards, and improving the 

quality of its recreation programs and services to enhance the quality of the visitor’s experience. 

The LTBMU has also strived to improve the quality of services through special use 

authorizations and partnerships. This trend is likely to continue for the life of the plan.

Improvements in the quality of amenities at developed recreation sites have focused on the 

redevelopment of existing facilities to meet current building codes and accessibility 

requirements, and on projects that enhance protection of natural resources. These projects 

include the redesign of Inspiration Point and Nevada Beach Campground; construction of new 

restrooms at Kiva Picnic Area, William Kent Beach, Kaspian Beach, Eagle Falls Picnic Area, 

Bayview Campground, Nevada Beach, Pope Beach, Baldwin Beach, and Fallen Leaf 

Campground. Refurbishment of the Stream Profile Chamber and Rainbow Interpretive Trail as 

well as facility upgrades at Camp Richardson, Zephyr Cove, Meeks Bay and Heavenly Mountain 

Resorts have been ongoing. 

During peak periods many popular developed recreation sites reach their design capacity. 

Resorts and campgrounds are often full from Memorial Day through Labor Day. If this trend 

continues as expected, accommodating more demand could be satisfied through expansion or 

redevelopment of existing sites or development of new sites. Any future expansion would need 

to meet Forest-wide desired conditions and sustainability objectives. 

User trends and aging infrastructure demonstrate the need to update existing overnight 

accommodation units. Travel trailers, tent trailers and recreational vehicles (RV) have become 

increasingly popular and as a result, utilities are now provided at a number of campgrounds and 

resorts. 

3-388 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-57. Inventory of Developed Recreation Sites

Developed Recreation Site Type* Number of 

Sites

Managed by 

Forest Service

Managed by 

Permit Holder

Resorts 8 0 8

Campgrounds 12 3 9

Swimming Beaches 8 0 8

Day Use Sites 8 6 2

Interpretive Sites 9 6 2

Organization Camps/Clubs 4 0 4

Recreation Residences 594 594 0

Trailheads 29 27 2

*Excluding Ski Areas and Slopes, discussed below

Resorts - The resorts on the LTBMU under special use permit are Camp Richardson Resort, 

Meeks Bay Resort, Zephyr Cove Resort, Round Hill Pines Resort, Angora Resort, Echo Chalet, 

Valhalla and the Camp Richardson Corral. Several resorts not only offer overnight lodging, but 

overnight camping, day use sites and swimming beaches as well. Many of the resorts were 

developed under private ownership from 1900-1950 before being acquired by the Government. 

(Ski resorts are discussed in more detail below in the Winter Sports Section.) 

Campgrounds - Campgrounds on the LTBMU are managed by the Forest Service and special 

use permit holders. Those campgrounds managed by the Forest Service include, Luther Pass, 

Blackwood Canyon and Watson Lake. Campgrounds managed under special use permit include 

William Kent, Kaspian, Meeks Bay, Bayview, Fallen Leaf and Nevada Beach. Three 

campgrounds are also managed by the Camp Richardson, Meeks Bay, and Zephyr Cove Resorts 

mentioned above.

Swimming Beaches - Designated swimming beaches managed under special use permit include 

William Kent, Meeks Bay, Meeks Bay Resort, Baldwin Beach, Pope Beach, Nevada Beach,

Camp Richardson Resort, and Zephyr Cove Resort. 

Day Use Sites - Day use sites are often picnic sites or viewpoints that are managed by the Forest 

Service or special use permit holders. Those managed by the Forest Service include 64 Acres 

Lakeside, Eagle Falls Picnic Area and Trailhead, Kiva Picnic Area, Sawmill Pond, Secret Harbor, 

and Chimney Beach. Those dayuse sites managed under special use permit include 64 Acres 

Riverside and Kaspian. 

Interpretive Sites - Interpretive services primarily serve visitors to national forest sites. The 

Taylor Creek Visitor Center and the Tallac Historic Site are the major public points of contact, 

providing guided and self-guided activities, educational programs, and living history throughout 

the summer months. Two interagency partnership facilities are located at Meyers Interagency 

Visitor Center and Explore Tahoe Visitor Center. Minor self-guided interpretive sites include 

Inspiration Point Overlook, Stateline Lookout Overlook, Angora Lookout, Logan Shoals Vista, 

and Lam Wa Tah Interpretive Trail. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-389
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Organization Camps and Clubs - Organization Camps and clubs are operated under special use 

permit. They include Camp Concord, Camp Shelly, Berkeley Camp, and the California Alpine 

Club.

Recreation Residences - The LTBMU administers 594 special use permits for recreation 

residences within 23 tracts. The largest of these are at Echo Lakes, Echo Summit, Fallen Leaf 

Lake, Spring Creek, and along the Upper Truckee River. Some recreation residence tracts are 

adjacent to environmentally sensitive lands. Current management emphasis includes avoiding 

and mitigating adverse effects through the following: no increase in the existing footprint of 

structures; consolidation of water systems; and installation of BMPs and erosion control 

measures.

Trailheads –Trailheads serve as the portals to trail systems that provide access for hiking, 

mountain biking, and horseback riding opportunities into the more remote regions of the 

National Forest. Trailheads can range from highly developed sites such as Eagle Falls with 

amenities like paved parking, restrooms and trash bins, to informal parking on the side of the 

road offering very few parking opportunities. Most trailheads are managed by the Forest Service. 

Only the Echo Lake and Moraine Trailheads are maintained by concessionaire.

Recreation Special Uses 

Recreation sites and activities under special use permit are often commercial in nature and 

include a variety of fee-based services. These sites and activities include ski areas, resorts, 

organization camps, campgrounds, swimming beaches, day-use sites, interpretive sites, marinas, 

outfitting-guiding services, and recreation events. Recreation special uses include the recreation 

residence program, which is non-commercial in nature.

There are 640 special use permits issued within the LTBMU, which generates one of the largest 

land-use fees for recreation special uses in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service 

(Region 5), amounting to approximately $4,000,000 annually. Table 3-44 lists the current 

inventory of developed recreation sites under special use permit on the LTBMU as inventoried 

by the 2008 Recreation Facility Analysis. 

 

Ski Areas and Slopes

There are five ski areas and slopes addressed by the existing LTBMU Land and Resource 

Management Plan. These are:

• Heavenly Mountain Resort – Operational footprint of 3,066 acres on NFS lands. Does 

not include acres located on the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest.

• Alpine Meadows – Operational footprint of 377 acres on NFS lands and is administered 

by the Tahoe National Forest. Does not include acres on the Tahoe National Forest. 

• Diamond Peak Ski Area – Operational footprint of 350 acres on NFS lands. 

• Homewood Mountain Resort – Operational footprint of 204 acres on NFS lands. 

• Northstar – Currently located entirely on private land (potential for expansion onto NFS 

lands discussed under Alternative A).

3-390 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Heavenly Mountain Resort

Heavenly Mountain Resort receives the most skier visits and is the largest resort on the LTBMU. 

Ownership of Heavenly Mountain Resort changed in 2002, and the new owner undertook a 

review of facilities and operations that resulted in the 2007 Heavenly Master Plan Amendment. 

The 2007 Heavenly Master Plan Amendment identifies the overall objectives of Heavenly 

Mountain Resort and the context for on-going capital investment projects. Currently, chairlifts, 

cleared ski runs, lodges, support facilities, and intensive off-piste tree skiing occurs on an 

operational footprint of approximately 3,066 acres. This footprint consists of areas of 

development and primary use within existing permit boundaries. This includes developed ski 

runs, lodge, lift operations, maintenance and utility facilities. 

At build-out, the accepted 2007 Heavenly Master Plan Amendment projects 17,434 skiers at one 

time (SAOT). To accommodate these skiers, sufficient interconnection of facilities and ski trails 

are proposed, in addition to an expanded system of ski trails.

Beginning in the 2004-2005 ski season, the Forest Service approved placement of backcountry 

gates within Heavenly Mountain Resort to better manage out-of-bounds skiing. The backcountry 

gates provide the only legal means by which paid guests may leave the ski area boundary. Prior 

to the backcountry gates, “rope-ducking” occurred at random locations along the ski area 

boundary and resulted in skiers more frequently becoming lost.

Summer activities are currently provided at Heavenly Mountain Resort in the form of hiking, 

scenic chairlift and gondola rides, food and beverage sales, and tubing. It is anticipated that the 

variety of summer activities at Heavenly Mountain Resort will increase in the future as 

authorized by the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011.

Alpine Meadows

Alpine Meadows is predominately on the Tahoe National Forest, which also administers the

special use permit. However, 377 acres of the resort’s operational footprint, including the 

Lakeview Chairlift and developed ski runs, occur on the LTBMU. Alpine Meadows’ 2007 

Master Development Plan Update indicates the potential for additional parking in the Deer Park 

area of the resort, including NFS lands managed by the LTBMU. However, the 2007 Master 

Development Plan Update indicates the concept needs additional analysis in a separate master 

plan update.

Diamond Peak Ski Area

Diamond Peak Ski Area is predominantly on private lands. However, 350 acres of the ski area’s 

operational footprint are included on NFS lands managed by the LTBMU under special use 

permit. This also includes portions of the developed ski runs known as The Great Flume; 

Golden Eagle Bowl; and off-piste skiing provided in Solitude Canyon. Authorized activities 

include grooming and snow making. Infrastructure on NFS lands includes signage, snowfencing, and snow making lines. There are no existing proposals to additionally develop 

Diamond Peak Ski Area on NFS lands. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-391
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Homewood Mountain Resort

Homewood Mountain Resort is predominately on private lands. However, 204 acres of the 

resort’s operational footprint include NFS lands managed by the LTBMU. This includes 

portions of the developed ski runs known as Main Cirque, 55 Chutes, Wally’s Folly, The 

Shoulder, Third Creek, and Nooncester Traverse. Authorized activities include avalanche 

control and grooming. Infrastructure on NFS lands includes signage and snow fencing. There 

are no existing proposals to expand Homewood Mountain Resort on NFS lands.

Northstar 

Currently, Northstar is located entirely on private land. The existing 1988 Forest Plan allows for 

expansion of the ski area on approximately 300 acres of NFS lands south and east of Mt. Pluto. 

However, there are no existing proposals to expand Northstar on NFS lands.

Climate Change 

As stated in Appendix D: LTBMU Climate Change Trend Assessment, mean annual 

temperatures in the LTBMU planning area have risen by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 

century, with most of the change occurring in nighttime temperatures. The average number of 

days in a year on which the average air temperature remains below freezing has dropped by 27 

days since 1910. Also, the average annual precipitation during the last 100 years is increasing, 

but inter-annual variability is also increasing. While average annual precipitation is increasing, 

the amount falling as snow is decreasing, as well as average winter snow pack. Further, spring 

thaw is occurring 5-30 days earlier than several decades ago.

These observed trends are already affecting recreation resources in a variety of ways, but it is 

most evident with the wide swings in yearly precipitation rates. Currently, ski areas are 

experiencing more pronounced differences in snow pack from year to year. The winter of 2011 

was a record breaking snow year that has been followed by one of the lowest precipitation years 

on record in 2012. More snow making occurs in the early season in drought years to provide 

skiable snow packs. In addition, campgrounds and recreation sites that rely on snow melt and 

springs for water supplies are running out of water during low water years.

3-392 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.19.3 Environmental Consequences 

Recreation 

Recreation resources that may experience consequences from other forest management actions 

include: Recreation Opportunities, Access (Dispersed Recreation), Recreation Development, and 

Ski Areas. 

The effects of the following major categories of activities and uses on recreation resources will 

be discussed for each alternative when applicable:

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes – Changes in ROS classes could change the 

balance of the existing recreation opportunities and setting currently available in the 

Basin (e.g., Shifting Semi-Primitive Motorized acres to Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 

acres would reduce the number of miles of roads available for those recreationists who 

enjoy driving for pleasure or OHV opportunities).

• Recommended Wilderness – Increased acres of lands managed as wilderness will

change recreation opportunities (e.g., recommended wilderness status may enhance 

hiking, equestrian and back country camping opportunities in wilderness settings, while 

reducing miles of trails currently used by mountain bikers and areas open to OSV use).

• Modifying Developed Recreation Facilities – Actions generated from the modification 

of developed recreation facilities that may increase or decrease recreation capacity and 

change opportunities (e.g., increasing the size of a campground to accommodate 

increased future demand).

• Dispersed Recreation Management – Actions that may result in changes to existing 

dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g., improvements or elimination of existing 

trailheads or the construction of new trailheads).

• Access and Travel Management – The elimination or construction of new roads and 

trails or changes to the maintenance levels of existing roads may impact various 

recreation opportunities (e.g., improving the maintenance levels of an existing road from 

Level 2 to Level 4 would allow more passenger vehicles to utilize the road and may 

enhance a visitor’s experience who enjoys driving for pleasure).

• Watershed (Stream Channel and Habitat) Restoration – Watershed restoration actions 

that would potentially remove or modify existing recreation infrastructure or change

existing recreation opportunities (e.g., removal of recreation parking from stream 

environment zones for resource restoration).

• Fuels Reduction And Vegetation Restoration – Actions generated from vegetation 

restoration that may impact recreation opportunities (e.g., a fuel treatment project may 

encourage off road/trail incursions and damage resources).

• Aquatic Invasive Species – Actions initiated for the control of aquatic invasive species 

that may affect recreation opportunities (e.g., temporary closures of stream access while 

treatments for eradicating non-native species are occurring). Similarly, recreation 

activities that may affect aquatic invasive species populations and distribution.

• Species Recovery Habitat Restoration – Actions that may protect a species of concern 

may reduce acres available for recreation activities (e.g., protecting Tahoe yellow cress 

via fence enclosures may reduce the acres of available sandy beach for recreation 

activities).

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-393
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Consequences Related to Recreation Opportunities 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Those management activities that could have the most effect on Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum class resources are: 

• Recommended Wilderness

• Recommended Backcountry 

Other actions generated from other resource management activities are not anticipated to affect 

the character of the existing ROS general settings enough to merit a change in an ROS class. As 

a general statement, no changes in ROS classes in specific areas indicate that land uses affecting 

recreation in the Lake Tahoe Basin are becoming relatively stable. 

Recommended Wilderness

There are no recommendations for additional Wilderness designations in Alternatives A, B, and 

E and no changes to the ROS classifications. Both alternatives will maintain the existing 24,664

Wilderness acres managed in the basin between the Desolation, Granite Chief, and Mt. Rose 

Wildernesses. 

Recommendations for additional Wilderness have been proposed in both Alternatives C and D. 

The Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area is recommended for designation as Wilderness in 

Alternative C, and both Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried Roadless Areas are recommended for 

Wilderness designation in Alternative D. Wilderness destinations would not change the ROS 

classifications from Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SPNM). The proximity of the 

recommended wilderness areas to roads and urbanization negates a Primitive ROS classification. 

3-394 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The relationship graphic below depicts the balance of the alternatives between the ROS classes 

and how Alternative D includes more SPNM than the other alternatives.

Gradation within Recreation (least to most intensive)

Recreation Opportunity Setting Classes 

 Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized Roaded Natural Roaded Rural 

 

Alt. D Alt. A,B,C, E

Recommended Backcountry

The ROS classifications reflect the overall theme and character expressed by the settings 

maintained for various forest management and recreation activities. As a general 

characterization, more dispersed recreation activities occur in the semi-primitive ROS classes, 

while conversely; developed recreation occurs in the Roaded Natural (RN) and Rural (R) classes. 

Proposals in the land management plan revision to allocate areas of the LTBMU to different land 

use zones will not largely affect existing ROS classifications, and will have a minimal effect on 

recreation visitation and use in each alternative. There is little variation between the overall 

themes and recreation character represented between the Management Areas and the ROS 

classifications and each classification varies minimally between the alternatives. Comparisons 

of Management Areas to ROS classifications are presented in Table 3-58 below:

Table 3-58. Management Areas Comparison to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Land Use Zone Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Wilderness Management Area Semi Primitive Non-Motorized *

Backcountry Management Area Semi Primitive Non-Motorized,

Semi Primitive Motorized

General Conservation 

Management Area

Semi-Primitive Motorized,

Roaded Natural, and Rural

Santini-Burton / Urban Forest 

Parcels Management Area

Santini-Burton - Semi Primitive Non-Motorized,

Semi Primitive Motorized, Rural

Urban Parcels - Rural

*Note: Though wilderness areas on the LTBMU are classified as Semi Primitive NonMotorized, they are in fact managed to Primitive standards.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-395
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Acreages of ROS classifications by alternative are shown in Table 3-59. Alternatives A, B, C,

and E will continue the current mix of settings and activities with approximately 64% of the NFS 

lands providing a semi-primitive environment (SPM and SPNM) and 36% providing a more 

developed environment (RN and R). 

Alternative C is similar to A, B, and E in its general mix of settings however up to 174 more 

acres of general improvements to developed recreation facilities may occur within the existing 

Rural settings. Visitors will continue to enjoy the current balanced mix of recreational 

opportunities throughout the Basin in these alternatives.

Alternative D would shift the mix by 4% to SPNM with a 7,410 acre increase. The majority of 

these acres come from the Inventoried Roadless Areas. Both SPM and RN acres would decrease 

by 3% resulting in less improved roads being available for those users who enjoy driving for 

pleasure in their passenger cars.

Alternative E ROS classifications are the same as Alternatives A, B, and C. Though Alternative 

E has more acres of NFS lands managed as Backcountry with the addition of approximately 

5,000 acres in the Stanford Rock area, these additional backcountry management acres do not 

change the existing ROS classification of SPNM that are present in Alternatives A, B, and C.

3-396 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-59. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification by Alternative

ROS Class 1988 Land 

Status

Existing 

Acres* 

Alternatives 

A, B, & C

(No Change 

from Existing)

Alternative D Alternatives E

(No Change 

from Existing)

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized

53,500 78,521 78,521

51%

85,931

56%

78,521

51%

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

17,600 20,370 20,370

13%

16,457

11%

20,370

13%

Roaded 

Natural

55,700 39,812 39,812

26%

36,430

23%

39,812

26%

Rural 11,900 16,081 16,081

10%

15,966

10%

16,081

10%

Urban 0 0 0 0 0

Total 138,700 154,784 154,784 154,784 154,784

* Includes acres acquired via land acquisitions since 1988.

Consequences Related to Public Access - Dispersed Recreation 

Dispersed Recreation Overview – Dispersed recreation on NFS lands is defined as those 

activities that occur outside of developed recreation sites in more remote areas of NFS lands. 

Impacts to resources are generated by visitors as they access remote areas and participate in their 

chosen activities. The types of impacts will be similar for all alternatives but the intensity can 

vary with increased visitation. Each alternative provides differing amounts of access as 

measured by miles of roads and trails. 

More access will create more opportunities for dispersed activities while potentially reducing

crowding and user conflicts. This may result in improved visitor satisfaction based on increased 

opportunities and access. Simultaneously, more access may increase demands on management 

and enforcement efforts to assure that the integrity of the environment is maintained and not 

degraded.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-397
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Often dispersed recreation activities are concentrated into small geographical areas, such as 

streams, meadows, riparian, and other sensitive areas. Common impacts generated from 

dispersed recreation activities can include: off-route hiking and mountain biking that creates user 

routes and potentially tramples plants and disrupts wildlife; littering, which is not only unsightly 

but can be harmful to wildlife; improper disposal of human waste; and user-created campsites 

that may disturb or destroy habitat. More access to remote areas may increase impacts to natural 

resources. Some areas traditionally used for dispersed recreation could be closed in the future 

due to potential future development of recreation facilities and ski areas. These potential 

expansions are unknown at this time.

Conflicts may occur among users as popular trails and areas become more crowded, where 

incompatible uses are not separated, or where desired opportunities are not available. Because of 

the diverse desires for outdoor recreation activities, experiences may be affected by behavior or 

mode of travel by other recreational users in the same area. Examples of potential conflicting 

activities include; horseback riding and mountain biking; off-highway vehicles and hiking or 

nature watching; alpine skiing and snowboarding, and OSV’s and cross country skiers. 

Recognizing and accepting that some conflict between user groups is natural, visitor behavior 

may be modified by managing expectations through interpretive and conservation education. 

Also facilities and trails may be designed, built, and maintained to better allow for shared uses. 

The strategy for managing recreation conflict was introduced in the Assumptions section above. 

Those management strategies and activities that may have the most effect on Dispersed 

Recreation resources are: 

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes 

• Recommended Wilderness 

• Access and Travel Management

• Vegetation and Fuels Management

• Aquatic Invasive Species Management

• Species Recovery Habitat Restoration

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes - As mentioned in the ROS section above, 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E would continue the current mix of settings and activities. Alternative 

D would shift the mix by 4% to SPNM (Table 3-46). The majority of these acres come from the 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. The increase in SPNM acres would result in a 3% decrease in both 

SPM and RN acres. This would result in less improved roads being available for those users 

who enjoy driving for pleasure in their passenger cars. 

Recommended Wilderness - Alternatives A, B, and E are unchanged from existing conditions. 

The proposed wilderness designations in Alternatives C and D would affect both summer and 

winter dispersed recreation activities as discussed in the Access and Travel Management sections 

below. (Please see the Wilderness and ROS discussions for further evaluations. 

Dispersed Summer Recreation Non-Motorized and Mechanized Access - Availability of 

summer dispersed recreation activities are affected primarily by the type of access to public lands 

that are needed to allow that activity to happen. For the purposes of this analysis, access is 

3-398 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

categorized by the quantity of miles of trails open to hiking and equestrian use and trails open to 

mechanized use. Table 2-1 displays the miles of trails available for both uses by alternative.

Miles of Hiking and Equestrian Trails

Hikers and equestrians will find satisfying experiences under all alternatives though the 

experience will vary by alternative. More miles of trails are available in Alternatives A, B, D, 

and E, where (pending future environmental analysis) approximately 30 miles of unauthorized 

trails eligible for adoption would be added to the existing inventory of 337 miles for a total of 

approximately 367 miles of trails.

Alternatives C and D however would offer increasingly more primitive experiences due to 

potential wilderness designations. More opportunities would be available to hike in a wilderness 

setting without exposure to mountain bikes. Alternative C would have fewer miles available for 

hiking only trails than the other alternatives with a total of 360 miles of trails open to hiking. 

Under this alternative fewer hiking trails would be available with the designations of use specific 

trails for mountain bike only trails or motorcycle only trails. 

Miles of Trails Open to Mechanized Use

Mountain bikers would have more riding opportunities and potentially be more satisfied with 

Alternatives A, B, and E as more miles of trails are available and popular routes in the 

Dardanelles and Freel areas will remain open. The additional Backcountry Management acres 

proposed in Alternative E will not change the experience to mountain bikers as there are few 

roads or trails in this area that are currently open to motorized use. 

The relationship graphic on the next page depicts the general class levels by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Hiking and Equestrian Trail Opportunities 

 Least miles of trail available Greatest 

 

Alt. C Alt. A, B, D, E

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-399
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Effects to Recreation

Mechanized Use on Trails 

 Least miles of trail available Greatest 

 

Alt. C,D Alt. A,B E

Alternatives C and D offer fewer total miles for mechanized use, however 20 miles of additional 

trails will be upgraded for mechanized use. Some of these trails would be shared with motorized 

and non-motorized uses outside of wilderness areas and include fully or highly developed trails 

and bike paths. In Alternative C and D however, some popular mountain biking trails would 

become off limits if the proposed Dardanelles and Freel Peak wilderness recommendations are 

adopted by Congress. Wilderness designation would also preclude the construction of additional 

mountain bike routes in those areas.

In Alternative C, a Dardanelles Wilderness designation would prohibit mechanized use on 

approximately 12 miles of trails including the trail from Big Meadow through Round Lake to the 

Pacific Crest Trail, the Dardanelles Trail, and the Lake Valley Trail. 

In addition to the prohibitions in Alternative C, a Wilderness designation in Alternative D would 

also prohibit mechanized use on 21 miles of trails in the Freel Area including popular rides such 

as Saxon Creek, Armstrong Pass, portions of the Tahoe Rim Trail, Star Lake and Monument 

trails. In Alternative D with both the Dardanelles and Freel areas recommended for Wilderness

designation, approximately 33 total miles would be excluded from mountain bike use upon 

designation. (See Wilderness Section 3.4.27 for further discussion).

The additional Backcountry Management acres proposed in Alternative E would not 

significantly change the experience to mountain bikers as there are few roads or trails in this area 

that are currently open to motorized use.

3-400 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Trailheads

Trailheads serve as the portals to trail systems throughout the Basin. Trailheads can range from 

highly developed sites such as Eagle Falls with amenities like paved parking, restrooms and trash 

bins, to informal parking on the side of the road offering very few parking opportunities. The 

relationship graphic below depicts parking availability by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Trailhead and Roadside Parking Availability 

 Least Parking capacity Greatest 

  

Alt. D Alt. A, B, E Alt. C

Regardless of their development scale, trailheads provide access for trails leading into the more 

remote regions of the general forest where visitors participate in dispersed recreation activities 

(See Access and Trail Management Section). The following is a general summary of parking 

available by alternative:

• Alternatives A, B and E- Maintain current parking capacity by converting unmanaged 

parking to managed parking. 

• Alternative C –Increase current parking capacity by increasing managed parking areas and 

converting unmanaged parking to managed parking.

• Alternative D –Reduce current parking capacity by converting less unmanaged parking to 

managed parking.

In all alternatives roadside parking would be reduced where parking congestion, safety and 

resource impacts are determined to be unacceptable. 

 

Dispersed Summer Recreation -Motorized Access - Existing regulations regarding operation of 

vehicles on non-paved forest roads and trails would not change significantly in any alternative. 

Vehicles will continue to be restricted to designated roads and trails in all alternatives. Emphasis 

on the length and maintenance levels of designated routes available for differing user groups will 

vary in each alternative. Enforcement, user education, and signing will be effected by 

alternative. 

Satisfaction levels for off-highway vehicle users will vary by the miles available to each of the 

different user groups: passenger cars, high-clearance vehicles and OHVs. Generally the 

upgrading of existing roads will reduce the quality of recreation opportunities for motorcycles, 

all-terrain vehicles and 4x4 vehicles because of the loss of challenge. At the same time those 

seeking easier access to remote locations will benefit from the relative comfort and ease of 

access over new or reconstructed roads. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-401
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Summer OHV users seeking challenging routes will be influenced most by the length of road and 

trail systems, the location of designated routes and the quality of the riding experience. For these 

users difficult routes would be preferred over improved routes. Table 2-1 describes the mile of 

roads and trails available for each user group by alternative.

The following is a general summary of roads available for the different levels of desired 

dispersed recreation experiences by alternative:

Miles of Roads: Passenger Vehicles - Scenic driving is a popular recreational activity on NFS 

lands in the basin. Satisfaction is tied to the number and length of routes along with the location 

and scenic qualities of the routes. In general, visitors who enjoy driving for pleasure in their 

passenger cars will find the most satisfaction in Alternative C with approximately 22 more miles 

(+26%) of upgraded roads from existing for access to both dispersed and developed recreation 

sites. 

In Alternative A, the current level of passenger car roads would be maintained with minimal 

changes. In Alternatives B and E, approximately 5 more miles (+6%) would be upgraded to 

passenger car roads for access to both dispersed and developed recreation sites than in 

Alternative A. Alternative D would offer approximately 7 fewer miles than in Alternative A for 

visitors driving passenger vehicles on forest roads.

Miles of Roads open to High Clearance Vehicles and OHV - High clearance vehicle and OHV 

road users would have more options under Alternative D with 130 miles (+13%) of roads 

maintained at these more challenging levels as maintenance levels of other roads decline. In 

Alternatives A, B, C and E the current level of roads open to OHVs (115 miles) would be 

maintained with minimal changes. 

 

Miles of Trails Open to OHV - Alternative C offers the most (20 miles) trails for OHV users,

which is 25% more than Alternatives A, B and E with 15 miles and 50% more than Alternative 

D at 10 miles. Under Alternative D, approximately 5 miles of trail currently open to motorized 

use would be closed to motorized use within the Freel Peak wilderness destinations. Alternative 

D would result in a reduction in road maintenance levels resulting in increasing the mileage of 

roads open to non-licensed OHV’s and decreasing access for passenger car vehicles.

The relationship graphic below depicts the general class levels by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Road Improvements (by Condition Class 1-5) 

 Least Class 1 – Class 5 Greatest 

  

Alt. D Alt. A, B, E Alt. C

3-402 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Dispersed Winter Recreation Non-Motorized - Non-motorized (quiet) dispersed winter 

recreation such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow play is a growing part of the 

total use of NFS lands. While there are many high quality opportunities for these activities 

around the basin, few have established winter parking. Due to this situation, increased 

competition for parking, localized crowding, and potential conflict between recreationists is the 

anticipated future condition for all alternatives. The following is a general summary of 

dispersed winter parking available by alternative:

The relationship graphic below depicts opportunities for winter parking by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Dispersed Winter Parking 

 Least Opportunities provided Greatest 

 

Alt. A, D Alt. B, C, E

• Alternatives A and D- Maintain existing winter parking capacity. Some sites may be eligible 

in the future for additional winter parking to support existing winter recreation opportunities.

• Alternatives B, E and C - Additional winter parking sites would be added to increase access 

to dispersed recreation activities.

• In addition, opportunities for quite non-motorized winter recreation would remain the same 

in Alternatives A, B, C, and E and would increase in Alternative D with a Freel Wilderness 

designation and the closure of this area for over snow vehicle use. 

Dispersed Winter Recreation Motorized - Over snow vehicle (OSV) users currently have access 

to approximately one half of the total National Forest System acres in the basin (52%) open to 

OSV use vs. (48%) closed). Regulations regarding operation of OSVs as identified in existing 

Forest Orders will continue until revised or superseded. Over snow vehicle use is most affected 

by area-wide closures such as those resulting from species protection, urban buffers, and 

wilderness designations.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-403
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

In Alternatives A, B, C, and E, opportunities for OSV use are not anticipated to change largely 

from existing conditions as depicted in current LTBMU OSV guidance. Some areas traditionally 

used for OSV use could be closed in these alternatives in the future due to potential future 

development of recreation facilities and ski areas. These potential expansions are unknown at 

this time. In Alternative C, the designation of the Dardanelles Roadless area as new wilderness 

would not change areas currently open or closed to OSVs, as that area is already closed for OSV 

use. 

OSV users would be displaced in Alternative D if the 15,341-acre Freel Roadless area were 

recommended and subsequently designated as Wilderness. Though the Freel area is designated 

as semi-primitive non-motorized and is closed to motorized use during the summer, 59% or 

9,084 acres are currently open to winter motorized use. OSV use in the Freel area is currently 

popular with visitors and residents alike. The area provides approximately 6% of the terrain 

available to over snow vehicle use in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Many users of this area are residents who gain access to open terrain via their backyards. Users 

displaced by the area closure will have to find other areas to participate in this activity, most 

likely in nearby Hope Valley on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Users from adjacent

neighborhoods will have to trailer their machines to other open areas. The relationship graphic

below depicts the acres available to OSV opportunities by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Dispersed Winter Recreation (Motorized) 

 Least OSV Opportunities provided Greatest 

 

Alt. D Alt. A, B, C, E

Vegetation and Fuels Management on Public Access - Vegetation and fuel management 

strategies generally result in a more stable forest condition, which is more resistant to 

catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations. These activities overall have a positive effect on 

recreation activities as a healthy environment is what most visitors to forest lands would like to 

experience. Vegetation treatments often improve scenic conditions by opening views of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains and Lake Tahoe. Vegetation and fuels management treatments have 

short-term impacts generated from actual project activities that generally range from one day to 

one month. Long-term visual impacts resulting from treatments can affect recreation experience 

and are described in Section 3.4.20.

The primary activities generated from vegetation and fuels management generally include:

prescribed fire (under burning and pile burning), managed wildfire, hand and mechanical 

thinning, aerial tree removal with helicopter or small mobile yarding, and temporary road 

construction and rehabilitation. Managed wildfire is defined as the management of naturally 

ignited fires to achieve resource desired conditions and objectives where fire is a major 

3-404 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

component of the ecosystem (See Fire and Fuels Section (3.4.10) of this document and the 

Resource Overlays in the Forest Plan).

These activities may result in short-term consequences to recreation resources from temporary 

closures; noise and dust that are created in the preparation stages of the treatments and from 

helicopter yarding; slash piles that remain on the landscape for several years in order to cure;

temporary smoke generated from the burning process itself; and the end result of a blackened 

landscape that may persist for several years. 

The degree of impact to recreation resources from thinning projects and prescribed/managed fire 

is primarily short-term and largely a function of proximity (i.e., how close these activities occur 

to where people recreate or live). The further these processes occur from these activity centers, 

the less impact they will have. 

Other than in wilderness areas, fuels treatments can occur throughout the forest including the 

wildland urban interface (WUI). If treatments occur close to roads and trails or other areas 

where people recreate and live, they may affect the experiences of those users and satisfaction 

levels may be lower. For example, if burn piles are left close to trails for several years to cure, 

hikers will be exposed to the unnatural character of the piles, and once burned they will see the 

fire scar until it is cover by needles and vegetation is reestablished. If areas are temporarily

closed and access is denied, users may have to momentarily adjust their expectations and find 

other places to recreate. 

Seeing and breathing smoke from prescribed burns and managed fires have a larger zone of 

influence than other fuels treatment activities and is one of the unfortunate side effects that may 

affect visitor and residence experience and lessen satisfaction ratings. Also helicopter yarding 

can also be heard from greater distances than other mechanical operations and therefore impact a 

larger number of forest visitors. 

Temporary roads are often constructed as a part of vegetation management projects to access 

areas not accessible from the permanent road system. Although these roads are temporary and 

closed to vehicle traffic by the general public, they are often used by hikers, equestrians, and 

mountain bikers. This unregulated use is not problematic until resource damage occurs (such as 

off road incursions into open forest areas) and then management actions are needed to regulate 

the activity. 

Alternatives A, B, D, and E propose 4,550 acres/year in all categories of fuels and vegetation 

treatments, while Alternative C would propose to treat a total of 5,600 acres/year. 

For treatments in the WUI, Alternatives A, B, and E will treat 3,800 acres per year and 

Alternative C and D would treat 4,100 acres/year or 300 more acres than Alternatives A, B, and 

E. People who recreate in WUIs or live near them will experience more impacts in Alternatives 

C and D.

For those who recreate in Backcountry, General Conservation, and on Santini-Burton/Urban 

Forest Parcel Management Areas, Alternatives A, B, and E propose 750 acres of fuels and 

vegetation treatments. Alternative C would propose to treat 1,500 acres/year (double the acreage 

in Alternatives A, B, and E), therefore resulting in more short-term impacts to dispersed 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-405
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

recreation resources. Impacts from forest thinning would be lesser under Alternative D, which 

proposes the least amount of forest vegetation treatment at 450 acres. 

Managed wildfire is allowed in some areas in all alternatives. Alternative A is the least likely to 

allow managed wildfire. In Alternative C there is a moderate likelihood and Alternatives B, D, E 

are most likely. Alternative A allows it in only the Desolation Wilderness, Alternatives A, D, 

and E allow it everywhere except the WUI defense zone (roughly, 1⁄4 mile outside of 

communities). Alternative C allows it everywhere except WUI (defense and threat zones). If 

this restoration tool is used, there may be impacts to recreation activities such as smoke, and or 

area closures. The LTBMU is largely a WUI forest and this is most likely not going to be a 

commonly used tool because of the proximity to communities from any point in the Basin, 

However, should this option be exercised, alternatives with the greatest area available will have 

the highest likelihood of causing the listed effects to recreations. 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Management - The prevention of the spread of 

aquatic and terrestrial invasive species remains a high priority for the LTBMU recreation 

program. Prevention methods for dispersed recreation include improved signage at popular 

access points as well as education and outreach efforts that communicate the importance of 

managing invasive species in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

As mentioned in more detail in the Developed Recreation section, activities generated from 

aquatic and terrestrial species management include prevention, control, and eradication 

techniques. These strategies include manual removal using electro-shockers, gill nets and traps, 

and chemical-based methods. Terrestrial control and eradication strategies include removing 

weeds by hand or with tools, using herbicides, and thermal methods such as torching among 

others. These methods are used on a project by project basis and are not used if they present any 

danger to visitors.

Most aquatic and terrestrial species management actions are considered to be short-term in 

nature as they do not generate long-term closures or modifications to recreation areas. Shortterm closures of up to several months may occur at lakes or streams as treatments are applied and 

for up the several days for terrestrial species treatments. 

3-406 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to Recreation

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Management 

 Least impact to public Greatest 

 

Alt. A, D Alt. B, C, E

Effects to recreation resources from aquatic species management activities are most likely in 

Alternatives B, C, and E as there will be from 0.5 to 1 mile of streams treated. Alternatives A 

and D will have fewer effects as there will be from 0 to 0.5 miles treated respectively. 

Effects to recreation resources from terrestrial invasive species management are most likely in 

Alternatives B, C, and E as there will be from 5 to 40 acres eradicated. Alternatives A and D 

will have fewer effects as there will be from 0 to 5 acres treated respectively.

Species Recovery and Habitat Restoration - Impacts to dispersed recreation activities from 

species recovery and habitat restoration can occur when areas are closed to recreation activities 

for varying periods of time or when activities are prohibited or displaced. 

Short-term impacts (from several hours to several days depending on the species and type of 

treatments) may arise from management strategies such as the reintroduction of the Lahontan 

cutthroat trout (LCT) into local streams and rivers. This is often accomplished by eliminating 

the current populations of non-native rainbow, brown, or brook trout so that new populations of 

LCT can be established. Fishing patterns may be disrupted for periods of time as treatments are 

applied and new LCT populations are introduced and become stable enough to reintroduce 

fishing. 

Long-term impacts from aquatic species management may occur when existing recreation 

opportunities are changed or eliminated. An example of a long-term impact may include loss of

fishing opportunities in some alpine lakes as a result of eliminating non-native brook trout 

populations to enhance habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs. In this case, outdoor 

enthusiasts who enjoy fishing for brook trout may be disappointed if fishing in those particular 

lakes was their favorite activity. Displaced fisherman may then move on to other lakes, possibly 

resulting in increased impacts at these alternate locations.

Long-term impacts to winter motorized activities from species recovery habitat restoration 

actions could be generated if access to terrain is limited or closed to OSVs. All alternatives 

propose to maintain one Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog sub-population and to restore four. 

These actions may close terrain that is currently accessible to OSVs.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-407
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Consequences Related to Recreation Development 

Developed Recreation 

Developed Recreation Overview - The quality and quantity of developed recreation opportunities 

would vary in all alternatives depending on the level of recreation expansion allowed. 

Recreationists may be adversely affected as future demand outpaces supply and crowding 

increases at popular recreation sites during peak visitation periods. Those alternatives that allow 

for expansion would provide greater flexibility in meeting existing and anticipated use levels.

The following management activities will have an effect on developed recreation resources: 

• Modification of developed recreation facilities;

• Access and travel management;

• Watershed (stream channel and habitat) restoration;

• Vegetation and fuels management;

• Aquatic invasive species management; and

• Species recovery habitat restoration.

In all alternatives, the Forest Service recognizes that it cannot meet all user demands and that 

visitors will continue to be displaced during peak use periods from popular recreation sites. 

Moreover, the duration of peak periods may increase with the projected rise in visitation. 

Generally, those areas adjacent to popular developed recreation sites will serve as alternative 

destinations for displaced visitors. Unmanaged recreation at these locations may result in an

increase in adverse effects. Construction of additional infrastructure and expansion and/or 

modification (hardening) of existing recreation sites may help alleviate crowding as well as 

mitigate the potential for resource impacts associated with displaced visitors. 

The following management actions will not significantly affect developed recreation resources:

• Wilderness recommendations;

• Changes in recreation opportunity spectrum; and

• Ongoing dispersed recreation. 

Some minor impacts may result from resource management activities that are ongoing and not 

considered in this analysis. For example, it is understood that some seasonal closures or 

restrictions may be placed on recreation uses in key wildlife habitat areas during the nesting or 

wintering season for certain species. Also it is understood that a broad spectrum of dispersed 

recreation opportunities will encourage more visitation to the Basin and result in positive 

economic benefits to permit holders and to the local community. Visitor use is not anticipated to 

be influenced by general resource management activities as recreation demand is not driven by 

forest management practices. In summary, recreation visitation and use will increase in all 

alternatives: however the location, type, rate and intensity will vary by alternative. 

3-408 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Modifying Developed Recreation Facilities - Recreation visitation and resulting demand and use 

is anticipated to increase in all alternatives and none of the alternatives are anticipated to 

accommodate all the projected demand during the peak season from July 4th thru Labor Day. At 

a minimum, all alternatives will focus on deferred maintenance or modification of existing 

facilities to help achieve accessibility and sustainability of recreation opportunities. 

Recreation infrastructure will vary as each alternative provides more or less supply by expanding 

or reducing developed infrastructure in response to future recreation demand. As depicted in 

Table 2.1 using recreation site acres, overnight accommodations and day use parking spaces, 

Alternatives A (10%) and C (15%) will have the most potential to respond to increased public 

demand by retrofitting existing facilities or building new ones. Alternative B will allow up to a 

5% increase in new or expanded facilities. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative E will allow a 

5% increase in permit acres and day use parking opportunities, and a 10% increase in overnight 

accommodations. The greatest effects from unmet demand will come from Alternative D as it 

will have the least ability to respond to demand as 15% of the developed recreation infrastructure 

may potentially be lost to resource restoration. 

The availability of developed recreation facilities to meet demand per alternative is depicted on 

the relationship graphic below:

Gradation of Recreation Facilities

Number of Developed Recreation Facilities 

 Least developed infrastructure provided Greatest 

 

Alt. D Alt. A, B, C, E

Alternative E will be similar to Alternative B in its ability to provide expansion opportunities in 

recreation site acres and day use parking spaces; however it provides more overnight 

accommodations to respond to visitor demands. Assuming maximum build out in Alternative E 

as described in Table 2-1, visitors will have more opportunities during peak summer periods to 

obtain overnight accommodations than in Alternative B. Visitors who desire more developed 

recreation infrastructures for their activities could expect a more satisfying experience in 

Alternatives A, B C and E, so long as the maintenance and construction of facilities occur at a 

sufficient rate to support most of the demand. Alternative C has the most opportunity to provide 

more developed infrastructure to meet increased future demands. In Alternative D, as demand 

exceeds available services due to the loss of developed facilities, recreationists will be adversely 

affected as prices and crowding increase and their sense of satisfaction lessens. Conversely, 

Alternative D may suit those visitors who prefer dispersed recreation activities such as 

hiking/walking that rely less on constructed infrastructure. 

Accessibility improvements will continue in all alternatives. Effects from accessibility 

improvements include a greater satisfaction for users of all abilities as more sites become 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-409
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

accessible. Families of all ages and ability levels can share the same facilities and site 

furnishing, and visitors with accessibility needs will find their choices have broadened in 

selecting campsites, picnic sites and other types of developed recreation sites. 

There will be more short term construction impacts (1 month to 1 year) in Alternative C than in 

the other alternatives since there is the potential for more retrofitting or expansion of developed 

facilities. In general these impact will include: initial site construction (grading of sites for 

roads, campsites and parking spurs), clearing of vegetation (tree removal), grading of sites, 

asphalt and concrete installation (non-permeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and 

structures), and trenching for utilities. These impacts may generate short term detours or 

closures in recreation sites, and some inconveniences to visitors from construction related noise 

and dust. Some short term impacts may be substantial if recreation sites are closed for 

improvements during the peak season and visitors are displaced to other locations. These 

impacts must be weighed in relation to the long term gain of the approved project. There will be 

fewer short term construction impacts in Alternative D than in the other alternatives since there 

will be fewer construction projects.

Access and Travel Management - As stated in the access section of this EIS, general access to 

developed recreation sites for all alternatives, would tend to shift towards consolidated access 

routes and parking facilities that would incorporate mode transfer to promote use of transit or 

bike path systems over the private automobile. In Alternatives A, B, C, and E where roadside 

parking is reduced or eliminated outside of developed recreation sites, some of the parking 

demand would be absorbed within managed recreation sites or by expanding associated parking 

facilities. In all alternatives, a strategy of shifting use toward transit and bike path systems will 

be followed. In Alternative D, a reduction in overall developed recreation sites could result in 

reduced parking facilities and vehicle access to sites that are removed creating addition demand 

for alternative transportation and other parking options. The relationship graphic below depicts 

the general class levels by alternative.

 

Effects to Recreation

Parking Availability at Developed Sites 

 Least vehicle access Greatest 

 

Alt. D Alt. A, B, C, E

3-410 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Watershed (Stream Channel and Habitat) Restoration - Stream Channel and Habitat 

Restoration activities would result in short term impacts of limited extent and net long term gains 

as stream zones in developed recreation sites are stabilized. Generally speaking, a resource 

action that protects and enhances the overall environmental health and integrity of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin is beneficial to recreation interests if they do not reduce recreation opportunities or 

restrict access. A healthy environment is a primary reason that recreationist enjoy the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. 

Short term impacts (1month to 1 year) from stream channel restoration on developed recreation 

resources results from the use of heavy equipment (excavators, dozers, dump trucks) and from 

restoration activities such as sod borrowing, stock piling materials, de-watering streams, and 

short term closures. Meadow restoration activities such as broadcast burning, hand thinning, and 

mechanical thinning also generate short term impacts. These restoration activities are generally 

transitory in nature but will effect nearby developed recreation facilities by the creation of noise, 

dust, smoke from broadcast burning, and potential closures for the life of the project. The 

recreating public may be temporarily inconvenienced by these activities. 

There are some potential long term detrimental effects from restoration actions to existing 

recreation infrastructure that could potentially affect quality (modification), quantity (removal), 

and access (road closures or decommissioning) of existing recreation resources. Actions that 

affect recreation management’s effort to meet demand by reducing supply will change the 

overall recreation experience from existing. For example if restoration activities remove a 

recreation amenity from a stream environment zone for resource enhancement, visitors 

accustomed to using that facility may be disappointed if they are unable to enjoy that specific 

location. Displaced visitors may not be able to duplicate their desired experience at newly 

provided locations or may experience crowding if there is an overall loss of capacity. New 

visitors looking for a less developed environment may enjoy the restoration result. The number 

and type of those recreationists served in each instance may be very different. 

The relationship graphic below depicts the general class levels by alternative.

Effects to Recreation

Watershed Restoration (Stream Channel and Habitat) 

 Least miles/acres restored Greatest 

 

Alt. D Alt. A, B, C, E

The proposed watershed restoration actions for each of these activities does not differ between 

the Alternatives A, B, C, and E. In Alternative D, currently planned watershed restoration 

projects will continue until completed, and then the strategy for watershed management will be 

to rely primarily on natural processes for recovery. Effects from these activities on developed 

recreation resources are more likely under Alternatives A, B C, and E, as they will be restoring 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-411
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

the most miles/acres and have the most potential to remove or relocate existing developed 

recreation features from sensitive resource areas. The direct effects from these actions would be 

analyzed on a project by project basis. 

Vegetation and Fuels Management (Recreation Development) - Please see the Vegetation and 

Fuels Management in the Public Access - Dispersed Recreation section. Impacts from 

vegetation and fuels management are similar for both dispersed and developed recreation 

activities.

As previously stated, vegetation and fuel management strategies generally result in a more stable 

forest condition which is more resistant to catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations. These 

activities overall have a positive effect on recreation activities as a healthy environment is what 

most visitors to NFS lands would like to experience. Vegetation treatments often improve scenic 

conditions by opening views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Lake Tahoe. Vegetation and 

fuels management treatments have short-term impacts generated from actual project activities 

that generally range from 1 day to 1 month, and long term visual impacts resulting from 

treatments (Section 3.4.20). 

Impacts to developed recreation resources from vegetation and fuels management will primarily 

be generated by treatments within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) where most developed 

recreation sites exist. The degree of impacts to developed recreation resources from treatments 

that include thinning projects and prescribed fire is largely a function of proximity or how close 

they occur to where people recreate. The further these processes occur from recreation activity 

centers, the less impact they will have. If these activities occur close to resorts, campgrounds, or 

day use areas, they may affect the experiences of those users and satisfaction levels may be 

lower. 

Seeing and breathing smoke from prescribed burns has a larger zone of influence than other 

activities and is one of the unfortunate side effects of prescribed burns that may affect visitor’s 

experiences and lessen satisfaction ratings. Helicopter yarding can also be heard from larger 

distances than other mechanical operations and can impact a larger range of forest visitors. There 

is also the potential for removal of vegetation from developed recreation sites that previously 

screened development. An example would be the removal of young trees in campgrounds to 

reduce their density, that currently provide screening and privacy from other campsites or from 

nearby roadways. 

Longer-term impacts may result from fuel treatments and may be evident for some time. For 

example, the blackened landscape left after broadcast burning may take several years to recover 

and affect visual experiences (Section 3.4.20). 

3-412 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to Recreation

Vegetation and Fuels Management 

(Recreation Development) 

 Least Impacts to public Greatest 

 

Alt. A, B, E Alt. C, D

For treatments in the WUI, Alternatives C and D would treat 300 more acres than Alternatives A,

B and E. Visitors in developed recreation sites near WUI treatments would experience more 

impacts in Alternatives C and D.

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Management - The prevention of the spread of 

aquatic and terrestrial invasive species remains a high priority for the LTBMU recreation 

program. Prevention methods for developed recreation include improved signage at developed 

recreation sites, additional terms and conditions on special use permits, education and outreach 

efforts communicating the importance of managing invasive species in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 

and watercraft screening, inspection, and washing stations. Please see the “Aquatic Wildlife 

Habitat and Species” and “Botanical Terrestrial Invasive Species” sections in Chapter 3 for a 

more in-depth description of affected environment and environmental consequences related to 

aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.

Aquatic control and eradication strategies at developed recreation sites include manual removal 

using electro-shockers, gill nets and traps, and chemical-based methods. Terrestrial control and 

eradication strategies include removing weeds by hand or with tools, using herbicides, and 

thermal methods such as torching among others. These methods are used on a project by project 

basis and are not used if they present any danger to visitors. 

 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-413
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Species Recovery and Habitat Restoration - Impacts from species recovery habitat restoration 

will be the same in all alternatives. Restoration activities may reduce the availability of 

recreation settings if areas closed to public access. Impacts related to recreation activities are 

expected to be minimal in all alternatives depending on the location and scale of the closures. 

An example would the potential loss of available sandy beach for recreation activities by 

protecting Tahoe Yellow Cress via fence enclosures. The current enclosures are usually less 

than 1⁄4 acre and do not represent a large percentage decrease of available sandy beach acres. 

There are currently 8 enclosures at various beaches around the Basin however the number and 

locations of the enclosures are not static, nor dependent on alternative. 

Ski Areas 

Ski areas on the LTBMU provide a major economic and recreation benefit to the region. Under

all alternatives, the operation and maintenance of existing ski areas will continue but may also 

include summer activities consistent with laws, regulations, and Forest Service policy.

For the purposes of this analysis, the operational footprint of existing ski areas and ski slopes 

was used to measure environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. The 

operational footprint consists of areas of development and primary use within existing permit 

boundaries. This includes developed ski runs, lodge, lift operations, maintenance and utility 

facilities. The operational footprint also represents the area from where recreation expansion is 

most likely to occur in the future. 

Management activities that may affect ski areas and ski slopes include: 

• Modifying Developed Recreation Facilities

• Vegetation and Fuels Management

• Species Recovery Habitat Restoration

Modifying Developed Recreation Facilities - In all alternatives, in order to maintain a high 

quality experience, emphasis will include the need to balance chairlift and terrain capacity. 

Generally, alternatives that allow for the greatest expansion and modification will best support

ski areas in meeting socioeconomic challenges and changing user preferences. For example, in 

response to changing climate conditions, a ski area may propose additional development outside 

the existing footprint on terrain with a more favorable aspect for snowpack retention. 

Additionally, to provide better connectivity for summer uses, a ski area may propose 

construction of new trails outside the existing operational footprint. Alternatives B and E have 

the same expansion potential.

Alternative A

Heavenly Mountain Resort – Alternative A would confine most ski area development to 

approximately 4,200 acres within the 7,700-acre special use permit boundary. This is due to 

existing LRMP direction that applies to a large portion of lands within the special use permit 

boundary. 

3-414 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The emphasis for these areas is to serve as a scenic backdrop to Lake Tahoe, left in a nearly 

natural condition but does not preclude ski opportunities. This includes the steep northwest 

facing slope of East Peak. Alternative A may allow glading and off-piste terrain/vegetation 

modification within this area if those activities comply with visual quality and watershed 

objectives.

Alternative A allows for new ski run construction and widening within the “Alpine Skiing 

Management Prescription.” Alternative A allows for the development of additional support 

facilities and lodges. As a result, this alternative provides for a greater diversity of recreation 

experiences for both winter and summer users. 

Alpine Meadows - Alternative A allows for expansion of the existing ski area, including 

portions of NFS lands currently not under special use permit. Alternative A maintains the 

“Alpine Skiing Management Prescription” on approximately 2,605 acres in the Ward 

Management Area. Alternative A allows for the greatest level of expansion, providing for 

development of additional support facilities, lodges, and ski runs within the LTBMU. As a 

result, this alternative provides for a greater diversity of recreation experiences for both winter 

and summer users.

Diamond Peak Ski Area - Ski area expansion may not occur beyond the existing special use 

permit boundary because the “Alpine Skiing Management Prescription” is identical to the special 

use permit boundary. However, Alternative A allows for more intensive development than other 

alternatives within the existing special use permit boundary.

Homewood Mountain Resort - Alternative A allows for expansion of the existing ski area, 

including portions of NFS lands currently not under special use permit. Alternative A maintains 

the “Alpine Skiing Management Prescription” on approximately 760 acres in the McKinney 

Management Area. Alternative A allows for the greatest level of expansion, providing for 

development of additional support facilities, lodges, and ski runs within the LTBMU. As a 

result, this alternative provides for a greater diversity of recreation experiences for both winter 

and summer users than other alternatives.

Northstar – Currently, Northstar is located entirely on private land. Alternative A allows for 

expansion of the ski area onto NFS lands south and east of Mt. Pluto. Alternative A maintains 

the “Alpine Skiing Management Prescription on approximately 300 acres in the Watson 

Management Area. Alternative A allows for the greatest level of expansion, providing for

development of additional support facilities, lodges, and ski runs within the LTBMU. As a 

result, this alternative provides for a greater diversity of recreation experiences for both winter 

and summer users than other alternatives.

Alternatives B and E

Heavenly Mountain Resort – Alternative B and E remove the “Maintenance Management 

Area” and “Alpine Skiing Management Area” prescriptions and would allow up to 5% expansion 

beyond the existing operational footprint. Ski area development in Alternatives B and E may 

occur in lands previously designated as “Maintenance Management Area.” Expansion is suitable 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-415
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

in general conservation management areas, and plans for future expansion would be evaluated on 

a project by project basis. 

Alpine Meadows – Alternatives B and E removes the “Alpine Skiing Management Area” 

prescription and would allow up to 5% expansion. Expansion is suitable in general conservation 

management areas, and plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project by project 

basis. 

Diamond Peak Ski Area – Alternatives B and E removes the “Alpine Skiing Management 

Area” prescription. Expansion of up to 5% under Alternatives B and E would be limited to 

general conservation management areas. Plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a

project by project basis. 

Homewood Mountain Resort – Alternatives B and E removes the “Alpine Skiing Management 

Area” prescription. Expansion of up to 5% under Alternatives B and E would be limited to 

general conservation management areas. Plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a 

project by project basis.

Northstar -Northstar is entirely on private land. Expansion is suitable in general conservation 

management areas and plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project by project 

basis. 

Alternative C

Heavenly Mountain Resort – Alternative C removes the “Maintenance Management Area” and 

“Alpine Skiing Management Area” prescriptions and would allow up to 15% expansion beyond 

the existing operational footprint within general conservation management areas. Expansion is 

suitable in general conservation management areas and plans for future expansion would be 

evaluated on a project by project basis. Under this alternative, the ski area would have the 

greatest flexibility to respond to user demand as well as accommodate summer uses as ski 

seasons become more variable due to climate change.

Alpine Meadows – Alternative C removes the “Alpine Skiing Management Area” prescription. 

Expansion of up to 5% under Alternatives B and E would be limited to general conservation 

management areas. Plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project by project basis. 

Under this alternative, the ski area would have the greatest flexibility to respond to user demand 

as well as accommodate summer uses as ski seasons become more variable due to climate 

change.

Diamond Peak Ski Area – Alternative C removes the “Alpine Skiing Management Area” 

prescription. Expansion of up to 5% under Alternatives B and E would be limited to general 

conservation management areas. Plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project by 

project basis. Under this alternative, the ski area would have the greatest flexibility to respond to 

user demand.

Homewood Mountain Resort – Alternative C removes the “Alpine Skiing Management Area” 

prescription. Expansion of up to 5% under Alternatives B and E would be limited to general 

conservation management areas. Plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project by 

3-416 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

project basis. Under this alternative, the ski area would have the greatest flexibility to respond to 

user demand.

Northstar - Northstar is located entirely on private land. Expansion is suitable in general 

conservation management areas and plans for future expansion would be evaluated on a project 

by project basis. Under this alternative, the ski area would have the greatest flexibility to respond 

to user demand.

Alternative D

This alternative may result in a 15% reduction of the existing operational footprint to meet 

ecosystem restoration objectives. Alternative D restricts all ski areas to their existing operational 

footprint with no opportunity to expand. Alternative D allows for the replacement of existing 

improvements such as lodges and chairlifts and new ski runs could be constructed within the 

reduce footprint. National Forest System lands not developed may be removed from future 

special use permits when reissued. 

Alternative D mostly affects Heavenly Mountain Resort and would eliminate some projects

identified in the accepted 2007 Master Plan Amendment. 

The relationship graphic below depicts availability of winter ski opportunities by alternative.

Gradation within Recreation

Winter Ski Opportunities 

 Least opportunity to expand Greatest 

 

Alt. D Alt. A, B, C, E

Table 3-60 displays the existing ski area acreage and maximum ski area acreage in each 

alternative.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-417
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-60. Maximum ski area operational footprint acreage on NFS lands in Lake Tahoe Basin

Ski Area

Existing 

Operational 

Footprint 

(NFS Lands)

Alternative 

A1

Alternative 

B2

Alternative 

C3

Alternative 

D4

Alternative 

E

Heavenly 

Mountain 

Resort

3,066* 4,200 3,219 3,526 2,606 3,219

Alpine 

Meadows 377* 2,605 396 434 320 396

Diamond 

Peak Ski 

Area 

350 350 368 403 298 368

Homewood 

Mountain 

Resort 

204 760 214 235 173 214

Northstar5. 0 300 05. 05. 0 05.

All Ski 

Areas 3997 7,915 4,197 4,598 3,397 4,197

*Does not include acres located on the Humboldt-Toiyabe (Heavenly Mountain Resort) or Tahoe National 

Forest (Alpine Meadows). 

1 Existing special use permit boundary and/or Alpine Skiing Management Prescription adjacent to existing 

special use permit. 

2 Existing special use operational footprint acreage on National Forest System lands + 5%. 3 Existing special use operational footprint acreage on National Forest System lands +15%.

4 Existing special use operational footprint – 15%.

5. Expansion is suitable in general conservation management areas and plans for future expansion will be 

evaluated on a project by project basis.

3-418 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

 

Vegetation and Fuels Management - Generally, vegetation management activities enhance 

downhill skiing by allowing better utilization of skiable terrain. For example, Solitude Canyon 

at Diamond Peak Ski Area provides excellent off-piste skiing opportunities. In recent years, the 

timber stand and ground vegetation has grown increasingly thick making skiing more difficult. 

Timber stand thinning and ground vegetation treatments would clear existing slopes and improve 

visibility, thus enhancing downhill skiing.

Some vegetation management projects may have a detrimental short-term impact on ski terrain 

access due specific disposal techniques. For example, pile burning adjacent to or within ski area 

boundaries may pose a short-term hazard due to the placement of piles on skiable terrain. 

Some long-term impacts may occur if large downed trees are not treated. Specifically, large 

downed trees create greater distance between the ground and the skiable surface. This results in 

the need for greater snow depth to avoid hitting obstacles. In all alternatives, the “Easy Street 

Run Prescription” is the preferred method by which downed trees and woody material are treated 

within developed ski runs. However, the Easy Street Run Prescription may not be implemented 

when it conflicts with specific resource objectives.

The term “Easy Street Run Prescription” originated from implementation of the vegetation 

management strategy on the Easy Street ski run at Heavenly Mountain Resort. The Easy Street 

Run Prescription includes the following vegetation management actions:

• Existing native shrubs within or adjacent to developed ski runs are identified and 

avoided.

• Noxious weeds are flagged and identified for removal.

• Felled trees and woody debris less than 10 inches are chipped, and the resulting mulch 

evenly distributed to an average depth of 3 inches.

• Felled trees and logs larger than 10 inches are removed to a sufficient distance from the 

developed ski run (e.g. adjacent tree island).

• Existing tree stumps are ground down.

• Boulders will be moved or shortened to a height between 12 and 18 inches from the 

ground. 

While the Easy Street Run Prescription is the current preferred prescription for how ski runs are 

implemented, this prescription may be adjusted and improved through monitoring and adaptive 

management in the future. 

Potentially, vegetation management may increase solar gain on the snowpack or affect windrelated snow loading at site-specific locations. However, such potential effects are not 

ecologically significant at the Forest Plan level. 

Though no specific fuels treatments are prescribed for ski areas, ski areas are primarily in the 

Backcountry and General Conservation Areas on NFS lands where treatments will occur. 

Alternatives A, B, and E propose similar acres of fuels and vegetation treatments in those 

management areas. Alternative C proposes to treat double the acres of Alternatives A, B and E

therefore have more short term impacts to ski areas. Impacts from forest thinning would be 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-419
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

lowest under Alternative D, which proposes the least amount of forest vegetation treatment.

Species Recovery and Habitat Restoration - Impacts to ski areas from species recovery habitat 

restoration activities would be minor in most cases for all alternatives. Generally, a habitat 

restoration activity that enhances the overall environmental health and integrity of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin is beneficial to ski area interests. However, there is potential for some restoration 

activities to affect winter sports opportunities. For example, area closures may eliminate skiable 

terrain, causing crowding on adjacent terrain or a loss of opportunity. In any alternative that 

resource actions affect recreation management’s effort to meet demand, the overall recreation 

experience will be changed from existing. 

Consequences Related to Climate Change

The uncertainty related to climate change over the life of the plan requires recreation managers 

remain flexible in the delivery of recreation opportunities and services. More boom and bust 

cycles will likely occur for various recreation opportunities. Though sustainable recreation goals 

will be considered on a project by project basis for the life of the plan, unpredictable climate 

changes may make mitigative actions less effective than intended and may even have unforeseen 

consequences. Over time, the public will have to modify their expectations for the types of 

recreation experiences they are seeking. 

All alternatives provide for adaptation and modification of recreation infrastructure and 

opportunities in response to climate change. Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow for 

varying degrees of flexibility in modification (expansion) of recreation infrastructure to meet the 

environmental and socioeconomic challenges associated with climate change (see Chapter 3.3, 

Climate Change). These challenges include decreased snowfall, shorter ski seasons, longer 

summer seasons, and shifts in economic patterns. Alternative C would afford the LTBMU the 

greatest ability to respond to these challenges by allowing for up to 15% expansion in recreation 

infrastructure (e.g., development of summer use opportunities at ski areas). In contrast, 

Alternative D, which would result in up to a 15% reduction in recreation infrastructure, would 

provide the least flexibility to adapt recreation opportunities to meet the challenges associated 

with climate change.

Throughout the life of the plan, climate change may affect recreation resources in many ways 

including the ways people recreate, patterns of use, and available recreation opportunities. 

Examples of the potential effects of climate change on specific recreation resources are 

summarized as follows:

Extended Summer Seasons – During warmer cycles, the opportunities for experiencing summer 

recreation activities could be extended. This may extend the time that summer dispersed 

recreation activities are obtainable and also allow permit holders more economic opportunities to 

provide services to the public.

Skiing – Wider yearly swings in precipitation rates creates more boom and bust seasons in the 

skiing industry. Drier years can have a huge impact on the economic viability of ski areas not to 

mention the missed skiing opportunities by the public. Drier years create more reliance on water 

resources and colder temperatures for snow making capabilities. On the other hand, more 

precipitation during the winter can create ideal skiing conditions. Variable conditions may led to 

more pressure to provide year round recreation opportunities in ski areas

3-420 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Winter Dispersed Activities –Both motorized and non-motorized winter recreation activities 

will be affected by changing precipitation patterns. Decreased snowfall and a reduced snowpack

may change the use practices of Over Snow Vehicle users. A shorter season may increase OSV

pressure on available resources as users strive to maximize their activities. Conversely, a shorter 

season may reduce the demand for OSV opportunities as users determine that the cost of 

purchasing and maintaining expensive OSVs are not worth the effort for shorter periods of time 

on the snow. They may decide that expendable dollars may be better spent on other warm 

weather activities. Non-motorized winter activities will also be affected by less snowpack in 

much the same ways downhill skiers are impact as discussed above. Boom and bust snow 

seasons will impact those who enjoy snow play and cross country skiing activities and they will

have to modify their expectations as seasons become more variable. 

Water Play and Fishing – Also affected by precipitation rates are those activities that rely on 

dependable stream flows and lake levels such as water play and fishing. Already noticeable in 

the Tahoe area are seasons when the lower Truckee River is barely flowing during drought 

periods and very popular rafting activities come to a near halt. Conversely, in high water years 

Lake Tahoe is recharged and rivers run strong to the benefit of river runners. This can create 

more crowding as visitors vie for beach space, which becomes less available as the lake level 

rises. 

Water Supplies –Water supplies for recreation sites that depend on springs, stream runoff and 

high water tables can be less reliable during drier years. Water supplies for campgrounds, day

use sites, and even recreation residences can go dry. The public’s anticipation of a high quality 

recreation experience can be challenged when there is little or no water.

Effects To Recreation From Wildlife Resources Changes – Changing climate patterns can 

create shifts in migratory populations and may affect bird watching, wildlife enthusiasts, and 

hunters.

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-421
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.19.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The ROS classifications reflect the overall theme and character expressed by the settings 

maintained for various forest management and recreation activities. 

• Alternatives A, B, C, and E would continue the current mix of settings and activities with 

approximately 64% of the NFS lands providing a semi-primitive environment (SPM and 

SPNM) and 36% providing a more developed environment (RN and R). Alternative C is 

similar to A, B, and E in its general mix of settings; however, up 174 more acres of 

general improvements to developed recreation facilities may occur in the already 

developed settings of RN and R. Visitors would continue to enjoy the current balanced 

mix of recreational opportunities throughout the Basin in these alternatives. 

• Alternative D would shift the mix by 5% to Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. The 

increase in SPNM acres would result in a 3% decrease in both SPM and RN acres. This 

would result in fewer miles of improved roads being available for those users who enjoy 

driving for pleasure in their passenger cars. 

Access -Dispersed Recreation 

Dispersed Summer Recreation – Non-Motorized/Mechanized Availability of summer 

dispersed recreation activities are affected primarily by the type of access to public lands that are 

needed to allow that activity to happen. Satisfaction ratings are generally improved by meeting 

demand by providing more access via roads, trails, and trailheads. More access will create more 

opportunities for dispersed activities to occur and potentially reduce crowding and reduce 

conflicts. 

• There are more miles of hiking trail access opportunities under Alternatives A, B, D, and 

E than in Alternatives C. New wilderness designations in Alternatives C and D would

enhance hiking and equestrian experiences by managing the areas for high wilderness 

standards of solitude and primitive characteristics and would remove interactions with 

mechanized use as mountain bikes are not allowed in wilderness areas. Alternative C 

would increase the acres available for wilderness recreation by 60% and Alternative D 

would number of acres available for wilderness recreation by 123%. 

• Alternatives A, B, and E are unchanged from existing conditions. Wilderness 

designations in Alternatives C and D would increase the availability of more primitive 

wilderness experiences, but would change the character of mountain biking experiences 

in the Basin by prohibiting use on well-used trails such as Big Meadows and Christmas 

Valley in Alternative C, and Saxon Creek, Armstrong, and the Tahoe Rim Trail among 

others in Alternative D. Mountain bike trail opportunities will be decreased by 12.3 

miles in Alternative C due to a Dardanelles wilderness designation. Mountain bike trail 

opportunities will be decreased by an additional 25.6 miles for a total of 37.9 miles in 

3-422 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative D with Dardanelles and Freel wilderness designations. Wilderness 

designation would also preclude opportunities for future mountain bike trails in these 

areas. Alternatives B and E would maintain the existing mix of trail uses and preserve 

the previously mentioned popular mountain biking opportunities. Dispersed camping 

opportunities in the Basin would increase with the Freel Peak Wilderness designation

under Alternative D.

Dispersed Summer Recreation – Motorized Vehicles will continue to be restricted to 

designated roads and trails in all alternatives. Satisfaction levels for off-highway vehicle users 

will vary in each alternative by the miles available to each of the different user groups: Passenger 

cars, High clearance Vehicles and OHV. 

• Visitors who enjoy driving for pleasure in their passenger cars would find the most 

satisfaction in Alternative C with 76 miles of upgraded road for access to both dispersed 

and developed recreation sites and in support of scenic driving as a recreational activity. 

Alternatives B and E offer 7 miles less than C. Alternatives A and D maintain the 

existing 64 miles. 

• High-clearance vehicles and OHV road users have more options under Alternative D with 

130 miles of roads maintained at these more challenging levels as maintenance levels of 

other roads decline. The current levels of roads open to OHVs (115 miles) would be 

maintained with minimal changes in Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Alternative C offers 20 

potential miles of trails for OHV users which is 25% more that Alternatives A B, and E

and 50% more that Alternative D at 10 miles of trails. Under Alternative D, 

approximately 5 miles of trail currently open to motorized use would be closed to 

motorized use with the Freel Peak wilderness designation. 

Dispersed Winter Recreation – Non-Motorized Non-motorized dispersed winter recreation 

such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow play are growing part of the total winter 

use of forest lands. While there are many high quality opportunities for these activities around 

the basin, few have established winter parking. The following is a general summary of 

dispersed winter trailheads/parking available for the different levels of desired winter recreation 

experiences by alternative:

• Alternatives B, C, and E allow for additional winter parking sites to be added to increase 

access to both dispersed and developed recreation activities. Alternatives A and D would 

maintain existing winter parking capacity. Some sites may be eligible in the future for 

additional winter parking to support winter recreation opportunities.

Opportunities for non-motorized winter recreation would remain the same in Alternatives A, B, 

C, and E and would increase in Alternative D with a Freel Wilderness designation and OSV 

opportunities are eliminated. 

Dispersed Winter Recreation –Motorized Over Snow Vehicle (OSV) users currently have 

access to approximately one half of the NFS lands in the basin with about 52% open vs. 48% 

closed). 

• Opportunities for OSV use would not change from existing conditions as depicted in the 

current Snowmobile Use Guide for Alternatives A, B, C, and E as new wilderness 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-423
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

designations would not change areas currently open or closed. OSV use would not 

change in Alternative C even with the Dardanelles Wilderness designation as that area is 

already closed for OSV use. OSV users would be displaced by the designation of the 

Freel Wilderness area in Alternative D. Though the Freel area is designated as semiprimitive non-motorized and is closed to motorized use during the summer, it is currently 

open to motorized use in the winter. Users displaced by the area closure would have to 

find other areas to participate in this activity, most likely in the nearby Hope Valley in the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Users from nearby neighborhoods would need to 

trailer their machines to other open areas. 

Recreation Development

Developed Recreation - Recreation visitation and resulting demand is anticipated to increase in 

all alternatives for the life of the plan. None of the alternatives, however, are anticipated to 

accommodate all the projected demand at popular resorts, campgrounds, and day use areas 

during the peak seasons. Increasing the supply of amenities such as overnight accommodations 

and day use parking spaces are not only strategies to respond to the existing and future demand 

but also ways of meeting visitors’ expectations and raising satisfaction levels. 

• Alternative C would have the most potential to respond to increased public demand on 

developed recreation by retrofitting existing facilities or building new ones. Alternatives 

A, B, and E could also potentially increase supply but not to the same levels as C. 

Alternative E allows more overnight accommodations than Alternative B but not as much

as Alternative C. The greatest negative effects from unmet demand will come from 

Alternative D as it would have the least ability to respond to demand as developed 

recreation infrastructure is potentially lost and not replaced due to environmental 

restoration. In Alternative D, should demand exceed available services due to the loss of 

developed facilities, recreationists would be adversely affected as prices and crowding 

increase, and their sense of satisfaction would lessen.

• Effects to Developed Recreation from other management activities on the forest are 

generated by proposed actions that could relocate or remove existing recreation 

opportunities. These actions are most likely with Watershed Restoration. Effects from 

these activities on developed recreation resources are more likely under Alternatives A, 

B, C and E as they will be restoring the most miles/acres and have the most potential to 

remove or relocate existing developed recreation features from sensitive resource areas. 

The direct effects from these actions would be analyzed on a project by project basis. In 

Alternative D, currently planned watershed restoration projects will continue until 

completed, and then the strategy for watershed management will be to rely on natural 

processes for recovery. 

• All alternatives will promote transit opportunities where feasible. Parking access at 

recreation sites would be greatest under Alternative C as it would provide an overall 

increase in parking. Alternatives A, B, and E would move unmanaged parking to 

managed parking with no increase in the amount of parking for private automobiles. 

Alternative D would convert less unmanaged parking to managed parking than the other 

alternatives. 

3-424 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Winter Sports (Alpine Skiing) - Privately developed downhill skiing on the LTBMU provides a 

major economic and recreation benefit to the Region. In all alternatives, the operation and 

maintenance of the existing developed ski areas continues including summertime use that is 

consistent with laws, regulations, and Forest Service policy pertaining to that use.

• Alternative A offers the most flexibility in responding to increased future skiing demand 

should it occur. The 1988 plan allows for large scale expansions from the existing 

operational footprints especially for the Alpine Meadows ski area with a large area of 

Ward Canyon identified for ski area development. 

• Alternatives B, C, and E also allow for expansion of the operational footprint areas but at 

a much smaller scale. Alternative C allows for more expansion opportunities than 

Alternatives B and E. 

• Alternative D limits ski areas to the existing operational footprint and ski amenities lost 

to resource restoration activities would not be replaced. 

Climate Change

Throughout the life of the plan, climate change may affect recreation resources in many ways 

including the ways people recreate, patterns of use, and available recreation opportunities. The 

uncertainties related to climate change will require recreation managers remain flexible in the 

delivery of recreation opportunities and services and the public will have to modify their 

expectations for the types of recreation experiences they are seeking. 

All alternatives provide for adaptation and modification of recreation infrastructure and 

opportunities in response to climate change. Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow for 

varying degrees of flexibility in modification (expansion) of recreation infrastructure to meet the 

environmental and socioeconomic challenges associated with climate change (see Chapter 3.3, 

Climate Change). These challenges include decreased snowfall, shorter ski seasons, longer 

summer seasons, and shifts in economic patterns. Alternative C would afford the LTBMU the 

greatest ability to respond to these challenges by allowing for up to 15% expansion in recreation 

infrastructure (e.g., development of summer use opportunities at ski areas). In contrast, 

Alternative D, which would result in up to a 15% reduction in recreation infrastructure, would 

provide the least flexibility to adapt recreation opportunities to meet the challenges associated 

with climate change.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Sustainable recreation management endeavors to provide high-quality recreational activities 

while minimizing impacts to natural resources, cultural integrity, and socioeconomics. Providing 

sustainable recreation opportunities in the future is the overarching goal of the desired condition 

on the LTBMU. The desired conditions focus on providing a broad spectrum of recreation 

opportunities, providing public access to public lands, continuing infrastructure restoration, 

maintaining the integrity of the natural resources, and using recreation special uses to leverage 

the LTBMU's ability to provide recreation services. Alternatives A, B and C all strive to achieve 

the desired conditions by allowing different degrees of modification and expansion of developed 

facilities in meeting the predicted increase in future recreation demands. There would be less 

flexibility in Alternative D to meet future demands. 

Chapter 3 | Recreation ■ 3-425
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

• Overall, Alternative E provides the best opportunity to meet the desired conditions by 

continuing to provide a broad mix of recreation opportunities and by having flexibility in 

responding to future growth by allowing more opportunities to expand overnight 

accommodations than Alternative B. Though not as aggressive as Alternatives C and A, 

and still provides managers the ability to be responsive to current and anticipated user 

demands. This alternative preserves some of the most popular mountain biking 

opportunities in basin. Very high satisfaction ratings as reported by NVUM surveys 

support the notion that the current mix of recreation opportunities are generally in 

balance with the public’s expectations. 

• Alternative A includes future expansion of recreation infrastructure, and development of 

new sites by up to 10% is described in the 1988 Plan. As in Alternatives B and E, it does 

maintain the current mix of recreation opportunities. Future winter demand for ski areas 

is best addressed in Alternative A where large areas for future expansion have been 

identified. 

• Alternative C provides the most ability to respond to public demand in providing a broad 

range of opportunities using and increased supply of developed infrastructure as the 

indicating criteria. Alternative C has off –setting benefits however as there are fewer

miles of trail available to dispersed summer non-motorized/mechanized users. The 

designation of the Dardanelles as Wilderness would result in a shift in user patterns away 

from mountain biking opportunities toward hiking and equestrian opportunities in a more 

primitive wilderness setting. Alternative D offers the least flexibility to respond to future 

demands as recreation infrastructure is potentially lost due to resource restoration 

projects. Increasing the overall wilderness acres managed would shift the current 

recreation use patterns in the Dardanelles and Freel IRA’s away from the mechanized 

mountain bike use now popular in both areas, to the more primitive recreation 

experiences available in a wilderness setting. Wilderness designation of the Freel IRA

would also expand the overall acreage available for dispersed overnight camping 

opportunities in the Basin. 

3-426 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.4.20 Scenic Resources 

3.4.20.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the Scenic 

resources that may result from alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

Methodology

The public has expressed a strong desire to maintain the outstanding scenic quality of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, while accommodating the desire for ecological restoration, hazardous fuels 

treatment, and development all of which may cause scenic impacts. Public participation and 

collaboration identified several key valued scenic attributes including:

• The scenic integrity of the natural environment

• Scenic views of and from Lake Tahoe

• Dark sky night views, and 

• Built environment character consistent with the alpine setting.

The Forest Service manages scenic resources utilizing the Scenery Management System (SMS). 

This system replaces the previous Visual Management System (VMS). Two indicators are used 

to assess current scenic conditions and the potential impacts under the alternatives. 

Scenic Integrity 

Scenic Integrity Levels are used as a measure of existing scenic condition. They measure the 

degree of deviation in the landscape from the valued scenic character. These levels are also used 

to compare the impacts of alternatives. Scenic Integrity uses a graduated rating scale of six levels 

from “Very High Integrity” to “No Integrity”. 

Scenic Class is a measure of an area’s relative scenic value. Scenic Class considers an area’s 

distinctiveness along with the distance from which it is typically viewed and the relative level of 

concern regarding those views. Scenic Class ranges from Class 1, “Very High scenic value” to 

Class 6, “No scenic value”.

Scenic Stability 

Scenic Stability is an indicator of the ecological sustainability of the valued scenic attributes. 

Scenic Stability does not measure or evaluate the entire ecological condition. Rather, it addresses 

how ecosystem dynamics will affect the long-term stability of the valued scenery and its 

attributes. Scenic Stability uses a graduated rating scale of six levels from “Very High Stability”

to “No Stability” to identify the degree to which scenery attributes are likely to be perpetuated 

within the ecosystem context.

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-427
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• Overall, the precise timing, location, configuration, landscape-level pattern, and 

individual characteristics of treatments and other management actions will determine the 

effects of such actions upon scenery (Litton 1984 [cited in USDA Forest Service 

1995a).These factors are determined during site-specific planning; thus the cumulative 

scenic effects of the alternatives cannot be predicted with confidence. Actual effects will 

vary with the degree of consideration of scenery management during site-specific 

planning and implementation.

• Wildfire is likely to have the more severe effects on long-term scenic integrity than 

planned fuels treatments, based on existing condition inventory by scenic class.

• Vegetation components of the landscape are dynamic and will change over time. Rates of 

recovery post treatment vary by site conditions, and intensity of treatment.

• Vegetation treatments in the WUI defense zone are essentially the same in the first 

decade across all alternatives. The assumed short term scenic condition (decade 1) from 

planned treatments is class 3. WUI Defense Zone is assumed to be 44,069 acres. 

• Vegetation treatments do not happen all at once. Annual rates of treatment vary slightly 

between alternatives. Implementing these initial treatments will take at least 2 decades, so 

the rates of recovery from initial treatments also vary.

• Scenic standards are in place for all alternatives. Adopted Visual Quality Objectives 

(AVQOs) for Alt A and Minimum Scenic Integrity Objectives (MSIOs) and Minimum 

Scenic Stability (MSS) for alternative B, C, D, and E.

• As new recreation and facilities projects are built, they will follow the MSIO, the Built 

Environment Image Guide (BEIG) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

guidelines for all alternatives. 

• The population in the LTBMU’s surrounding counties in both northern California and 

Nevada is projected to grow 1.4% percent annually or 21% in the next 15 years according 

to U.S. 2010 census data. Visitation is predicted to increase at a rate similar to the 

population rate increase. The projected growth has the potential to increase demand for 

new services and development. 

• Within the Backcountry Management Area, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Grass Lake 

RNA, and Wilderness areas, no new developed facilities are proposed under any of the 

alternatives.

• The long term effect of restoring ecosystems and habitats is assumed to benefit scenery.

3-428 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.20.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The planning area encompasses extraordinary scenic resources, most notably Lake Tahoe. The 

lake is designated as an “Outstanding National Resource Water” under the Clean Water Act, 

primarily due to the extraordinary clarity of its waters, which is a scenic value. The East Shore 

Drive National Scenic Byway and east shore beaches offer outstanding unobstructed views of the 

lake and surrounding Sierra Nevada mountains. Emerald Bay is the iconic “post card setting” for 

the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail passes through the planning area 

as does the Tahoe Rim Trail. A segment of the Upper Truckee Wild River (Recommended), a 

large part of the Desolation Wilderness, portions of Mt. Rose and Granite Chief Wilderness, and 

the Freel Peak and Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Areas all offer relatively un-altered 

landscapes, characteristic of the high Sierras.

Tourism that is substantially dependent upon maintaining scenery is an economic mainstay of the 

Lake Tahoe region. People live in area communities, in large part, in order to benefit from high 

quality scenery and access to outstanding outdoor recreation. Because of its relative small size, 

network of roads and trails, and close proximity to intertwined communities around the lake, 

most of the basin is visible in either the foreground (within a quarter to one half mile) or 

middleground (quarter mile to five miles). Coupled with its inherently attractive landscape 

character, and viewed by millions of visitors every year, the landscape is very sensitive to 

management actions. Any changes to the natural landscape character are easily noticed. 

The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment for the 2000-2007 period displayed 

trends looking at the “seventeen fastest-growing activities—that is, those with days of 

participation growing by more than 10 percent. Of these top seventeen activities, six involve 

viewing, photographing, identifying, visiting, or otherwise observing elements of nature—

flowers, trees, natural scenery, birds, other wildlife, nature exhibits, and wilderness. The growth 

in viewing and photographing plants and natural scenery has been most rapid at about 78 and 60 

percent, respectively” (Cordell 2008). According to the 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) report, conducted on the LTBMU, viewing natural features was the third most popular 

activity, with a 56% participation rate. 83% of those surveyed were very satisfied with the 

‘quality of the scenery’. These numbers suggest that scenery is a very important public value and 

perception of the condition of the scenery is very high.

Existing Scenic Integrity

The planning area exhibits extraordinary existing scenic conditions as indicated by the 88% of 

LTBMU lands that are inventoried Scenic Class 1-2. Landscapes with these ratings (Very High 

and High Integrity) are natural appearing or appear unaltered to the casual observer. The existing 

conditions are shown in Table 3-61 and reveal little change in the last thirty years. In fact, the 

overall existing conditions of scenic integrity for LTBMU lands exceed the minimum level 

expressed by Adopted VQO’s in the 1988 Forest Plan.

Some reductions in scenic integrity have occurred since 1988. The increases in class 4 and 5 

landscapes are mostly attributable to wildland fire scars. The Angora Fire (3,072 acres), Gondola 

Fire (643 acres), and Showers Fire (294 acres), account for most of the changes to Existing 

Scenic Integrity (ESI) in the last 20 years. Additional land acquisitions encumbered with a 

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-429
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

certain amount of development have lowered some ratings, such as the purchase of High 

Meadows and the associated power line corridor. Other development activities in previously 

undeveloped areas have contributed to lowering ESI scores in certain areas, such as the gondola 

line construction at Heavenly Mountain Resort.

The increase in Class 1 acres represents the designation of Granite Chief and Mt. Rose 

Wilderness additions since the adoption of the 1988 Forest Plan.

The scenic and vegetation restoration goals are aimed at restoring landscapes that rank below 

scenic integrity objectives (Class 4, 5, and 6) where possible. Restoration efforts have improved 

scenic integrity in some areas. 

Table 3-61. Existing Scenic Integrity Inventory, NFS Acres & Percent of Total Area

Existing Scenic 

Integrity Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Total Acres

1982 Acres 20,847 115,510 4,067 2,903 406 1,474 145,207

Percent NFS Land 14.4 79.5 2.8 2.0 .03 1.0 100%

2011 Acres 24,660 111,461 5,040 5,818 6,621 1,176 154,776

Percent NFS Land 15.9 72 3.3 3.8 4.3 0.8 100%

Existing Scenic Stability

Scenery is dependent upon a healthy ecosystem. Natural disturbance elements (including fire, 

flood, landslides, and avalanches) are normal ecosystem processes, and create or perpetuate 

natural scenic conditions. In particular, wildfire is a disturbance factor that has been profoundly 

affected by landscape management. The exclusion of fire through an aggressive suppression 

policy has led to a departure from normal fire return intervals. Most of the LTBMU's forests 

were logged during the Comstock era and have re-grown during this fire exclusion period. As a 

result, age class diversity is almost non-existent in certain vegetation types. Certain dominant 

scenery attributes most at risk are those related to the vegetation component of ecosystems 

including:

1. The relative large amounts (89%) of NFS Lands that appear natural (Class I) or unaltered 

(Class 2) but have little age class diversity and have the potential to be dramatically 

affected by wildfire and disease, 

2. Aspen stands, riparian areas and meadows, valued for their visual variety and seasonal 

color are threatened by conifer encroachment; and 

3. Large tree character and open forest canopies of the Jeffrey Pine Mixed Conifer, White 

Fir Mixed Conifer and Red Fir vegetation types are threatened by fire exclusion and lack 

of age class diversity. 

3-430 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other valued scenery attributes include special places such as unencumbered views of Lake 

Tahoe from Emerald Bay and the east shore beaches; and cultural features such as the Tallac 

Historic Site and Cave Rock. Those attributes are protected equally across all alternatives with a 

common set of standards.

Table 3-62 Existing Scenic Stability — NFS Acres and Percent of Total Area

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low No Stability Total NFS Acres 

15,038 70,730 58,505 8,492 1,893 140 154,798 

10% 46% 38% 5% 1% 0% 100%

3.4.20.3 Environmental Consequences 

Scenery is affected by management activities altering the appearance of what is seen in the 

landscape. Short-term scenic effects are usually considered in terms of degree of visual contrast 

with existing or adjacent conditions that result from management activity. The scenic landscape 

can be changed over the long term or cumulatively by the alteration of the visual character. 

Management activities, which result in visual alterations inconsistent with the assigned Scenic 

Integrity Objectives and scenic desired conditions, affect scenery. 

Management activities and plan decisions that have the greatest potential for affecting scenery 

and vary by alternative are:

• Special area designations 

• Vegetation management 

• Developed recreation

• Ski areas 

• Other management activities

Special area designations 

Special Area designation decisions can affect scenic resources by increasing or decreasing the 

levels of protection. Certain special area designations such as wilderness come with preservation 

(“Very High” MSIO) scenic objectives. Limits to available management activities such as road 

building and fuels reduction would reduce effects associated with those activities, while 

simultaneously limiting the ability to actively restore areas impacted by disturbances such as fire 

and disease outbreaks. 

The range of alternatives varies by the amount of proposed wilderness and backcountry 

management area. The other special areas remain the same between alternatives (Grass Lake 

RNA, Tallac Historic Site, etc.) 

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-431
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Alternatives 

Alternatives A, B, and E are similar in terms of protections afforded to existing wilderness areas 

with no new areas proposed. Alternative C increases protection by recommending the 

Dardanelles Roadless Area as wilderness; alternative D provides the most protection for scenic 

integrity by recommending Dardanelles and Freel Peak Roadless Areas as wilderness.

Backcountry management area allocation (See Table 2-3 Management Areas by Alternative) is 

greatest under Alternative E, with Alternatives A and B being the next highest. Alternatives C 

and D have the least Backcountry management area allocation.

The following relationship graphic displays the gradient of Special Area Designation protections 

afforded, by EIS alternative: 

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Integrity

Special Area Designation 

 Least protections afforded Greatest 

    

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. E Alt. C Alt. D

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Stability

Special Area Designation 

 Least protections afforded Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. C Alt. A Alt. B Alt. E

Although scenic integrity may benefit from additional protections afforded by wilderness 

allocation, the risk of losing valued scenic attributes may increase due to limitation on the ability 

to treat disease outbreaks and other management activities that increase forest resilience. Scenic 

stability may decrease under alternatives C and D.

3-432 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vegetation Management 

Natural processes can also affect scenery, such as through wildland fires, insect and disease 

infestations, and the spread of non-native invasive vegetation. The size and intensity of just a few 

recent fires, Angora, Gondola, and Showers, have had the most impact to the scenic resource in 

the last 25 years. If the trend to larger fires continues, then the expected impacts to scenic 

resources will continue. Increasing forest resiliency and lessening fire severity risk should 

improve scenic stability for all alternatives. All of the alternatives include fuels reduction in the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Fuels reduction activities are highly visible in the short term. 

When combined with the numerous other development activities, utilities, and infrastructure 

found within the WUI these impacts may reduce the overall scenic integrity. See WUI 

Treatments described in the Table 2-1 Forest Vegetation Management section (See WUI DEIS 

Maps 4 and 5 for Zones).

Fuels reduction activities may result in short-term consequences to scenic integrity from cut 

vegetation resulting in slash piles, disturbed soils from temporary road construction, and the 

potential to remove vegetation that previously screened development. At the same time, 

vegetation treatments may improve scenic integrity conditions by opening views of Lake Tahoe 

and views of the Sierras. 

Most of the planned vegetation management activity for the next decade would occur in the WUI 

defense zone. The defense zone is about a quarter mile from most residences and coincides with 

foreground viewing distances. Management activities in the foreground are most visible and 

have the greatest potential effect. The potential for scenic consequences is much higher in the 

WUI defense than in more remote areas. Since the initial WUI treatment strategy (thinning and 

fuel reduction) is the same across all alternatives, there is no difference in effects between the 

alternatives in the first decade. Adherence to design criteria at the project level for foreground 

thinning (such as low stump cutting) would minimize short-term impacts to scenery.

The recovery rate of thinning projects for scenic resources is assumed to be 2-10 years. Given 

the rate of treatment and recovery approximately 10,000 acres would have visible effects at any 

one time but should meet scenic class 3 conditions. 

Alternatives 

Scenic integrity would be negatively affected by natural processes such as wildfire events that 

reduce the presence of valued scenic attributes. Alternative C proposes to treat slightly more 

acres through forest structure restoration, forest type conversion and stand resiliency than would 

the other alternatives; therefore, it would result in more short term impacts to scenic integrity 

than Alternatives A,B, or E. Impacts would be lowest under Alternative D, which proposes the 

least amount of forest vegetation treatment.

Forest vegetation and WUI fuels-reduction activities may result in a more stable forest condition, 

which may be more resilient to wildfires and preserve valued scenic attributes. Without fuelsreduction treatments, wildfires may be more likely to increase in size or severity, negatively 

affecting valued scenic attributes. 

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-433
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Natural disturbance factors, such as low-intensity wildfire, have the potential to alter the 

appearance of the planning area. Periodic low-intensity wildfire is a natural disturbance factor 

that may change short term scenic conditions; however it may improve scenic stability. 

Generally, low intensity fire (wild or prescribed) may result in long term beneficial consequences 

to scenic stability by increasing long-term forest resilience.

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Integrity

Vegetation Management 

 Least short-term impacts Greatest 

   

Alt. D Alt. B, E Alt. A Alt. C

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Stability

Vegetation Management 

 Least values at risk from wildfire Greatest 

   

Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B, E Alt. C

Alternatives A, B, and E result in the same amount of change from vegetation management and 

would have similar effects on scenic stability. Alternative C would treat slightly more acres more 

aggressively than would the other alternatives; therefore it would result in a faster rate of 

restoration of desired open stand characteristics among alternatives (with the greatest potential 

for short term negative effects). Aspen stand and meadow restoration is the same across 

alternatives A, B, C, and E. Alternative D proposes the least amount of active vegetation 

restoration and may lower scenic stability relative to Alt A. 

Developed Recreation 

Developed recreation affects scenic integrity as a result of creating visual contrast with the 

natural environment and varies by the application of design standards consistent with the 

mountain visual setting and environmental objectives. Addressing the backlog of facility 

deferred maintenance is common to all alternatives. As facilities are brought up to current codes 

for design, accessibility, and water quality BMPs, over time most facilities should meet scenic 

quality desired conditions. The alternatives vary by the amount of developed recreation allowed, 

however new construction, maintenance and restoration of old facilities, are budget driven. 

3-434 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Projecting future budgets is speculative. Since the 1988 Forest Plan was adopted most recreation 

development management activity has been retrofits of existing facilities rather than expanding 

capacity or creating new facilities. 

Modeling assumptions for the alternatives seek to satisfy different demand scenarios for 

developed recreation. In general, the forest plan alternatives address developed recreation areas 

programmatically, allowing for generalized expansion or contraction to respond to demographic 

projections, demand scenarios, and the range of issues driving the alternatives. 

Alternatives 

Based on the modeled growth scenarios, scenic integrity would follow the relative pattern 

displayed below. More growth and recreation development would equal greater effect to scenic 

resources in terms of degree of contrast from the natural environment. Compared to Alternative 

A, Alternatives B and E would allow less expansion, Alternative C more expansion, and 

Alternative D the least amount of expansion. While the Plan directs developed recreation 

expansion to incorporate design criteria that visually compliments its visual setting, expansion 

would have an overall negative effect on scenic integrity in relation to its authorized amount.

Expansion of developed recreation would affect scenic stability in relation to the degree of 

focused land management surrounding the developed areas; it is assumed that management of 

the landscape surrounding these developments will receive a high degree of management with 

the intention of preserving the valued scenic character of the setting. 

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Integrity

Developed Recreation 

 Least visibility of recreation development Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. B Alt. E Alt. A Alt. C

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Stability

Developed Recreation 

 Least management of recreation settings Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. B Alt. E Alt. A Alt. C

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-435
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Ski Areas

The LTBMU manages the Heavenly Mountain Resort under a special use permit and Master 

Development Plan. A small portion of Homewood Ski Area, Alpine Meadows and Diamond 

Peak have incidental ski runs on NFS lands and are also managed under special use permit. The 

impacts to scenic integrity are documented in the SMS inventory update. Generally speaking, the 

existing vegetation cuts for ski runs and lifts are highly visible throughout the basin and impact 

valued scenic resources. The site specific direct effects are analyzed and mitigated at the project 

level. In general the forest plan alternatives seek to address developed recreation and ski areas 

programmatically, allowing for generalized expansion or contraction to respond to demographic 

projections, demand scenarios, and the range of issues driving the alternatives

Alternative A reflects the current conditions for allowable development following the most 

recent Master Plan(s) for ski areas. The consequences related to existing ski area operations and 

development are expected to continue over the planning period allowing for some modest growth 

and expansion. The effects on scenic integrity are expected to continue. The visible change from 

lifts and runs will continue along with efforts to mitigate these effects. 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objectives (MSIO) are common for Alternatives B, C, and D. MSIO 

are slightly different for Alternative E. The total acres within each MSIO level are similar 

among all alternatives, however areas within ski area development boundaries are assigned a 

“Moderate” MSIO in Alternative E compared to a matrix of “High” and “Moderate” under 

Alternatives B, C, and D.

Alternatives 

Alternative A allows for the greatest amount of expansion, and Alternative D the greatest 

reduction. Alternatives B and E allow for a slight increase compared to current conditions, and 

Alternative C allows for slightly greater increase than Alternatives B and E. The degree of ski 

area expansion proportionally affects scenic integrity. 

Ski areas are generally managed for developed recreation. The impacts from concentrated use 

and development on the stability of the vegetation component may lead to unstable forest 

conditions, making these areas more susceptible to insect, disease and fire outbreaks, resulting in 

less scenic stability. As ski resorts move to more all season operations the effects are felt year 

round. More development pressure and increased human caused fire ignitions does increase fire 

risk and vegetation loss. The presence of roads, trails, and water reservoirs may improve fire 

response times. 

3-436 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Integrity

Ski Areas 

 Least potential ski area visibility Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. B Alt. E Alt. C Alt. A

Effects to Scenic Resources – Scenic Stability

Ski Areas 

 Least management of ski area settings Greatest 

    

Alt. D Alt. B Alt. E Alt. C Alt. A

Other management activities 

Other management activities that generally have short term effects to the scenic resource are 

stream channel and aquatic habitat restoration, species recovery and habitat restoration. The long 

term effect of restoring stream systems and habitats is assumed to benefit scenery.

Land exchange, urban storm water treatment projects, and administrative site facility 

construction may cause more lasting contrast with naturally appearing scenic conditions, but are 

assumed to be of a size and scale to be barely measureable at the landscape scale.

No new road construction is planned with any of the alternatives. Temporary roads may be 

constructed to implement vegetation management activities. Temporary road construction must 

follow required BMP’s and design criteria but may result in minor long term impacts to scenic 

integrity, associated with vegetation management.

Reclassification of existing Forest Service System roads to allow different vehicle classes to 

access more of the existing road networks does differ between alternatives. However the scenic 

effects of this activity are minor, such as few additional gates and signs, and assumed to be of a 

size and scale to barely be measureable at the landscape scale. 

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-437
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Many activities are ongoing and common to all alternatives or are not expected to differ 

significantly between the alternatives. These include:

• Utility corridors and communication sites 

Of the current conditions and ongoing activities, utility corridors and communication 

sites impact scenic resources the most. The existing scenic integrity inventory takes into 

account the effect of these facilities. However, the main variables that influence the 

number of new utility corridors and communication sites are population growth related. 

As population increases, technology changes and infrastructure ages, it is assumed that 

additional pressure will continue for new and replacement services. Since these variables 

are expected to be the same under all of the alternatives, the related impact to scenic 

integrity of managing existing facilities and developing new facilities is expected to be 

site-specific and similar under all of the alternatives and cannot be predicted. 

• Vehicle parking strategies 

Vehicle parking strategies do change between the alternatives. All alternatives would 

employ BMP’s for parking areas. Alternatives B, and E have the same strategies for 

vehicle parking. Compared to Alt B, and E, Alternative C would manage the most

roadside parking which would benefit scenic integrity and stability, and increase parking 

capacity. Alternative A would increase managed parking, but not the extent of 

Alternative C. Alternative D would reduce managed parking capacity which could

benefit scenic integrity.

• Trail construction 

Trail construction affects scenic quality in two primary ways. First, sensitivity level 1 

trails, such as the Pacific Crest Trail or the Tahoe Rim Trail, draw users into the 

foreground of areas that may have previously been unseen thus increasing the sensitivity 

of those landscapes. Secondly, there are some direct effects of trail construction. 

However, trail building does not vary a measurable amount among the alternatives 

(see table 2-1) so effects to scenic resources from trail construction are so similar that 

they do not vary among the alternatives. 

3-438 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem restoration, and invasive species management

Potential impacts from these management activities would be the same under Alternatives A, B,

C, and E. Alternative D would have the least amount of active restoration and would therefore 

have the least amount of direct impact to scenic integrity. Scenic stability would benefit from 

the implementation of these management activities as they would be more likely to perpetuate 

the valued scenic attributes of the views of NFS lands and nearby waters. 

Indirect effects from these management activities may include site-specific construction of 

structures necessary for project implementation. The impacts related to these elements would be 

local. Site-specific planning and design would be undertaken in order to limit adverse impacts to 

scenery while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to enhance scenery. As a result, these 

features may be installed so that they are noticeable to the casual observer, but do not dominate 

the view.

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-439
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.20.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Table 3-63. Comparison of Consequences to Scenic Integrity by Alternative

Management 

Activities

Unit of 

Measure

Existing 

Condition

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Vegetation 

Management 

in WUI 

Acres of 

Treatment

High/ 

Moderate

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Vegetation 

Management 

Outside WUI

Acres of 

Treatment

High/ 

Moderate

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Short-term 

Decrease

Aspen 

Stands, 

Meadows & 

Wetlands 

Acres 

Restored

High/ 

Moderate Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Vehicle 

Parking 

Capacity 

Acres Low Low Low Low Moderate Low 

Developed 

Recreation 

Area 

Expansion

Modeled 

Growth 

Scenarios

Low Low Low Low Moderate Low 

Special 

Areas 

(protected)

Wilderness 

Acres Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

N/A

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Acres

Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Management 

Area

Backcountry 

Acres High High High High High High 

3-440 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-57. Comparison of Consequences to Scenic Stability by Alternative

Management 

Activities

Unit of 

Measure

Existing 

Condition

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Vegetation 

Management 

in WUI 

Acres of 

Treatment

Low/ 

very low/ 

no 

stability

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Vegetation 

Management 

Outside WUI

Acres of 

Treatment

Low/ 

very low/ 

no 

stability

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Aspen 

Stands, 

Meadows & 

Wetlands 

Acres 

Restored

Low/ 

very low/ 

no 

stability

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Vehicle 

Parking 

Capacity 

Acres Low Low Low Low Moderate Low 

Developed 

Recreation 

Area 

Expansion

Modeled 

Growth 

Scenarios

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Special 

Areas 

(protected)

Wilderness 

Acres High High High High High High

N/A

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Acres

High High High Moderate Moderate High

Management 

Area

Backcountry 

Acres High High High High High High

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-441
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Scenic Integrity Desired Condition 

Scenery viewed from Lake Tahoe and the Basin’s major roadways, public recreation areas, trails 

and urban centers predominantly display natural-appearing forest, meadows, mountains, and the 

shoreline of Lake Tahoe. Development, where visible, appears subordinate to and harmonious 

with the surrounding setting. 

Existing conditions for scenic quality in 2011 are very similar to existing condition measured in 

1982 (see ESI acres). Minimum Scenic Integrity Objectives (MSIOs) represent a minimum 

threshold for scenery management rather than a management goal. Scenic conditions, as 

measured by existing scenic integrity, far exceed scenic integrity objectives set for each 

alternative. That trend is expected to continue under all alternatives over the next 10-15 years. 

Some programmatic strategic differences do exist between the alternatives that may affect scenic 

integrity; however Minimum Scenic Integrity Objectives are similar by acres under each 

alternative. 

Table 3-64. Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective, by Acres and Alternative

Scenic 

Class

Existing 

condition 

2011

Alt. A 

Current

AVQO

Alt. B 

Proposed 

SIO

Alt C

Proposed 

SIO 

Alt D 

Proposed 

SIO

Alt. E 

Proposed 

SIO

Very 

High 

(VH) 

20,847 24,973 24,674 24,674 24,674 24,675

High (H) 115,510 28,902 104,245 104,245 104,245 104,633

Moderate 

(M) 

4,067 100,770 25,905 25,905 25,905 25,516

Low (L) 2,903 

Restoration Objectives for Lands Below 

Moderate (M) Existing Integrity Level

Very Low 

(VL) 

406 

No 

Integrity 

1,474 

3-442 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Scenic Stability Desired Condition 

The desired scenic attributes are ecologically stable and display minimal visual disruption 

resulting from disturbance events. Landscape alterations complement and blend with the 

characteristic landscape of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Vegetation treatments designed using the 

latest environmental design arts skills produce natural-appearing diverse forest structure. 

Those alternatives that restore or protect desired scenic attributes as well as the processes that 

perpetuate them will have the greatest chance of improving scenic stability. Desired scenic 

attributes that can be measured and differ between the alternatives are age class diversity of 

Jeffrey Pine Mixed Conifer, White Fir Mixed Conifer and Red Fir vegetation types, and acres of 

aspen stands, riparian areas and meadows restored. 

• Alternative A – maintains current age class diversity, disease risk and restoration 

objectives

• Alternative B – increases age class diversity, with less disease risk compared to 

Alternative A. Same restoration objectives as Alternative A.

• Alternative C – increases age class diversity, with less disease risk than Alternatives A or 

B. Same restoration objectives as Alternative A.

• Alternative D – decreases age class diversity, with greater likelihood for more disease 

risk than Alternative A. Less opportunity for restoration objectives due to land allocation 

and passive management

• Alternative E – increases age class diversity, with less disease risk compared to 

Alternative A. Same restoration objectives as Alternative A.

Natural processes can also affect scenery, such as wildland fires, insect and disease infestations, 

and the spread of terrestrial invasive plant species. The size and intensity of just a few recent 

fires, Angora, Gondola, and Showers, have had the most impact to the scenic resource in the last 

25 years. If the trend to larger fires continues, then the expected impacts to scenic resources will 

continue. Wildfire risk predictions vary between the alternatives. Those alternatives lowering 

wildfire risk will have the greatest chance of maintaining or improving scenic stability. 

• Alternative A – maintains current Fire Regime Condition Class, disease risk and 

terrestrial invasive plant species risk. 

• Alternative B – less risk than Alternative A

• Alternative C – less risk than Alternatives A or B

• Alternative D – greater risk than Alternative A

• Alternative E – less risk than Alternative A

Chapter 3 | Scenic Resources ■ 3-443
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.21 Social and Economic Conditions 

3.4.21.1 Introduction

This is a summary of some of the key factors describing the social and economic condition of the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. See Appendix F – Social and Economic Assessment for a more detailed 

report.

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) is an integral part of the economy and social 

life of Lake Tahoe Basin communities. Visitors from around the country and the world are 

attracted to Lake Tahoe to enjoy a variety of recreational activities. The scenic quality of Lake 

Tahoe and its surrounding landscape make visiting the Lake Tahoe Basin a one-of-a-kind 

experience. The LTBMU contributes to the Lake Tahoe Basin’s scenic quality through the 

conservation and management of vegetation, waterways, infrastructure, and recreation.

The Lake Tahoe Basin economy is driven largely by recreation and tourism. The LTBMU plays 

an important role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities and preserving the scenic quality 

of the Tahoe Basin’s lands and waterways.

Two geographic areas were studied: 

• Lake Tahoe Region (LTR) - defined by the watershed boundaries around the lake itself 

using Census County Divisions (CCD’s), 

• Greater Lake Tahoe Area (GLTA) - a larger region defined by the surrounding counties 

in California and Nevada (see Appendix F – Social and Economic Assessment for a map 

and detailed explanation). 

This provides a comparison of the area immediately in the vicinity of the lake within the context 

of the larger surrounding area which includes the large communities of Placerville, CA and 

Reno, NV. 

The GLTA is representative of the region’s functional economy, meaning this is where Lake 

Tahoe Region residents and businesses are likely to purchase a significant amount of their goods, 

services, and housing. Counties within the GLTA are influenced by spending patterns of 

residents, visitors and businesses within the LTR, and have a direct influence on visitor rates and 

use patterns on the LTBMU.

3.4.21.2 Affected Environment

Social Conditions and Trends

Population 

The Lake Tahoe Region (LTR), with a population of 51,774 represents a small fraction of the 

Greater Lake Tahoe Area (GLTA) population of 1,043,723 people in 2011. Within the LTR, 

more than half of the population resided in the South Lake Tahoe CCD. Between 2000 and 

2011, Nevada’s population grew by almost 34%, while California’s population grew at a much 

3-444 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

slower rate, increasing by a little over 9%. The GLTA grew in population by close to 25%. In 

contrast, the LTR lost 17.6% of its population. An article in the Sierra Sun (March 9, 2011) 

attributed this loss in population to a worsening economy. Also, the gaming industry declined 

over 50% since 1990 so there are fewer jobs in the LTR to hold people there. There is also a 

trend toward increasing second home ownership by people who do not live year-round in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin area. These are used as vacation homes and do not contribute toward such 

things as children in schools, year-round shopping in the local community, etc.

The rise in populations of the states of California and Nevada translate into higher demand being 

placed on recreation opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 25% rise in population in the 

surrounding GLTA results in greater day-use demand for recreation in the Basin.

Race and Ethnicity 

Compared to California and Nevada, the GLTA and the LTR are not as racially and ethnically 

diverse. In the GLTA, 82% of the population is white, while in the LTR, 84% of the population 

is white. Within the LTR, South Lake Tahoe CCD is the most racially diverse of the four CCDs, 

followed by Lake Tahoe CCD.

Poverty 

Poverty estimates of the LTR and GLTA were compared with averages across California and 

Nevada by ethnic groups. In general, the poverty rates in the GLTA and LTR are less than the 

state-wide averages.

Education Attainment 

Educational Attainment in the GLTA and LTR compared favorably against state percentages. 

Both the GLTA and LTR had a higher percentage of high school graduates than Nevada and 

California. When considering the percentage of population with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 

the LTR outranked all other regions (CA, NV, GLTA); however, GLTA was consistent with 

California and exceeded Nevada’s rate.

Housing 

When considering housing occupancy status, the LTR differs greatly from all other regions with 

a 45% vacancy rate, and outstripped the next highest rate, which was for the GLTA at 34%. Of 

the vacant housing units, the LTR and the GLTA were used primarily for seasonal, recreational, 

or occasional use. Only 8% of the vacant homes in the LTR were rental units compared to 34% 

for California and 37% for Nevada. When looking at homeownerships rates the GLTA exceeded 

all other regions (CA, NV and LTR), and the LTR was on par with California and Nevada.

Economic Condition and Trends

Employment 

At the time this was written, employment data was not available for the 2010 Census data at the 

local CCD level. Appendix F presents an overview based on the 2000 Census data (as updated 

to 2003). Unemployment figures presented in Appendix F have been updated at the CCD or 

LTR level and represent the best available information. In general the LTR employment is 

Chapter 3 | Social and Economic Conditions ■ 3-445
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

dominated by the Accommodation and Food Service sector at 25%, followed by the Government 

sector at about 20%, and Arts, Entertainment and Recreation; Real Estate and Rental Leasing; 

and Retail Trade sectors each providing about 10% each. The LTBMU contributes to these 

tourism based employment sources and through direct input of wages and contracts to the 

Government sector.

Income 

The Lake Tahoe Region (LTR) income follows the employment data. In 2006 the 

accommodation and food services industry provided the most income, followed by government. 

Income in the LTR is dominated by the wage or salary income sector with about 62%, as 

compared to much lower income being derived from self-employment income (about 12%), 

interest-dividends-net rental income (about 16%), or person current transfer receipts (about 10%) 

(see Figure F30 in Appendix F – Social and Economic Assessment).

Economics of Recreation 

The economic value of specific recreation activities has not been quantified for the Lake Tahoe 

area. The economic benefits of specific recreation activities are qualitative rather than 

quantitative, based on speculation rather than proven socio-economic research. 

Most of the research on the socio-economic value of recreation to the Lake Tahoe area has been 

general in nature, looking at recreational activities in broad categories. The LTBMU has been a 

participant in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). Tables 3-65, 3-66 and 3-67 are

taken from the 2010 NVUM Report, which is the most recent information available (USDA 

Forest Service 2010). This information provides a broad snapshot of the economic input of 

recreation activities into the Lake Tahoe area. 

3-446 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-65. Annual Visitation Estimate

Visit Type Visits (1,000s) 90% Confidence Level (%)#

Total Estimated Site Visits* 8,998 ± 28.8

Day Use Developed Site Visits 7,559 ± 34.0

Overnight Use Developed Site

Visits

138 ± 16.0

General Forest Area Visits 1,180 ± 26.3

Designated Wilderness Visits† 120 ± 27.2

Total Estimated National Forest

Visits§

5,786 ± 31.1

Special Events and Organized 

Camp Use‡

60 ± 0.0

3.4.23.1.* A Site Visit is the entry of one person onto a National Forest site or area to participate in recreation

activities for an unspecified period of time.

† Designated Wilderness visits are included in the Site Visits estimate.

‡ Special events and organizational camp use are not included in the Site Visit estimate, only in the National Forest 

Visits estimate. Forests reported the total number of participants and observers so this number is not estimated; it 

is treated as 100% accurate.

§ A National Forest Visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation 

activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits.

# This value defines the upper and lower bounds of the visitation estimate at the 90% confidence level, for example 

if the visitation estimate is 100 +/-5%, one would say “at the 90% confidence level visitation is between 95 and 

105 visits.”

Chapter 3 | Social and Economic Conditions ■ 3-447
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-66. Activity Participation on LTBMU 

Activity % Participation* % Main 

Activity‡

Average Hours 

Doing Main Activity

Relaxing 65.5 11.2 9.2

Downhill Skiing 62.5 55.9 8.9

Viewing Natural Features 56.3 5.6 4.3

Hiking / Walking 47.0 8.8 3.5

Viewing Wildlife 43.2 1.5 3.6

Driving for Pleasure 31.8 2.1 3.5

Visiting Historic Sites 15.1 0.4 2.1

Other Non-motorized 14.9 2.8 3.7

Nature Center Activities 13.2 0 2.0

Bicycling 11.0 3.1 3.0

Resort Use 10.7 0.2 59.4

Cross-country Skiing 9.8 1.5 4.1

Nature Study 9.6 0.1 3.6

Picnicking 9.5 0.6 4.5

Non-motorized Water 

A ti iti

6.9 1.7 2.4

Motorized Water Activities 6.8 0.9 3.0

Snowmobiling 6.2 1.0 2.0

Fishing 5.6 0.4 3.3

Some Other Activity 5.3 1.6 3.0

Developed Camping 5.2 0.4 68.5

Gathering Forest Products 4.7 0 0

Backpacking 4.4 0.2 48.2

Primitive Camping 2.4 0.1 1.0

Horseback Riding 2.0 0 1.0

OHV Use 1.7 0.4 3.3

Motorized Trail Activity 1.4 0 0

Other Motorized Activity 1.3 0 0

Hunting 0.1 0 0

No Activity Reported 0 0 0

* Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.

‡ Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some 

respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

3-448 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-67. Trip Spending and Lodging Usage

Trip Spending Value

Average Total Trip Spending per Party $928

Median Total Trip Spending per Party $329

% NF Visits made on trip with overnight stay away from home 67.3%

% NF Visits with overnight stay within 50 miles of NF 66.0%

Mean nights/visit within 50 miles of NF 5.8

Area Lodging Use % Visits with Nights

Near Forest

NFS Campground on this NF 2.9%

Undeveloped Camping in this NF 0.8%

NFS Cabin 18.5%

Other Public Campground 1.0%

Private Campground 0.5%

Rented Private Home 59.2%

Home of Friends/Family 7.1%

Own Home 11.3%

Other Lodging 0.2%

LTBMU Economic Contributions

An economic contribution analysis depicts the Forest Service’s contribution to the local and 

regional economy. IMPLAN is the economic modeling tool created by the Forest Service in 

cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Land 

Management that was used to estimate the Forest’s contribution to the local economy. IMPLAN 

models the economic stimulus, i.e., the labor and income generated among 509 economic sectors 

identified in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) within the study area. 

The economic sectors were aggregated by the first two digits of their classification number for 

report purposes to produce twenty aggregate sectors.

The model built for the LTBMU is based on zip codes which concentrate on the physical 

boundary of the Basin. This determination is driven by the issues raised by the public and 

resource managers. The Lake Tahoe region is well defined by the mountain ridges around the 

lake.

Table 3-68 describes the LTBMU’s contribution to the Lake Tahoe Basin area as measured by 

jobs and labor income by industry sector. Note that “Jobs” refers to average annual employment 

and includes a combination of full and part time, temporary, and seasonal workers. “Labor 

Chapter 3 | Social and Economic Conditions ■ 3-449
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Income” is the sum of employee compensation (the value of wages and benefits) and proprietor’s 

income. The numbers in the “LTBMU-related” columns are Total Effects – direct effects plus 

the ripple (secondary) effects in the local economy. 

Table 3-68. LTBMU Economic Contribution to Lake Tahoe Region (2008)

Industry

Employment (jobs)

Labor Income 

(Thousands of 2010 

dollars)

Area 

Totals

FSRelatedArea 

Totals

FSRelated

Agriculture 54 54 $2,070 $1,751 

Mining 51 6 $2,261 $277 

Utilities 199 4 $23,685 $620 

Construction 3,287 27 $200,103 $1,588 

Manufacturing 242 69 $14,983 $1,979 

Wholesale Trade 329 81 $24,169 $6,236 

Transportation & Warehousing 654 66 $27,195 $2,842 

Retail Trade 3,563 385 $115,344 $14,799 

Information 411 32 $26,545 $2,044 

Finance & Insurance 2,382 50 $74,893 $2,281 

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 7,594 89 $107,985 $1,592 

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 3,316 160 $178,494 $7,437 

Mngt of Companies 156 16 $18,573 $1,881 

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv 2,189 82 $78,082 $2,717 

Educational Services 681 20 $15,962 $726 

Health Care & Social Assistance 3,748 95 $239,840 $10,931 

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 2,816 320 $88,447 $10,649 

Accommodation & Food Services 10,167 1,784 $316,644 $54,786 

Other Services 3,150 77 $125,385 $4,244 

Government 7,623 175 $498,144 $14,343 

Total 52,612 3,593 $2,178,808 $143,722 

FS as Percent of Total --- 6.83% --- 6.60%

3-450 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The LTBMU’s contribution to employment in the LTR by program area by alternative is shown 

in Table 3-69. Of the Forest Service programs, the greatest economic stimulus to the GLTA and 

LTA’s economy is due to the recreation program. 

Table 3-69. Employment by Program Area for the Lake Tahoe Region

Resource

Total Number of Jobs Contributed

Alternative 

A 

(Current)

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E*

Recreation: non-local only 3,166 3,324 3,641 2,691 3,324

Wildlife and Fish: non-local 

only 87 92 100 74 92

Grazing 0 0 0 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0 0

Minerals 0 0 0 0 0

Ecosystem Restoration 50 50 50 50 50

Payments to States/Counties 31 31 31 31 31

Forest Service Expenditures§ 258 258 258 258 258

Total Forest Management 3,593 3,755 4,081 3,105 3,755

Percent Change from Current --- 4.50% 13.60% -13.60% 4.50%

*It is assumed that Alternative E would have similar employment number to Alternative B because the addition of 

approximately 5,000 acres of Backcountry and relatively small amount of recreation expansion over Alternative B. 

§Forest Service Expenditures is the only place government employment for program planning and administration is 

counted. Employment in all other rows counts only private sector jobs.

An economic contribution to the area of analysis of close to 7% is a large contribution in 

comparison with other National Forests. The typical contribution is 1 - 2%. This contribution is 

relatively large because the study area is limited to the Lake Tahoe Basin and the LTBMU makes 

up around 75% of the area. Also, the LTBMU is one of the smallest forests in the country and 

has the highest per acre visitor rate. The dominant industries in the LTR are related to recreation 

and tourism. The LTBMU also contributes to relatively high wage positions in its administrative 

capacity related to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. In addition, the LTBMU 

receives and administers, on average, $37.5 million in federal funding annually to support 

environmental improvement projects, which contributes to a large share of the employment and 

income being related to the government sector.

Chapter 3 | Social and Economic Conditions ■ 3-451
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.21.3 Environmental Consequences 

Unit Budget

The general program of work and levels of goods and services provided is expected to remain 

fairly constant over the next 4 years, but is expected to decrease after that. Appropriated funding 

is expected to decrease from 2012 levels by 5-7% in 2013 and again in 2014, and remain flat 

after that. Funding from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act (SNPLMA) will be largely 

expended by 2016, and is expected to be totally expended by 2020.

Presidential commitments from 1998-2003 are congressional earmarks funding the Lake Tahoe 

Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) and the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA). 

Presidential commitments from 2004-2011 are SNPLMA funds (Table 3-71 and Figure 3-88). 

SNPLMA funds shown in Table 3-70 are funds expended; more funds may have been available 

for a given year. 

Table 3-70. LTBMU Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) and the Lake Tahoe Restoration 

Act (LTRA Program Funding by Fiscal Year

($1000)

EIP and LTRA

FY 1998FY1999FY 2000FY 2001FY 2002FY 2003

Presidential 

Commitments

- 7,547 5,025 8,350 10,664 10,699

Appropriated 

Funds

7,560 5,919 8,436 11,494 12,769 12,435

Total $7,560 $13,466 $13,461 $19,844 $23,433 $23,134

3-452 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-71. LTBMU Program Funding Provided by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management 

Act (SNPLMA)

Figure 3-88. LTBMU Program Funding by Fiscal Year

Economics

Alternative C has the most recreation expansion projected which results in the highest labor 

income and employment projections, followed by A, E, B, and then D. Payments to counties are 

expected to be about the same across alternatives (Table 3-72). The LTBMU does not contribute 

any jobs and income from grazing or minerals (Table 3-73). There is no timber program, 

however some trees are sold as part of the ecosystem restoration activities and are assumed to be 

about the same contribution towards jobs and income across the alternatives. By providing a 

diversity of recreation opportunities the LTBMU is contributing to the overall health of the local 

economy.

SNPLMA

FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011Average

14,080,000 5,545 16,412 16,049 13,521 11,900 11,930 7,932 $9,975

8,033,000 11,702 10,006 12,181 10,654 13,269 15,054 15,237 $11,053

$22,113,000 $17,247 $26,417 $28,230 $24,174 $25,169 $26,985 $23,170 $21,029

Chapter 3 | Social and Economic Conditions ■ 3-453
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.21.4 Analytical Conclusions

Alternative C would provide the greatest amount of labor income and the greatest number of 

jobs, while Alternative D would provide the least amount of labor income and the fewest number 

of jobs. Payments to counties would be the same for all alternatives.

Table 3-72. Summary of Alternatives by Economic Alternative

Indicator

Unit of

Measure

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Current 

Plan (No 

action)

DEIS 

Preferred

FEIS 

Preferred

Labor Income $1,000 $143,722 $149,473 $160,974 $126,471 $149,473

Employment # Jobs 3,593 3,755 4,081 3,105 3,755

Payments to 

Counties/States

$1,000 $2,313 $2,313 $2,313 $2,313 $2,313

Table 3-73. Employment (for the Lake Tahoe Region as defined by zip codes) – total number of 

jobs contributed

Resource Alt. A 

(Current) Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Recreation: non-local only 3,166 3,324 3,641 2,691 3,324

Wildlife and Fish Recreation: 

non-local only 87 92 100 74 92

Grazing 0 0 0 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0 0

Minerals 0 0 0 0 0

Ecosystem Restoration 50 50 50 50 50

Payments to States/Counties 31 31 31 31 31

Forest Service Expenditures 258 258 258 258 258

Total Forest Management 3,593 3,755 4,081 3,105 3,755

Percent Change from Current --- 4.50% 13.60% -13.60% 4.50%

3-454 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.22 Soils Resource 

3.4.22.1 Introduction 

In addition to supporting native vegetation and wildlife, soils play a critical role in supporting 

watershed and ecosystem health through their functions of accepting, storing, and releasing 

water. The soils analysis analyzes the effects of the alternatives in terms of their effects on soil 

quality and soil productivity. Discussion of water quality impacts can be found in the Water 

Quality section (Section 3.4.24 of this chapter) and the Water Quality specialist report (available 

in project record). Information in the soils analysis is not intended to predict water quality 

impacts and should not be used for that purpose.

The spatial scope of the analysis is limited to National Forest System (NFS) lands within the 

Lake Tahoe Basin administrative boundary. The analysis is further limited to lands dedicated to 

growing vegetation. Roads, trails and some parts of developed facilities such as resorts and 

campgrounds are not dedicated to growing vegetation. Soil productivity is a site-specific 

attribute of the land; soil productivity of one area is not dependent on the productivity of an 

adjacent area. For this reason, only soils on NFS lands are analyzed; effects to soil productivity 

on NFS lands generally do not affect productivity on adjacent lands under other ownership.

The temporal scope for assessment of soil resource environmental effects includes short term 

(1-10 years following activities) and long term (10-20+ years following activities) for this 

analysis.

Methodology

Consequences of activities and uses to the soil resource are discussed in terms of the magnitude, 

duration, and extent of the effect. Magnitude describes the degree of positive or negative impact 

on the resource. Consequences may be short term (less than 10 years) or long term (> than 10 

years) in duration. Extent is a measure of the area of the effect. 

The environmental consequences of the following major categories of activities and uses to the 

soil resource are discussed as follows:

• Stream channel restoration 

• Vegetation and fuels management

o Prescribed fire – underburning and pile burning 

o Hand and mechanical thinning 

o Temporary road construction and rehabilitation 

Terrestrial invasive species management

• Developed recreation sites – sustainable use and expansion

• Dispersed Recreation

• Winter Recreation

• Road and trail use and maintenance 

• Other Activities and Uses 

• Wildfire 

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-455
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Some activities are not specified because they are a combination of activities from the above list. 

For example, aspen enhancement and meadow restoration may include hand and mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire. Other activities are not discussed because they do not involve 

ground disturbance or other actions that could affect soil productivity.

Forest management activities and uses that cause soil disturbance have the potential to impact 

productivity. The following indicators form the basis for this analysis and are defined and 

discussed below:

1. Soil Porosity and Soil Hydrologic Function

2. Effective Soil Cover

3. Surface and Subsurface Soil Organic Matter 

4. Severe Burning

These are the primary indicators of soil productivity that may be affected by forest management 

activities and uses. The indicators are described briefly below; additional information is 

available in the Soils Specialist Report.

Soil Porosity and Soil Hydrologic Function 

Porosity is the space between individual soil particles. Maintenance of natural soil porosity is 

important for maintaining healthy native plant communities and for maintaining the hydrologic 

function of the soil. Soil hydrologic function is the ability of water to move into and through 

soils. Infiltration is the movement of water into soils, while hydraulic conductivity (sometimes 

called permeability) is the movement of water through soils. Compaction can alter soil porosity 

and soil hydrologic function, often in ways that are detrimental to plant growth. 

Effective Soil Cover 

The presence of effective soil cover generally indicates that the soil surface is adequately 

protected from accelerated (human-caused) erosion. Effective soil cover is defined as live 

vegetative plant canopies, plant litter and duff, and rock fragments at least 1⁄2 inch in diameter.

The topsoil (A horizon) is the most fertile and biologically active part of the soil profile due to its 

enrichment by organic matter in varying stages of decomposition. Loss of all or part of this 

horizon through erosion impairs the ability of the soil to support natural vegetation communities 

and often imparts a competitive advantage to terrestrial invasive plant species (weeds). 

The Water Quality section discusses erosion as it relates to water quality.

Soil Organic Matter and Forest Floor 

Surface organic matter includes plant litter and duff and is sometimes referred to as the forest 

floor. It protects the soil surface from erosion and moderates changes in soil temperature and 

moisture through its mulching effects.

Subsurface organic matter exists in various stages of decomposition; humus is the welldecomposed, relatively stable, dark-colored portion. Decomposed subsurface organic matter 

provides plant-available nutrients, increases soil pollutant filtering capacity, increases water3-456 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

holding capacity, and promotes the transfer of air and water through soils through its role in 

aggregate formation. 

Organic matter also serves as a major reservoir for terrestrial carbon. The effects of forest 

management activities and uses on carbon storage are of concern due to climate change. This is 

a relatively new area of investigation and much remains unknown (Trumbore and Czimczik 

2008, Rasmussen et al 2008). 

Modeling of climate change in the Tahoe Basin suggests that soils will continue to sequester 

carbon for the next 100 years under a climate with increased temperatures because the rate of 

influx of detrital carbon into the soil exceeds the rate of soil respiration, which releases carbon 

dioxide gas. Changes to the soil carbon pool were less than changes to the live carbon and 

detrital carbon pools, due to the time required for humification. Thus, some of the effects of 

climate change may not be apparent in the soil until after the 100 year study period. 

Additionally, consumption of above-ground carbon by fire may overshadow increased 

temperature or drought effects because fire significantly reduces soil carbon inputs. (Loudermilk 

et al 2013).

Severe Burning 

Severely burned soil is a condition where most woody debris and the entire forest floor are 

consumed down to bare mineral soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat; in wildfires 

in the Sierra Nevada, about 1-2% of the area may have severely burned soil (Ulery and Graham 

1993). Fine roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil. 

Severely burned soils are identified by ratings of fire severity and the effects to the soil. A range 

of soil impacts may result: soil humus losses, structural changes, hydrophobic characteristics 

(water repellency) and temporary reductions in soil organism populations due to lethal 

temperatures. 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:

• All activities and uses would comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

• All activities and uses would employ Forest Service Best Management Practices and 

these practices would be effective at controlling erosion.

• Additional project-specific resource protection measures or mitigations would be 

prescribed and implemented as needed to maintain soil productivity.

• All activities and uses would be consistent with Forest Service policy as expressed in FS 

Manuals and Handbooks and other documents.

• The desired conditions for maintaining, enhancing, and restoring soil productivity apply 

to areas that are dedicated to growing vegetation. There is no requirement to maintain 

soil productivity on system roads and trails or on some portions of developed sites (e.g. 

corrals, parking areas). 

Winter recreation would not affect the soil resource because activities and uses would be 

conducted in accordance with law, regulation, policy, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines, and 

project-specific resource protection measures. While incidental soil damage is expected, it 

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-457
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

would not be significant, is not predictable, and is not expected to vary by alternative.

3.4.22.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Soils of the Tahoe Basin are predominantly derived from igneous rock, with minor contributions 

from metamorphic rocks. The volcanic (extrusive) rocks are mainly andesitic lahars and the 

granitic (intrusive) rocks are mostly granodiorite. Soils are generally coarse-textured (sandy), 

and relatively young, with low clay contents. These characteristics make them susceptible to 

erosion when disturbed. Depths range from very shallow on steep mountains to very deep in 

some meadows and glacial deposits. Meadow soils generally have higher silt contents than most 

other basin soils, along with thicker surface layers of partially decomposed organic material. 

Organic soils, including peat, are limited in extent. 

Soils in the Lake Tahoe Basin are relatively low in nitrogen and carbon. Soils derived from 

granitic parent material are generally low in phosphorus while those derived from volcanic 

parent materials have high levels of phosphorus (USDA NRCS 2007, Karam et al 2013). 

General soil types and their associated management concerns are summarized in the Soil 

Specialist Report. The Soil Survey of the Lake Tahoe Basin Area provides more detailed 

information on soil properties and management (USDA NRCS 2007). 

During the 19th and early 20th century, soil impacts from logging and grazing were widespread, 

and forest floor and topsoil loss along with compaction, likely decreased productivity (Murphy 

and Knopp 2000a). These impacts are only apparent today in isolated areas. 

Fire suppression during the 20th century resulted in forest floor buildup that is greater than what 

would be expected under a normal fire return interval regime. The current overly dense 

condition of most forest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin may have produced thicker surface 

organic horizons than were present before the Comstock logging era, with higher levels of 

carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients than under more natural conditions (Karam et 

al 2013). At present soil organic carbon accounts for about 35% of the total ecosystem carbon, 

and detrital carbon accounts for about 5% of the total ecosystem carbon (dead wood, leaf litter,

and dead fine roots) (Loudermilk et al. 2013). Modeling suggests that humification of forest 

floor material may take up to 32 years in the Tahoe Basin (Karam et al. 2013).

Landscape level carbon dynamics may still be recovering from the late 19th century Comstock 

logging, which resulted in about a 60% clearcut of the basin. Most trees are less than 120 years 

and growing relatively rapidly; modeling predicts substantial increases in above and belowground carbon over the next 100 years in the Tahoe Basin. While the Comstock logging may 

have the greatest impact on carbon storage (Loudermilk et al 2013), fire suppression may have 

the greatest effect on the current nutrient status of Tahoe Basin soils (Karam et al 2013).

Monitoring suggests that current vegetation management practices are not significantly 

impacting soil productivity or causing extensive accelerated erosion (USDA Forest Service 

2010b and c). Erosion in the Heavenly Ski Area was a significant concern discussed in the EIS 

for the 1988 Forest Plan. Since then, management practices have been adjusted such that this is 

no longer a major concern (Cardno ENTRIX 2010).

3-458 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

A combination of past and current land use has resulted in a slightly elevated erosion risk in four 

6th field watersheds. Trout Creek watershed receives heavy recreational use and is still 

recovering from road and railroad networks and flumes associated with Comstock logging. 

Angora Creek and Fallen Leaf watersheds receive heavy recreational use, including many nonsystem trails and relic roadbeds. Ward Creek watershed is still recovering from past logging and 

grazing impacts. 

Erosion in the Gondola, Showers, and Angora fire areas has largely returned to background 

levels. Post-fire erosion was severe enough to impair productivity in limited areas only.

3.4.22.3 Environmental Consequences 

Geomorphic Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration

Stream channel and habitat restoration activities would result in short term impacts of limited 

extent and net long term soil productivity increases. 

Short term compaction results from heavy equipment use during construction; these impacts are 

of limited extent and are generally mitigated at the close of the project. Riparian restoration 

projects are often on Tahoe soils, which have a higher risk of compaction than most Tahoe basin 

soils due to higher silt and moisture contents in surface layers. This risk is countered by root 

growth over time, which ameliorates compaction or restores soil porosity; the greater amount of 

available water in riparian zones and vegetative growth probably means recovery proceeds faster 

in those areas than in upland settings.

Over the long term, surface organic matter would increase as a result of the enhancement of 

native vegetation communities; riparian vegetation would benefit from increased soil moisture 

content for a longer portion of the growing season due to increases in overbank flows. 

Similarly, erosion potential would decrease over the long term as effective ground cover and the 

root mass of native vegetation increases. 

The extent, magnitude, and duration of consequences would be similar for Alternatives A, B, C, 

and E. Under Alternative D, there would be a potential for fewer resource benefits after 

currently planned projects are completed.

Forest Vegetation and Fuels Management

Prescribed fire – underburning and pile burning 

Underburning results in minor to negligible short term effects to soil productivity. Pile burning 

results in minor short term impacts over most of the activity areas, and severe impacts of limited 

extent which may be long term in duration. 

Soil temperatures under burning piles vary with soil moisture, pile size, and the diameter of the 

material in the piles, creating a range of impacts. Impacts are greatest when burning larger 

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-459
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

diameter material under dry soil conditions (Busse et al 2013). In underburns, these effects 

would be limited in area to soils under the occasional log or stump that burns for an extended 

period of time.

Underburning and slash pile burning generally have negligible effects on soil porosity. Potential 

impacts would be loss of surface soil aggregate structure and clogging of soil pores by ash. 

These effects are limited to the pile footprints. 

Effective soil cover losses are a short term impact; cover is replaced by needle cast and regrowth

of vegetation. Depending on the amount of fuels removed, piles may cover between 1% and 34% 

of the ground surface (Busse et al. 2013). Burn pile footprints often have a concave surface that 

retains water, providing an advantage to emerging vegetation. 

During underburning, detrimental soil heating can be limited by burning when soils are moist to 

wet, which also may result in patchy duff consumption, thus reducing erosion potential (Knapp 

et al 2009, Busse et al 2010). Underburning may improve microbial response to wildfire. When 

a moderate intensity wildfire burned ponderosa pine forest, the microbial biomass in soils was 

nearly twice as great in soils subjected to prescribed fire three months before the wildfire than in 

soils without prescribed fire (Choromanska and DeLuca 2001). Prescribed fire can also result in 

short term nutrient releases that provide a burst of vegetative growth.

The consequences to the soil resource would be similar in duration for all alternatives. The 

extent of consequences from underburning would be similar for Alternatives A, B, and E. Under 

Alternative C the extent would be less than Alternative A, for the first round of treatments, but 

would increase after that because stand density would be low enough to permit underburning as a 

maintenance tool. Under Alternative D the extent of effects would be greater than Alternative A 

because Alternative D has the greatest emphasis on use of fire as a management tool. However, 

Alternative D would also carry a greater risk of wildfire than the other alternatives because 

underburning would be prescribed in stands with higher tree densities than in Alternatives A, B, 

C, and E. Increased wildfire risk means an increased risk of severe burning and erosion.

The extent of consequences from pile burning would be similar in Alternatives A, B, and E. 

Under Alternative C, the short term consequences would be greater than Alternatives A , B, and 

E because treatment prescriptions would be more intensive, resulting in a greater amount of 

material to be piled and burned. After the first round of intensive treatments is complete, effects 

would diminish because a greater number of stands could be maintained through underburning. 

Effects from pile burning would be greatest under Alternative D. The reduced diameter limits 

for mechanized thinning would necessitate a greater acreage of pile burning as well as a greater 

volume of larger diameter material in the piles than in other alternatives, which in turn would 

increase the magnitude of the effects on soils because larger diameter material results in higher 

soil temperatures (Busse et al. in press). 

Hand and mechanical thinning 

The consequences of hand thinning to the soil resource are negligible as this activity results in 

very little soil disturbance. Most of the effects are from burning the piles created during 

thinning; effects of pile burning are discussed above, in the section on Prescribed Fire. 

3-460 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Mechanical thinning results in areas of compacted soil; the degree of compaction varies with the

number of passes, the soil type, and soil moisture at the time of equipment operation. The extent 

of compacted areas varies with the kind of logging system. In past projects in the Lake Tahoe 

basin, severely compacted areas have been limited to less than 12% of the area treated when cutto length (CTL) systems were used. Whole tree (WT) systems tend to impact more of the treated 

area than CTL (Han et al. Unpublished). In addition, soil compaction is often more severe in 

WT units than in CTL units (McNeil and Ballard 1992; Lanford and Stokes 1995). Where slash 

is available, the forwarder used in the CTL system drives on a slash mat, which cushions the soil, 

absorbing some of the ground pressure and vibration from the equipment. The effectiveness of 

the slash mat depends on its thickness and the number of times it is driven over (breakage 

reduces effectiveness). 

Compaction can be minimized by operating on relatively dry soils and limiting the extent of 

equipment traffic through designating skid trails and limiting the size of landings. Operating on 

less sensitive or low risk sites is also very effective. Soils with low risk characteristics can 

tolerate greater variety of equipment and operating conditions (moisture) than high risk soils 

(Miller et al 2004). Most of the Tahoe basin soils have a low compaction risk due to their coarse 

textures. Compaction is inhibited on rocky soils because compaction is limited when subsurface 

rocks are pushed against each other.

Surface soils tend to recover relatively quickly from compaction, but subsoil compaction may 

persist for decades, so loss of porosity is generally considered a long term impact (Sands et a 

1979; Froehlich et al 1985; Tiarks and Haywood 1996). Slight recovery may occur after 5-10 

years (Page-Dumroese et al 2006; Powers et al 2005). Recovery rates may vary with repeated 

disturbance, soil moisture during equipment operation, soil texture, and rock fragment content 

(Miller et al 2004; Williamson and Neilsen 2000; Liechty et al 2002).

Short term impacts to the forest floor result as surface organic matter is displaced and crushed by 

equipment traffic, making it more susceptible to erosion. Post-treatment replacement of ground 

cover begins with needle cast in the fall. When chipping or mastication is used for slash 

disposal, ground cover is replaced more quickly, but is higher in carbon and lignin and lower in 

nitrogen and other plant nutrients than material that accumulates naturally. 

Removal of vegetation would result in a temporary loss of potential surface and subsurface 

organic matter. As the trees in the stand grow, additional surface and subsurface organic matter 

would be produced through decomposition of litter and fine roots. Additionally, thinning is 

proposed in order to reduce stand density to conditions more appropriate to the ecosystem, so 

this temporary loss would not be a significant detriment to soil quality. The current overstocked 

condition of forest stands have likely resulted in forest floor accumulations that are greater than 

the norm for the ecotypes in the project area.

Soil loss from erosion is a risk of mechanized thinning, but has been successfully controlled on 

NFS lands in the Tahoe Basin through project design and use of BMPs (USDA Forest Service 

2010b and c). Water quality impacts from erosion are usually evident before soil productivity is 

affected. This means that when monitoring results show that erosion has not impacted water 

quality, one can assume that soil productivity has not been affected.

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-461
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

The “Beschta report”(Beschta et al 1995) is commonly quoted by our publics as a document that 

provides the scientific framework of principles and practices that should be used to guide salvage 

logging and post-fire treatments. In relation to soils, this report recommends that management of 

a post-fire landscape should be consistent with the principle of protecting the soil and 

recommends that no management activity should be undertaken which does not protect soil

integrity in terms of soil loss and compaction. The report also recommends that salvage logging

should be prohibited in sensitive sites, which for soils are defined to include severely burned 

areas, erodible sites, fragile soils, riparian areas, steep slopes, and any site where erosion may be

accelerated. Risks to soils during post-fire tree removal activities are best analyzed and 

mitigated at the project level, commensurate with the amount and distribution of sensitivities 

discussed in this paper.

Consequences to soil productivity would be roughly equal under Alternatives A, B, and E which 

would result in minor short and long term impacts of limited extent. 

The magnitude and extent of impacts would be slightly greater under Alternative C than under 

Alternatives A, B, and E, but this difference would be balanced by the lower frequency of 

disturbances due to thinning. Alternative C might be the most favorable for the soil resource due 

to the longer recovery time between mechanized treatments; porosity losses that require long 

term recovery would be less frequent. Although surface disturbance would be slightly greater 

because more trees would be removed at one time, surface disturbances recover relatively 

quickly. Based on modeling, Alternative C would result in up to 20% more shrub growth than 

Alternatives A, B, and E; nitrogen-fixing shrubs such as whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis) 

and snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus) would provide additional nutrient inputs, slightly 

increasing potential productivity.

The extent and magnitude of effects from mechanized thinning would be least under Alternative 

D because there would be fewer acres of mechanized thinning.

Temporary road construction and rehabilitation 

Temporary roads are often constructed as a part of vegetation management projects to access 

areas not accessible from the permanent road system. Over the past 10 years, the LTBMU has 

constructed or plans to construct roughly 19 miles of temporary road. Of these, 13 miles were on 

existing road alignments of closed or decommissioned roads, and 6 miles were new construction. 

Vegetation management projects have required roughly 5 feet of temporary road construction per 

acre treated. 

Overall, consequences of temporary road construction are minor due to their limited extent and 

are long term in duration.

Soil compaction is primarily a concern with new temporary road construction; existing 

alignments have soil that is already compacted. For new construction, the degree of compaction 

at project completion depends on whether the road is ripped or recontoured at project close. 

Compaction, with the associated loss of porosity and hydrologic conductivity, is a long term 

effect of limited extent. 

3-462 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Organic matter loss is also a long term effect of limited extent. Road construction removes the 

forest floor and some or all of the organically-enriched topsoil is removed and displaced. When 

well-designed, temporary roads with adequate BMPs generally present a low risk of erosion.

Consequences would be similar under Alternatives A, B, C, and E. The extent of the 

consequences would be less under Alternative D because there would be less mechanized 

thinning.

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management

The extent and magnitude of effects to the soil resource from weed management would be minor 

to negligible. Effects are described in detail in the Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment 

Project EA (USDA Forest Service 2010d). Short term impacts would result from physical and 

chemical treatments. Long term effects would be positive, as native vegetation would be 

enhanced. This would benefit the soil resource because many weed species do not provide as 

much ground cover and soil protection (plant canopy and litter) as native species. In addition, 

some invasive species alter soil microbial communities or secrete chemicals into the soil to the 

detriment of native plant species.

Consequences would be similar in Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Under Alternative D, treatment 

would be limited to selected priority species. This would reduce the extent of treatment impacts, 

and would also reduce the extent and magnitude of positive benefits.

Developed Recreation Sites – Use and Expansion

Use of developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, resorts, and scenic overlooks is largely 

dependent on site design and maintenance. Soil impacts are limited on newer sites and sites 

which have received BMP upgrades, while older sites that have not been redesigned or upgraded 

may have more severe impacts. 

Site design is critical for maintaining soil productivity which supports the native vegetation and 

associated scenic values in developed recreation sites. Site design which limits intensive use to 

hardened areas protects the soils, resulting in reduced areas of compaction and loss of surface 

organic matter, and consequently, lower erosion potential. Accelerated erosion is adequately 

controlled on most developed sites (USDA Forest Service 2010b and c, Cardno ENTRIX 2011). 

The hardened areas of these sites, such as pathways, are not areas dedicated to growing 

vegetation, so there is no expectation for soil productivity to be maintained. 

Expanding the area of developed recreation sites would increase the area of compacted soils, but 

the extent of this effect could be controlled through design. Expanding the season of use into 

spring and fall increases the risk of compaction because use while soils are wet would increase. 

This could be controlled to some extent through design, but is not always a priority in current 

practice. The extent of the area where the forest floor is diminished or missing would likely also 

increase, along with compaction. Effective cover and erosion risk could be controlled under 

extended season use, but there is always more risk during seasons with more rain (spring and 

fall).

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-463
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Effects of Alternatives A and B would be similar. There is a potential for effects over a slightly 

greater extent under Alternatives C and E, and a slightly lesser extent under Alternative D. 

Dispersed Recreation

Effects of dispersed recreation are largely captured under the discussion for developed recreation 

and trail use. Where dispersed recreation is concentrated in popularly used areas, sites are 

hardened as needed to limit resource damage. Hardening results in relatively small areas with 

productivity losses that are unsuitable for growing vegetation. Off-trail recreation by hikers, 

cyclists, and equestrians is limited and would result in negligible effects in most instances. A 

notable exception is the creation of unauthorized trails by cyclists and OHV riders which results 

in compacted surfaces that are highly susceptible to erosion because they are not designed to 

control runoff. Unauthorized trails would either be added to the system or closed and 

ecologically restored under all alternatives.

Effects of dispersed recreation on the soil resource would not vary significantly by alternative. 

Winter Recreation

Winter recreation activities with the potential to affect soils include alpine skiing, snowboarding,

and ski slope grooming, OSV use (over snow vehicles or snowmobiles), cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing, and snowplay, including sledding. Potential impacts to soils from winter 

recreation include direct effects to exposed soils and indirect effects resulting from compaction 

of snow (Gage and Cooper, 2009). 

Effects to exposed soils include soil compaction and increased erosion potential due to surface 

disturbance. Since winter recreationists seek out areas with snow, these are relatively rare and 

usually of minor extent. 

When snow is compacted it can lower the soil temperature. In alpine ski areas, this leads to 

delayed snowmelt, which shortens the growing season, as well as to more rapid snowmelt, which 

increases the risk of erosion (Price 1985, Rixen et al 2003). Similar effects have been 

documented on marked trails used by cross-country skiers and snowshoers (Eagleston and Rubin 

2013). 

Use of artificial snow (snowmaking) tends to produce more dense snow than natural 

precipitation, and deeper snow, which tends to mitigate the mechanical effects of snow

grooming, and postpones snowmelt (Rixen et al 2003). 

In general, areas of concentrated use would have the most severe impacts. Thus, it is likely that 

effects due to snow compaction are most severe from alpine skiing, snowboarding, and ski slope 

grooming, while cross-country skiing and snowshoeing have the least severe effects. Effects 

from OSV use would be intermediate, and would tend to be more concentrated in areas where 

users access NFS lands from neighborhoods and near winter parking areas. Sledding, like alpine 

skiing, is often a concentrated use that tends to occur in the same place for many years, and in 

popular snowplay areas, effects from snow compaction could be similar to those in alpine ski 

areas.

3-464 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

Soil impacts from alpine skiing would vary slightly by alternative; they would be greatest in 

Alternative A, and least in Alternative D. Impacts from OSV use would be similar in 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E, and slightly less in Alternative D if the Freel Peak area were 

designated Wilderness. Impacts from other forms of winter recreation would not vary by 

alternative.

Soil impacts from winter recreation would be primarily limited to areas of concentrated use, 

which are of minor extent. Impacts would not pose a significant risk to soil productivity in any 

alternative.

Road and Trail Use and Maintenance

The permanent transportation system is not land dedicated to growing vegetation and so there is 

no mandate to maintain soil productivity on this land. Consequences to the soil resource from 

the use and maintenance of the transportation system are therefore limited to areas where use and 

maintenance impact areas outside the road or trail alignment. These are generally minor effects 

of limited extent on porosity and surface organic matter. Erosion on slopes below roads and 

trails may impact productivity in limited areas where runoff velocity is not well controlled. 

Monitoring has found such erosion to be uncommon (USDA Forest Service 2010b and c).

Based on the current condition, most effects would be minor for Alternatives A, B, and E. Under 

Alternative C, effects would be slightly greater than for A, B, and E due to the work needed to 

increase the maintenance level of selected routes. Effects of Alternative D would be slightly 

greater than Alternative C in the long term due to reduced maintenance levels.

The creation and use of unauthorized roads and trails results in compaction, loss of the forest 

floor and surface organic matter. Erosion of topsoil is often a problem because these routes are 

not engineered and have no provisions for drainage or runoff control. Existing unauthorized 

roads or trails would be added to the system or closed and ecologically restored. Some 

unauthorized roads provide needed access such as utility easements that are included under 

special use permits; these would be added to the managed road system in the future.

Unauthorized use is not expected to vary by alternative. 

Wildfire

Potential impacts to soils in the event of wildfire include severe erosion, loss of nutrients and 

organic matter, reduced infiltration, and destruction of soil macro- and microorganisms. The 

2002 Gondola Fire resulted in significant soil loss from erosion. Short term effects also included 

significant increases in soil solution concentrations and/or leaching of mineral forms of nitrogen, 

sulfur, and phosphorous. The most significant long term effect was the loss of ecosystem 

nitrogen from the forest floor and the fire (Murphy et al. 2006). Post-fire erosion often stabilizes 

within a few years (Berg and Azuma 2010, Robichaud et al 2000, Benavides-Solorio and 

MacDonald 2005).

Although wildfire cannot be predicted, the alternatives do affect the risk and potential intensity 

and severity of wildfire. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments in the Lake Tahoe Basin have been 

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-465
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

shown to reduce fire behavior from a crown fire to a surface fire, thus reducing potential soil 

impacts because less heat is generated in a surface fire than in a crown fire (Murphy et al 2006). 

Similarly, reducing crown fuels was found to moderate extreme fire behavior in four different 

ecosystem types across the United States. An important feature these sites had in common was 

historical short fire return intervals, a feature also shared by the Tahoe Basin (Omi and 

Martinson 2002). 

The risk of a significant loss of soil productivity due to wildfire would be roughly equal under 

Alternatives A, B, and E. Risk would decrease more rapidly under Alternative C, though the 

decrease would be modest. Risk would be slightly greater under Alternative D than under A, B, 

C, or E because desired conditions for hazardous fuels would be only partially met outside the 

defense zone. The rationale for the differences among alternatives is described in more detail in 

the Fire and Fuels section.

Climate Change

Predictions of warmer temperatures, an increase in the proportion of precipitation falling as rain, 

and earlier peak snowmelt time could result in long-term indirect effects to soils. 

Rain-on-snow events have the potential to cause significant erosion. These events may become 

more frequent as temperatures warm, but are not always associated with climate change – one of 

the largest was documented in 1862, when resultant flooding destroyed much of Sacramento and 

other areas.

Soils may be dry for longer periods during the summer due to warmer temperatures combined 

with earlier peak snowmelt, but these effects are not likely to be observable or measurable during 

the planning period. 

Other Activities and Uses

A number of other ongoing and intermittent activities and uses have minor effects on soils in 

limited areas, including:

• Water, sewer, and power line maintenance and reconstruction

• Cell phone tower/water tower construction/reconstruction

• Other permitted non-recreation special uses

• Recreation residence use and maintenance

• Grazing

None of these activities and uses would vary by alternative, and it is not likely that they would 

significantly alter the existing condition in the future.

Water, sewer, and power line rights of way are accessed regularly for inspection and 

maintenance, including periodic tree removal under power lines. Inspection and maintenance 

activities result in compacted areas where surface organic matter is decreased or absent due to 

vehicle traffic and occasional ground disturbance when digging is necessary. Erosion control is 

mandated and monitored through compliance with permits issued for these activities. New 

3-466 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

construction or reconstruction of water, sewer, or power lines is infrequent, but can require larger 

disturbed areas. Recovery is generally long term. 

Cell phone tower and water tower construction or reconstruction involve ground disturbance 

over a limited area and new sites may also require limited road construction. Limited areas of 

compacted soil and areas with decreased or absent surface organic matter are generally present. 

Erosion control is mandated and monitored through the permit system.

Other permitted uses include activities such as research projects, film- making, weddings and 

special events, and removal of forest products such as Christmas trees. Resource protection is 

controlled through the permit system and effects are generally negligible to minor and very 

limited in extent.

Limited areas of compaction and forest floor depletion are associated with foot traffic around 

recreation residences. These are small enough that soil productivity impacts are negligible, as 

evidenced by the surrounding native vegetation.

Grazing is primarily an incidental use on the LTBMU. There are no active grazing allotments 

and none are projected to become active in the future under any alternative. Grazing is primarily 

associated with outfitter-guide activities and other equestrian recreation. Impacts to soils are 

negligible, and would not vary by alternative.

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-467
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.22.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Overall, the consequences to the soil resource would be relatively similar under all alternatives. 

Table 3-74. Comparison of Consequences to the Soil Resource

Use and Management Effects Risk of Effects from Wildfire 

Alternative A Soil quality maintained at sustainable 

level.

Alternatives A, B, and E would have 

similar risk of impacts due to wildfire

Alternative B Soil quality slightly improved over 

Alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B, and E would have 

similar risk of impacts due to wildfire

Alternative C

Soil quality slightly decreased as 

compared to Alternative A, but still at 

sustainable level. 

Alternative C would have the least risk 

of impacts due to wildfire. 

Alternative D Soil quality slightly increased as compared 

to Alternatives A and B. 

Alternative D would have the greatest 

potential for soil impacts due to wildfire.

Alternative E Soil quality slightly improved over 

Alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B, and E would have 

similar risk of impacts due to wildfire

Stream channel and habitat restoration would result in minor very short term impacts and a net 

positive benefit over the long term for all alternatives. Consequences would be similar for 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E in the long term, but there would be fewer long term benefits under

Alternative D.

Terrestrial invasive species management would result in negligible short term impacts and minor 

long term net positive consequences for all alternatives. Long term positive benefits could be 

somewhat less in Alternative D because fewer species would be treated. These findings assume 

the infested acres would be within the range analyzed in the TIPS EA.

Developed recreation site use and expansion would have minor negative consequences under all 

alternatives. Alternative D would have the least impacts, followed by Alternatives B and E, 

with Alternative C having the greatest impacts

Dispersed recreation and winter recreation would have minor negative consequences under all 

alternatives. .

Road and trail use and maintenance would result in minor negative consequences under all 

alternatives. Alternatives A,B, and E would have similar consequences, consequences of 

Alternative C would be slightly greater than A,B, and E, and consequences of Alternative D 

would be slightly greater than Alternative C. 

Vegetation and fuels management are most likely to have the greatest impacts on soil 

productivity because of the nature of their effects and because they impact the largest area of 

3-468 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – FINAL Environmental Impact Statement

ground. The differences in consequences by alternative from forest vegetation and fuels 

management activities are thus considerably greater than the differences from other activities and 

uses. The potential for wildfire is also an important consideration because wildfire can 

significantly impair soil productivity. The consequences of vegetation and fuels management 

and wildfire would overshadow the consequences to the soil resource from other activities and 

uses.

Consequences of Alternatives A, B, and E would be similar; the risk of significant damage due to 

wildfire would be slightly less in Alternatives B and E. Impaired productivity would be slightly 

greater in the short term in Alternative C than Alternative A, due to more intensive silvicultural 

treatments and to a lesser extent by increased developed recreation. Impacts from vegetation and 

fuels management would be balanced in the long term by the need for fewer mechanized entries 

and the ability to use prescribed fire more safely over more acres. Potential impacts from 

wildfire would be similar in Alternatives B,C, and E, but reduction in risk would be achieved 

slightly more quickly in Alternative C. Alternative D would result in the least impacts to soils 

overall, but carries the greatest risk for impacts from wildfire.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Since soils are currently at or near natural levels of productivity throughout most of the planning 

area in areas dedicated to growing vegetation, the goal is to maintain the desired conditions. The 

desired conditions for soils would be maintained throughout most of the planning area in all 

alternatives; maintenance of desired conditions would differ slightly by alternative as described 

above. The desired condition related to impervious coverage is discussed under cumulative 

effects.

Chapter 3 | Soils Resource ■ 3-469
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.23 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species 

3.4.23.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate and disclose the potential effects of the management 

approaches proposed under the five Forest Plan revision alternatives on special status terrestrial 

wildlife species and habitat. Cumulative effects are described in Section 3.5. The five

alternatives under consideration (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) are described in Chapter 2. 

Methodology

This analysis evaluates the potential effects of management approaches under the five

alternatives within the following program areas: (1) Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 

(2) Biological Resource Protection, (3) Forest Vegetation Management (and Fuels), (4) 

Recreation, and (5) Access to NFS Roads and Trails. The program areas represent the suite of 

possible management activities that comprise the focal elements for management planning and 

activities on the LTBMU. The program areas are described in the descriptions of the alternatives 

in Chapter 2. 

Indicators of effects in this analysis include special-status terrestrial wildlife species/species 

groups and terrestrial wildlife habitats. The following special-status species are evaluated: 

• Threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (as amended)

• Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Special Interest Species

Table 3-75 lists all special-status species for the LTBMU, their listing status, habitat, and 

occurrence status; this reflects the revisions to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for 

Region 5 made on July 3, 2013 (USDA 2013). In addition to these individual species, effects to 

migratory birds are addressed as a group. Effects on Management Indicator Species (MIS) are 

described separately in section 3.4.14 of this chapter. 

On June 16, 2010 coordination began between the LTBMU and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), Reno, Nevada and Sacramento, California field offices for species protected 

under the ESA (threatened, endangered, and candidate species) on the revision of the Forest 

Plan. Discussions on the process for formal consultation, including requesting technical 

assistance for candidate species and incorporation of migratory bird act considerations were 

determined as well as the method of interaction and how information exchange would be 

completed during the revision process. With the changes in Forest Planning rules in late 2010, 

the consultation process with USFWS was placed on hold until the new Draft EIS and Draft 

Revised Forest Plan were released in the spring of 2012. On May 3, 2012 a formal request for 

consultation, technical assistance, and comments was sent to the USFWS (both Reno and 

Sacramento field offices) for the revised Draft EIS and Draft Forest Plan. On February 4, 2013 

the USFWS issued a proposal to list the distinct population segment of the North American 

wolverine in the contiguous United States as threatened.

3-470 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-75. Special-status species for the LTBMU, listing status, habitat, and potential for 

occurrence in the LTBMU during the life of the Plan

Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status 1 Habitat 2 Occurrence Status 2

Invertebrate

Western bumblebee

Bombus occidentalis

S Wild flowering plants and crops; rodent 

burrows for hive

Occurrence possible; one 

record since 2000.

Birds

Waterfowl SI Lacustrine, riverine, wetlands, and 

marsh areas

Known to occur; waterfowl 

found throughout Basin.

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentiles

S, SI Forested areas associated with 

riparian systems, high canopy closure, 

high density of large and mature trees 

and snags, and open understories

Known to occur; detections 

at 28 of 32 Protected 

Activity Centers on LTBMU 

from 2001-2010

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

SI Early successional forests and shrub 

communities for foraging and cliffs and 

large trees for nesting

Known to occur; incidental 

detections in Round Lake 

area and Desolation 

Wilderness in 2011

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

D, S, SI3 Open water with juxtaposed mature 

live and dead (snags) trees or steep 

cliffs

Known to occur; recorded 

in LTBMU since 1874; one 

known nest on LTBMU

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

SI Large snags and open trees in mixed 

conifer forests near large bodies of 

water

Known to occur; recorded 

as recently in 2011 at shore 

and inland sites

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

SI Open areas; breeding near rivers, 

wetlands, lakes, or other aquatic 

features; nests on cliffs, banks, dunes, 

mounds, and human-made structures.

Known to occur; recorded 

as recently as 2011 at 

various locations in LTBMU

Great gray owl

Strix nebulosa

S Meadows and early seral-stage 

habitats that support sufficient prey 

and have adjacent conifer forests with 

moderate to high canopy cover

Not expected to occur; last 

detected near LTBMU in 

1979 

California spotted owl

Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis

S Late seral closed canopy forest; 

mature coniferous forests with high 

tree canopy cover, multilayered 

canopies, and an abundance of large 

and mature trees and snags; possible 

use of younger stands for foraging

Known to occur; detections 

at 15 of 21 Protected 

Activity Centers on LTBMU 

(2001-2010)

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-471
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status 1 Habitat 2 Occurrence Status 2

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii 

adastus

S Meadows that have high water tables 

in the late spring and early summer, 

and abundant shrubby, deciduous 

vegetation (especially Salix spp.); 

especially meadows with standing 

water or saturated soils

Known to occur; recorded 

in LTBMU since 1992

Mammals

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Corynorhinus 

townsendii

S Coniferous forests and riparian habitat 

for foraging; cave and cave surrogate 

habitat (e.g., mines) and buildings for 

roosting

Known to occur; recorded 

in LTBMU in 2007 and 

2009 (Borgmann and 

Morrison 2008)

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

S Mixed conifer and pine forests at high 

elevation; crevices in rock outcrops, 

tree hollows, cave and cave surrogate 

habitat (e.g., mines), and buildings for 

roosting

Occurrence possible; 

suitable habitat exists

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

S Open habitat with nearby dry forest 

and water source; crevices in rock 

outcrops, cave and cave surrogate 

habitat (e.g., mines), buildings, and 

snags for roosting

Known to occur; recorded 

since 2008 (CWHR 2008)

Pacific marten4

Martes caurina

S High elevation mature and old growth 

conifer forests with complex 

understory structure, large snags and 

live trees and logs, and minimal 

human disturbance

Known to occur; recorded 

in LTBMU since 1980’s; 

one known den

Pacific fisher

Martes pennanti

C Late successional forests with high 

canopy cover, large live trees, and 

snags and logs

Not expected to occur; no 

detections in last 10 years 

in LTBMU, outside 

geographic and elevation 

range of species

North American 

wolverine

Gulo gulo luscus5

S, P Diverse, coniferous forest types and 

non-forested alpine habitats with 

minimal human disturbance and cover

Occurrence possible; last 

detected 2 miles from 

LTBMU in 1994; recent 

wolverine detection in 

Truckee in 2008/09 was 

genetically related to Rocky 

mountain population 

(Moriarty et al. 2009)

Mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus)

SI Riparian areas, meadows, and early to 

mid-successional habitats

Known to occur; species 

was detected throughout 

LTBMU during 2007 Basinwide surveys

1. Status

C: Candidate, P: Proposed, D: Delisted under Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended)

S: Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species

SI: Special Interest Species (TRPA)

3-472 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status 1 Habitat 2 Occurrence Status 2

2. More detailed habitat associations and occurrence descriptions provided in species accounts below. 3. Both winter and nesting bald eagles are considered TRPA Special Interest Species. 4. This species was classified as American marten (Martes americana) but recent genetic and morphological 

evidence classifies this species as Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and of the subspecies sierrae (Dawson and 

Cook 2012). 5. Currently accepted taxonomy classifies wolverines as Gulo gulo and those in the contiguous U.S. as part of 

the New World subspecies, G. g. luscus (USFWS 2013).

Terrestrial wildlife habitat indicators evaluated in this analysis include: wet meadows, montane 

riparian (e.g., stream and creek habitat), lakeside marsh and shore habitat, aspen, Jeffrey pine, 

white fir-mixed conifer, red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine forest, montane chaparral, cliff and 

cave habitat, and species-designated habitat (Protected Activity Centers). 

Potential direct and indirect effects on special-status terrestrial wildlife species and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat are measured by the anticipated trend in species productivity (i.e., reproductive 

success) and habitat condition. The analysis involved identifying: (1) the possible management 

activities associated with each program area by alternative, (2) potential effects from these 

management activities, (3) the proposed magnitude of change in these actions by alternative

(e.g., acres of expansion, acres of treatment, miles of trails), and (4) plan-level desired 

conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines for each alternative. 

Sources of information used in the analysis include a search of the USFWS database of specialstatus species for the LTBMU (USFWS 2011; accessed on June 6, 2013; 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm) and a 

review of the peer-reviewed literature, Forest Service general technical reports, TRPA Threshold 

Report (2011) and Code of Ordinances (2012), and reports of research conducted in the LTBMU. 

The SPECTRUM model was used to estimate trends towards achieving desired conditions for 

forest health and fuel reduction management under the five alternatives over a fifty year period 

after Plan implementation. A description of the model, including assumptions, applicability, and 

limitations, can be found in the section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). It should be noted that the 

model was designed to meet the desired conditions of forest health and fuel reduction 

management and not to create wildlife habitat or evaluate condition or trends of wildlife 

habitat. For example, the model was provided with minimal information regarding wildlife 

habitat, only locations and restrictions on treatments in spotted owl and goshawk Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs) and spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs). The model did not 

contain any other guiding parameters for wildlife habitat such as standards and guidelines related 

to the protection of den locations, nest locations for other bird species, connectivity of late seral 

habitat, or any other more qualitative guiding principal under each alternative. Furthermore, 

habitat associations and analysis of effects for terrestrial wildlife are based on CWHR 

classification which defines “open” canopy as S (10-24% canopy closure) and P (25-39% canopy 

closure), and “closed” canopy as M (40-59% canopy closure) and D (>60% canopy closure) but 

the model parameters differ from this definition for “open” canopy in the white fir and red fir 

forest types which is defined as <50% canopy closure, a difference of 10 percent (see Table 1 in 

the Forest Plan – Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Desired Conditions

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-473
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

section). We don’t anticipate this difference to significantly alter our interpretation of model 

output at the level of the Forest Plan but some late and mid seral open habitat may actually be 

considered closed (40-50% canopy closure) according to CWHR classification of wildlife 

habitat. Also, the CWHR classes 3 (6-10.9" diameter-at-breast height (dbh)) and 4 (11-23.9" 

dbh) were lumped in the model output into mid seral in order to compare to the Historic 

Reference Condition model outputs used to develop forest vegetation seral stage distributions. 

But many species associated with mature forest conditions may use CWHR class 4 but are not as 

strongly associated (or not associated at all) with CWHR class 3. Where possible we have tried 

to evaluate mid seral trends separately for CHWR classes 3 and 4. Most importantly, the 

SPECTRUM model does not use an adaptive management framework which would serve as the 

cornerstone of the management approach under any alternative. Therefore, although the model 

results are described in this section as they would relate to trends in terrestrial wildlife habitat 

interpretations of model output should be made with caution. 

Percent changes in seral stages predicted by the model for all alternative are categorized as: No 

change (0-10 percent change); or Increase or Decrease that is either Slight (11-20 percent 

change), Moderate (21-50 percent change), or Substantial (>50 percent change). Although the 

Draft BE (and DEIS) made reference to exact predicted percent changes in the seral stages, that 

approach does not present realistic outcomes since the model cannot incorporate a variety of 

other limiting factors (e.g., den/nest locations, habitat connectivity, climate change) that would 

influence prescriptions and treatment decisions that are not incorporated into the model.

Therefore, these categories more appropriately express predicted trends. We have added tables 

into this section of the FEIS that illustrate modeled predicted changes in mid and late seral closed 

canopy CWHR classes because CWHR classes form the basis of our understanding of species 

habitat associations (as described in detail in the Biological Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife)

and also provide the foundation for the analysis of wildlife habitat. We also received a number of 

comments regarding the predicted changes in habitat for species associated with mature forest 

conditions like the spotted owl, goshawk, and marten. 

Geographic information system (GIS) information for California Wildlife Habitat Relationship

(CDFG 2005) habitats were used to calculate the amount of high and moderate capability habitat 

for terrestrial wildlife species in the LTBMU. For a detailed description of high and moderate 

capability habitat, including a description of these habitat types associated with each species 

please refer to the Biological Evaluation. 

The analysis area for direct and indirect potential effects is defined as all NFS lands within the 

LTBMU administrative boundary. All measures of effect are evaluated at a basin-wide scale and 

based on the assumption that the revised LTBMU Forest Plan will be programmatic in nature 

and not area-specific and/or project-specific. All effects are evaluated on a 15-year basis for the 

anticipated life of the Plan; short terms effects will be addressed in project-specific NEPA 

analysis as projects under the revised Forest Plan come online.

3-474 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Assumptions

In addition to universal assumptions described in the introduction to Chapter 3 of the FEIS, the 

following assumptions have been made:

• Expansion of recreation would be correlated with increased use.

• Increased access to Forest System lands would be correlated with increased use of access 

and increased dispersed recreation activities.

• Alternative A represents the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) as written and as 

currently implemented.

• Creation of new developed recreation sites (e.g., facilities, campgrounds) would be 

compatible with natural resource objectives.

• Expansion of ski resort operational boundaries under Alternatives A, B, C, and E means 

additional winter and summer use, and infrastructure (e.g., ski runs, facilities, lifts).

3.4.23.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Major coniferous forest types in the Lake Tahoe Basin include Jeffrey pine, white fir -mixed 

conifer, and red fir, and there are old growth examples in each type. Forested habitat in the 

LTBMU has been influenced by major historic land uses and practices such as Comstock era 

logging (1860-1920), cattle and sheep grazing (1850’s-1950’s), rapid human development (1960-

1980), and fire suppression throughout urbanization of the basin (1911-present). The result is a 

landscape with altered tree species composition, reduced vegetation structural complexity, 

decreased extent of old-growth forests, degraded biological diversity, increased risk of highintensity wildfires, and altered ecosystems functions, such as water uptake, tree longevity, and 

decay characteristics (Manley 2004). 

Contemporary old-growth forests are fewer in the basin than prior to the mid-1800s and have 

denser understories, a shift in species composition towards more white fir and incense cedar and 

less Jeffrey pine, and there is a higher incidence of tree disease and mortality (Manley et al. 2000 

and Barbour et al. 2002 as cited in Manley 2004). In the montane zone, tree species composition 

and diameter have changed such that there are more small-diameter and shade tolerant trees in 

the understory, particularly white fir, and fewer large-diameter trees (Barbour et al. 2002 as cited 

in Manley et al. 2010). In general, fire suppression and logging have contributed to current 

forest conditions that have higher tree densities in the smaller size classes, a shift to firs over 

pines, and a greater amount of fuels in the understory (Barbour et al. 2002 and Taylor 2004 as 

cited in Manley et al. 2010). The dense, homogenous and simplified structure of forests in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin can lead to a reduced potential to support diverse species assemblages. 

Non-coniferous habitats in the Basin have also changed as a result of major historic land uses 

and practices. Aspen stands in the Sierra Nevada, including the LTBMU, are being replaced 

(shaded out) by conifers due to changes in historic fire regime. Montane chaparral on the 

landscape has diminished, having been converted to forest (Nagel and Taylor 2005 as cited in 

Manley et al. 2010). Limited management activities in proximity to stream riparian zones have 

resulted in the invasion of shade-tolerant conifers into many riparian areas (Manley et al. 2010) 

that compete with existing riparian vegetation (Haugo and Halpern 2007, Jones et al. 2005, Lang 

and Halpern 2007, Stam et al. 2008 all cited in Manley et al. 2010). Approximately half of the 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-475
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Basin’s meadows have been permanently lost, fragmented, or altered (Cobourn 2006 and ElliotFisk et al. 1997 as cited in Manley et al. 2010). Grazing is no longer prevalent in meadows in 

the Lake Tahoe Basin, but there may be substantial legacies of this former major land use 

(particularly altered plant and animal species composition), similar to circumstances elsewhere in 

the Sierra Nevada (Dull 1999 as cited in Manley et al. 2010). 

The LTBMU is recognized as one of the nation’s most popular recreation areas and receives 

approximately 5.7 million visits per year. The high concentration of recreation activities and 

diverse types of recreation activities (e.g., motorized, non-motorized, developed, dispersed) 

affect the occurrence and abundance of wildlife, structure of wildlife communities, as well as 

condition of habitat. The LTBMU manages campgrounds, resorts and lodges, day use sites, 

recreation residences, and ski areas, and also provides special use permits for management of 

developed recreation facilities, outfitter and guide activities and organized events. The LTBMU 

also manages many trails and roads that provide access to dispersed and developed recreation 

activities. Examples of summer dispersed recreation activities include, but are not limited to 

camping, mountain biking, rock climbing, hunting, hiking, Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) travel, 

and dirt bike riding. Examples of winter dispersed recreation activities include, but are not 

limited to back-country skiing, cross country skiing, sledding, snow play, snowshoeing, and 

Over Snow Vehicle (OSV) travel (i.e., snowmobiling). Recreation activities occur throughout the 

Basin but many highly concentrated activities occur along the lake shore where there tend to also 

be a variety of sensitive habitat types (e.g., meadows, marshes, etc.) and species. This is 

particularly true of the south shore, an area that has particularly high recreation use and also a 

high concentration of sensitive wildlife species and habitats. 

In general, hunting is not considered a major recreational activity in the Lake Tahoe basin. The 

large patchwork of campgrounds and communities throughout the basin as well as the pockets of 

land under non-federal ownership likely limits hunting opportunities. Still, hunting is a 

permissible activity on NFS lands in the LTBMU but is regulated by the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). The state agencies 

issue permits/licenses for hunting of common species, including big game (e.g., deer bear), 

upland/small game (e.g., quail, grouse), and waterfowl. These agencies also impose a limit on 

the number of individuals of each species that can be hunted. 

Changes in temperature, precipitation, and fire behavior have been occurring in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin and throughout the Sierra Nevada and are likely influencing terrestrial wildlife species. 

Mean annual temperature has risen by about two degrees Fahrenheit and precipitation has 

increased during the last century in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Safford 2010). Overall there appears 

to be a strong upward trend in air and lake temperature, rainfall intensity, a shift from snow to 

rain, earlier seasonal snowmelt events, and increased inter-annual variability in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin (Coats 2010). The Sierra Nevada has experienced an increased frequency of fires since the 

1980’s (Westerling et al. 2006) and an increase in the mean and maximum fire size, total burned 

area, and fire severity between the early 1980’s and 2007 (Miller et al. 2009); increases are 

attributed to the interaction between climate change and increasing forest fuels. 

Changing climate conditions are likely influencing terrestrial wildlife species in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin but our understanding of the effects are not well understood and predictions are limited. 

Climate change has been correlated with latitudinal and altitudinal range boundary shifts 

3-476 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

(Parmesan 2006, Moritz et al. 2008, Crimmins et al. 2011) as well as phenological (timing) shifts 

(e.g., migration and blooming) (Parmesan & Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003) in a variety of plants 

and animals. Uphill and higher elevation range shifts in response to historical warming have 

been well documented (Lawler et al. 2009). For example, in Yosemite National Park, Moritz et 

al. (2008) found substantial upward shifts in elevation limits of 50% of small mammal species 

sampled as well as an expansion of ranges in low elevation species, contraction of ranges in high 

elevation species, and changes in the community composition at mid- and high-elevations. 

Forister et al. (2010) found a similar upward shift in elevation range of butterfly species in the 

Sierra Nevada. In contrast, recent research on range shifts of 73 vascular plant species in various 

California mountain ranges over the last century showed that about half of them had shifted the 

center of their range slightly downhill, in response to increasing water balance due to rising 

precipitation, which has slightly outpaced increasing evapotranspiration due to increasing 

temperatures (Crimmins et al. 2011). Based on their results, the authors suggest that cooler and 

wetter sites at higher elevations have potential to be more sensitive to changes in precipitation 

than warmer and drier sites at lower elevations which would be more sensitive to temperature 

changes. Under changing climate scenarios, temperature and precipitation can interact in a 

variety of unusual ways that influence vegetation. Crimmins et al. (2011) suggest that downhill 

shifts in species’ ranges are expected to be more likely at these higher elevation wetter sites 

(Crimmins et al. 2011). Although these results are not specific to terrestrial wildlife species, 

which have been found to have experienced uphill and higher elevation shifts in the Sierra 

Nevada (e.g., Mortiz et al. 2008, Forister et al. 2010), some terrestrial wildlife species could shift 

ranges in response to precipitation changes. For example, repeated bird surveys along Grinnell 

transects in the entire Sierra Nevada have provided evidence that bird species may be tracking 

both precipitation and temperature or either over time (Tingley et al. 2009). It can be expected 

that range shifts in terrestrial wildlife species will occur although the type (up or down) and pace 

of shifts are not well understood at this time. 

It can also be expected that community composition will change with range shifts; related 

species and species in the same community may respond differently to changing environmental 

variables and these disparate responses may result in the breaking up of existing communities 

and formation of novel communities (Root et al. 2003, Mortiz et al. 2008). Novel communities 

that are formed will present new challenges in terms of predator/prey relationships, parasitism, 

change in foraging resources, among other things. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

Below are the descriptions of the various habitat type values in the LTBMU to terrestrial wildlife 

species. 

Wet Meadow 

Wet meadow habitat can provide nesting, burrowing, cover, and/or foraging habitat for a variety 

of terrestrial wildlife species including fossorial mammals (e.g., gophers, moles, and marmots), 

meadow nesting birds (e.g., willow flycatcher and mountain bluebird [Sialia currucoides]), 

herbivores (e.g., mule deer and bears), insectivorous bats, and mammalian carnivores and 

raptors. Wet meadows are important nesting, breeding, and foraging habitat for willow 

flycatcher, a region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species, and yellow warbler (Dendroica 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-477
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

petechia). Meadows also support a number of nest predators such as chipmunks (Tamias spp.), 

Douglas squirrel (Tamiascriurus douglasii), and long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata) (Cain et 

al. 2006). Wet meadows support a variety of insects and are important foraging habitat for 

insectivorous bats. At least five bat species, including Townsend’s big-eared bat, a Region 5 

Forest Service Sensitive Species, have been recorded in meadows in the LTBMU (Borgman and 

Morrison 2008). Meadows can serve as potential foraging locations for a variety of carnivorous 

mammals and raptors that feed on small mammals, and ungulates such as mule deer. 

Lakeside Marsh and Shore Habitat 

Marshes are wetlands where standing water exists year-round, except in shallower areas during 

late summer or unusually dry years and may support the growth of emergent plants, such as 

cattails, bulrushes, reeds, and sedges, as well as many floating and submergent plants (Caduto 

1990 as cited in Manley et al. 2000). Marshes can provide valuable nesting, foraging, and cover 

opportunities for a variety of waterbirds, including ducks, shorebirds, and rails (Manley et al. 

2000). Beaches are numerous and shoreline extensive in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Both marshes 

and shoreline habitat can provide essential nesting and foraging opportunities for a number of 

raptors including bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon.

Montane riparian 

Riparian areas consist of vegetation commonly associated with lentic (standing) or lotic 

(running) water, such as willows, alders, aspen, and meadows (Manley et al. 2000). Riparian 

areas occur throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin and have an exceptionally high value for many 

wildlife species. However, many of the montane riparian communities in the LTBMU are 

currently overstocked with conifers. Riparian areas provide water, thermal cover, migration and 

movement corridors and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities (Grenfell Jr. 1988). The shape 

of many riparian zones, particularly the linear nature of streams, maximizes the development of a 

natural edge which is used by a variety of mammals as movement corridors, such as marten a 

region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species. Montane riparian habitats also serve as important 

nesting, foraging, and cover habitat for a variety of birds. These habitats are also especially 

important for bats as they follow the stream course foraging for insects; other bats (i.e., western 

red bat [Lasiurus blossevillii]) prefer to nest in riparian vegetation.

Aspen 

Intact aspen communities are valuable nesting, foraging, and cover habitat for passerine and 

other bird species, rodents, large native ungulates, and raptors. The Lake Tahoe Watershed 

Assessment declared aspen groves as an Ecologically Significant Area (ESA) because they have 

an exceptionally diverse array of associated species and are uncommon in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

(covering less than 0.5 percent of the basin’s land area) (Manley et al. 2000). Aspen stands in 

the Sierra Nevada, including the LTBMU, are being replaced (shaded out) by conifers due to 

changes in historic fire regime. In response to the Watershed Assessment the LTBMU has been 

implementing a multi-year restoration project focused on restoring aspen stands throughout the 

basin that are at risk of loss from the landscape. Aspen stands typically support a high diversity, 

richness, and abundance of birds as compared to adjacent habitats (Richardson and Heath 2004), 

3-478 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

and several bird species have been shown to have a strong affinity for aspen, including northern 

goshawk, red-breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus ruber), dusky flycatcher (Empidonax gentilis), 

warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), and MacGillivray’s 

warbler (Oporornis tolmiei) (Richardson and Heath 2004). Willow flycatcher, although more 

strongly associated with montane meadows, has been detected in meadow habitat with aspen in 

the LTBMU (Bombay et al. 2003b). Aspen stands are also habitats favored by a variety of 

cavity nesters such as bluebirds, sapsuckers, downy woodpeckers, and chickadees (Verner and 

Purcell 1988). Several mammal species are also associated with aspen and include ungulates 

such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), rodents such as pocket gophers (Thomomys), voles 

(Microtus), shrews (Sorex), and mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) (Beier 1989, Coggins and 

Conovers 2005 and Loft et al. 1991 as cited in Manley et al. 2010). 

Jeffrey pine 

A number of terrestrial wildlife species use Jeffrey pine habitats by seeking cover in the 

herbaceous vegetation layer or downed logs, nesting or denning in snags and live trees, and/or 

foraging on pine seeds. The current condition/trend of Jeffrey pine in the LTBMU is provided in 

Table 3-37 of section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). The understory herbaceous vegetation layer 

that is generally associated with early seral stages and open canopy stands, including grass and 

forb species as well as montane chaparral shrubs, sagebrush, and bitterbrush can provide cover 

for a variety of terrestrial wildlife species especially small mammals and ground nesting birds. 

More closed canopy stands can preclude the growth of understory vegetation and consequently 

reduce wildlife species richness associated with this feature. The Jeffrey pine type is composed 

predominantly of vigorous trees, but dead and declining trees are a component and provide for 

snags and downed logs which can provide for rich nesting, denning, and cover habitat for 

terrestrial wildlife. A number of cavity-nesting bird species (e.g., bluebirds, woodpeckers, 

nuthatches, chickadees) often use Jeffrey pine habitat for nesting (especially in snags) and 

foraging (Gucker 2007). California spotted owls use Jeffrey pine habitat for foraging and for 

nesting when large-diameter trees are present (Gucker 2007). The value of the Jeffrey pine 

forest type as a habitat for wildlife is also due to the food value of the Jeffrey pine seeds and 

seedlings. Pine seeds are included in the diet of more wildlife species than any other genus 

except oak (McBride 1988). American black bears, a variety of small mammals, and many bird 

species use Jeffrey pine habitats and/or feed on Jeffrey pine seedlings or seeds (Gucker 2007). 

Small mammals such as chipmunks and squirrels often cache and feed on Jeffrey pine seeds. 

Jeffrey pine seeds are an important food resource for Clark’s nutcracker (Gucker 2007). The 

bark and foliage also serve as important food sources for squirrels and mule deer (McBride 

1988). 

White fir-mixed conifer 

In the Lake Tahoe Basin, the white fir-mixed conifer forest type is dominated by white fir, with 

Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, red fir and incense cedar as important associates. The current 

condition/trend of white fir/mixed conifer in the LTBMU is provided in Table 3-37 of section 

3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). Snags and downed logs in this habitat type, as with Jeffrey pine, can 

provide nesting, cover, and denning habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including cavity 

dependent species. White fir is the preferred tree species for insect-gleaning yellow-rumped 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-479
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

warblers and western tanagers, and is also commonly used by other insect-gleaning birds, such as 

mountain chickadee, chestnut-backed chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, and blackheaded 

grosbeak (Shimamoto 1988). The extent of white fir-mixed conifer in the LTBMU and across the 

Sierra Nevada is increasing steadily under fire suppression. Shade tolerant white fir trees are 

filling in stands previously comprised of Jeffrey pine. Fire-suppressed white fir-mixed conifer 

forest stands tend to have high tree densities in the smaller size classes, few shade intolerant pine 

associates, and a large amount of fuels in the understory. Generally, the high density of trees 

prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor and limits the shrub cover. A reduced shrub 

cover limits potential cover and foraging locations for a variety of terrestrial wildlife species, 

especially small mammals and birds and their predators (e.g., spotted owls). In addition, a high 

density of small trees can also potentially limit the ability of California spotted owl and northern 

goshawk to navigate through forest stands. In areas where the canopy is more heterogeneous and 

shrub cover is high, this habitat feature can provide cover and foraging opportunities for a variety 

of terrestrial wildlife species. 

Red fir 

As with Jeffrey pine and white fir-mixed conifer habitat types, red fir forests can provide habitat 

for a number of terrestrial wildlife species. Marten prefer large snags, stumps, and logs in closed 

canopies of these forests for den sites (Cope 1993a). Other animals that use California red fir 

forests include fisher, wolverine, black bear, squirrels, chickadee, pileated woodpecker, great 

gray owl, Williamson's sapsucker, and pocket gopher (Cope 1993a). The cones are cut and 

cached by squirrels. Deer browse new growth in the spring (Cope 1993a). Infrequent, low to 

mixed severity fires are characteristic in this type, including throughout spotted owl and goshawk 

PACs and HRCAs. The current condition/trend of red fir in the LTBMU is provided in Table 

3-39 of section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). Where the canopy is open, a higher shrub layer exists 

in the understory (generally in higher elevations but patchy) and provides cover and foraging 

opportunities for a variety of small mammals and birds. 

Lodgepole pine 

Mammals and bird species use lodgepole pine forests for food, cover, and nesting/denning 

habitat. Dead or dying trees provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting birds (Cope 1993b). The 

fallen branches from these trees provide sites for ground-nesting birds and mammals. Although 

dead trees may be hazardous to elk and deer that are traveling quickly, dense stands of Sierra 

lodgepole pine provide excellent escape and resting cover (Cope 1993b). The seeds are a food 

source for squirrels, chipmunks, birds, and mice (Cope 1993b). Riparian lodgepole stands in the 

LTBMU are often very dense and comprised of many thin-stemmed individuals and high 

densities of snags and down timber. Understory diversity can range from very low to very high, 

depending on the availability of sunlight at the ground surface. Where stands are dense and 

sunlight to the forest floor is limited, understory shrub layer may be low or absent, limiting the 

opportunities for cover and foraging. Stands at meadow and lake edges are often much more 

open, and may support high levels of shrub and herb cover, and possible greater diversity of 

species. In drier stands, which also form part of the subalpine forest, the tree canopy is usually 

open (<50% cover) and characterized by trees of large diameter that can be used for nesting. 

3-480 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Subalpine forest 

Major tree species in subalpine forest include mountain hemlock, whitebark pine, red fir, 

lodgepole pine, western white pine, and sierra juniper. Subalpine forest occurs on ground that is 

frozen for much of the year. Coniferous forests at high elevations in California typically support 

fewer species of birds and mammals than any other major forest type in the State (Verner and 

Purcell 1988). The reasons, though, not clearly established, probably involve some combination 

of climate, short growing season, lower primary productivity, moisture stress, and lower 

production of insects and other invertebrates that provide food resources for many vertebrates 

(Verner and Purcell 1988). Great gray owl, pileated woodpecker, marten, and wolverine are 

known to occur in these habitat types (Verner and Purcell 1988). Small mammals and birds (e.g., 

Clark’s nutcracker) cache and disperse seeds in these habitat types. 

Montane chaparral 

The growth form of montane chaparral species can vary from treelike to prostrate. Its structure is 

affected by site quality, history of disturbance (e.g., fire, erosion, logging) and the influence of 

browsing animals (Risser and Fry 1988). For example, on shallow granitic soils in the Sierra 

Nevada, low dense growths of pinemat manzanita and huckleberry oak characterize an edaphic 

climax community, associated with scattered conifers and much exposed granite. Montane 

chaparral is characterized by evergreen species; however, deciduous or partially deciduous 

species may also be present. Understory vegetation in the mature chaparral is largely absent.

Conifer and oak trees may occur in sparse stands or as scattered individuals within the chaparral 

type. Montane chaparral can provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Numerous rodents 

inhabit chaparral. Deer and other herbivores often make extensive use of chaparral (Risser and 

Fry 1988) Montane chaparral provides critical summer range foraging areas, escape cover and 

fawning habitat. In the Sierra, fawning areas are frequently found where the chaparral lies 

adjacent to or contains an interspersion of perennial grass or meadow-riparian habitat (Risser and 

Fry 1988). However when chaparral is mature, the structure may be impenetrable to large 

mammals (Risser and Fry 1988). Some small herbivores use chaparral species in fall and winter 

when grasses are not in abundance (Risser and Fry 1988). Many birds find a variety of habitat 

needs in the montane chaparral. It provides seeds, fruits, insects, protection from predators and 

climate, as well as singing, roosting and nesting sites (Risser and Fry 1988).

Cliffs, Caves, and Cave-Surrogates 

Large cliffs may provide habitat for a variety of raptors in the LTBMU including peregrine 

falcon, osprey, bald eagle, and golden eagle. Peregrine falcons currently nest in cliff habitat in 

the LTBMU; some of these cliffs are also used for dispersed recreation activities such as rock 

climbing. Caves and cave surrogates (e.g., mines, adits, and vacant buildings) can provide 

habitat for many bat species, including Townsend’s big-eared bat. At least three large, 

abandoned mine shafts and adits exist on the LTBMU and may provide cave-like habitats. No 

natural caverns are yet known on the LTBMU, although natural caverns have been discovered on 

National Forest System lands located immediately adjacent to the LTBMU administrative 

boundary.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-481
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Protected Activity Centers and Home Range Core Areas 

In addition to the individual habitat types described above, the LTBMU manages 22 California 

spotted owl and 35 northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs), for a total of 6,763 

acres (6,261 acres on LTBMU only) and 8,110 acres (7,911 acres on LTBMU only) respectively. 

California spotted owl PACs include the best available 300 acres of habitat on NFS lands in as 

compact a unit as possible surrounding a territorial owl’s activity center. Northern goshawk 

PACs include the best available 200 acres of forested habitat on NFS lands in the largest 

contiguous patches possible and surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding 

territories detected on NFS lands. PACs are managed to meet the life history requirements of 

spotted owls and goshawks. As a result, management activities that would modify the habitat so 

that it trends away from desired conditions are prohibited.

The LTBMU also manages 22 California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) for a 

total of 21,368 acres (19,732 acres on LTBMU only). HRCAs on the LTBMU include 1,000 

acres of the best available and contiguous California spotted owl habitat in the closest proximity 

to the owl activity center. The acreage in the 300-acre PAC counts toward the total HRCA 

acreage. As with PACs, HRCAs are also managed to meet the life history requirements of 

spotted owls. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Species

The following species accounts provide information for special-status species in the LTBMU, 

including habitat associations, threats, management direction under the 1988 LTBMU Forest 

Plan (as amended) and other applicable directives, as well as historical and contemporary 

occurrence in the Lake Tahoe Basin. For additional information on species please refer to the 

Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. MIS are described separately in Section 3.4.14 of 

this chapter. 

Pacific Fisher – Candidate Species Protected under ESA 

The Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) is currently a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

candidate (C) species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Fisher is 

typically associated with contiguous late successional forested habitat with relatively dense 

canopy cover and the presence of large live trees and snags and logs, although second-growth 

and non-forested habitat use has been detected (Lofroth et al. 2011). In California, habitat loss 

and modification in the 1800s may have contributed to range contractions but there are few 

documented records to verify this (Lofroth et al. 2010). 

The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides designation criteria, desired conditions, 

and standards and guidelines for the protection of fisher den sites in the Sierra Nevada, including 

limited operating periods (LOPs), restrictions on fuels treatments, and the requirement to 

mitigate impacts where a den site has been disturbed. 

The current North American distribution is substantially reduced from the historic distribution 

(Gibilisco 1994). The historic range in California and Oregon included the southern Cascade 

Ranges, northern Coastal Ranges, and Sierra Nevada Ranges (Zielinski et al. 1995, Zeilinksi et 

al. 2005) including the Lake Tahoe basin. Within California, the range of the fisher has since 

3-482 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

contracted and now appears to consist of two isolated native populations: one in the northwestern 

portion of the state that extends into southwestern Oregon, and the other in the southern Sierra 

Nevada (Zielinksi et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2005, Slauson et al. 2007, Lofroth et al. 2010). Few 

fisher detections have been made in or adjacent to the LTBMU, the most recent records of this 

species on or adjacent to the LTBMU include: (1) the south shore of Lake Tahoe south of the 

South Upper Truckee bridge in Christmas Valley in 1967, (2) just outside the western Lake 

Tahoe basin to the west of Barker Pass on the Tahoe National Forest in 1972; and (3) the west 

shore of Lake Tahoe in Sugar Pine State Park near the mouth of General Creek in 1984 (CDFG 

2008).Therefore, due to the lack of detections in the LTBMU within the last 10 years and recent 

data regarding the geographic range of the species in California, it is assumed that the LTBMU is 

outside the contemporary range of the species and will continue to be outside the range during 

the life of the Plan. 

The geographic range of the fisher is changing due to reintroduction efforts in the northern Sierra 

Nevada and is predicted to continue changing with climate change. Nevertheless, the range is 

not expected to include the LTBMU within the life of the Plan. Since 2009, California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (CADFW) has been re-introducing fishers into Sierra Pacific 

Industry’s Stirling Management Area which includes portions of Tehama, Butte, and Plumas 

counties and is approximately 80 miles northeast of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In a study of climate 

change effects on species in the genus Martes, Lawler et al. (2011) concluded that macroclimate 

conditions closely correlated with fisher presence in California are likely to change greatly over 

the next century, resulting in a possibly pronounced loss of suitable habitat with the largest 

climate impacts occurring at the southernmost latitudes of their range (i.e. in the southern Sierra 

Nevada). It is within the realm of possibilities that the range of the species may shift up in 

altitude and north. Although Lawler et al. (2011) noted that fisher habitat is driven to a great 

extent by mesotopographic and local vegetation features that could not be incorporated into their 

climatic models, fire occurrence and behavior have substantial effects on local vegetation and 

these factors are driven to a large extent by climate/weather, so they also looked at stand-level 

implications of fire under a series of future fire scenarios. Based on this analysis, Lawler et al. 

(2011) recommended protecting fisher habitat through targeted forest-fuel treatment, and 

applying more liberal fire-management policies to naturally ignited fires during moderate 

weather conditions.

North American Wolverine – Proposed for listing under ESA, Region 5 Forest Service 

Sensitive Species 

The North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species

and is proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2013). 

Wolverine use diverse coniferous forest types (Copeland 1996, Hornocker and Hash 1981) and 

unlike fisher and marten, this species also uses non-forested alpine habitats (Banci 1994 and 

Copeland 1996). This habitat generalist appears to select areas that are free of significant human 

disturbance and requires den sites associated with structural cover (e.g., boulders and persistent 

snow cover) in cirque basins or avalanche chutes at high elevations (summarized in USDA 

2001). The presence of deep and persistent snow appears be a major contributing factor to 

habitat selection by wolverines. Wolverine select areas that are cold and receive enough winter 

precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-483
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

2010). It would appear that wolverine year-round habitat use also takes place almost entirely 

within the area defined by deep persistent spring snow (Copeland et al. 2010). No records exist 

of wolverines denning in snow free habitats despite the wide availability of these habitats within 

their range (USFWS 2013). A major threat to this species is loss of alpine habitat from climate 

change. Other potential threats to this species include habitat loss and fragmentation and 

increasing human presence. The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides designation 

criteria, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines for the detections of wolverines 

including detection and verification procedures, the use of LOPs, and follow up surveys. 

Extensive carnivore surveys have occurred on the LTBMU over the past 10 years and wolverines 

have not been detected. An estimated 198 acres of high and moderate capability denning habitat, 

32,609 acres of high and moderate capability resting habitat, and 34,153 acres of high and 

moderate capability foraging habitat currently exist for wolverine within the LTBMU. 

Wolverines have been detected on or adjacent to the LTBMU since 1971 but none of the 

following detections were associated with a den site: (1) on Echo Summit at Highway 50 in 1941 

(2) approximately one mile northwest of the LTBMU near the Lower Truckee River at the east 

end of Squaw Valley in 1953, (3) approximately 5.5 miles west of the LTBMU near Strawberry, 

CA in 1971, (4) approximately one mile northwest of the analysis area in Emerald Bay between 

Highway 50 and Eagle Lake in 1990, and (5) approximately 2 miles west of the LTBMU near 

Island Lake on the Eldorado National Forest in 1994 (CDFG 2008). During February and March 

2008, and late winter and spring 2009, a lone male wolverine was detected approximately 14-19 

miles northwest of the LTBMU near Truckee, California. This was the first verified record of a 

wolverine from California since 1922. Agency biologists and researchers determined that the 

wolverine is most closely related to, and most likely came from, a population on the western 

edge of the Rocky Mountains rather than either the historic California population or 

contemporary northern Cascades (Washington) population (Moriarty et al. 2009). This attempted 

dispersal event may represent a continuation of the wolverine expansion in the contiguous

United States and other wolverines may have travelled to the Sierra Nevada and remain 

undetected (DOI 2013). However, there is no evidence that California currently hosts a 

wolverine population or that female wolverines have made, or are likely to make, similar 

dispersal movements (USFWS 2013). In summary, detections of wolverine or their den sites 

have not occurred within 5 miles of the Lake Tahoe Basin within the past two years; however the 

contemporary range of this species appears uncertain and may include limited portions of the 

Basin.

Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Forest Service Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by a Regional 

Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by (FSM 2670.5): 

a) Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density.

b) Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species' existing distribution. 

3-484 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Western bumblebee – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) was recently added to the Region 5 Forest 

Service Sensitive species list. This species is associated with habitat with flowers for nectar and 

rodent burrows for hives. 

The species is experiencing severe declines in distribution and abundance due to a variety of 

factors including diseases and loss of genetic diversity (Tommasi et al. 2004, Cameron et al. 

2011, Koch et al. 2012). The overall status of populations in the west is largely dependent on 

geographic region: populations west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains are 

experiencing dire circumstances with steeply declining numbers, while those to the east of this 

dividing line are more secure with relatively unchanged population sizes. The reasons for these 

differences are not known. 

Bumble bees are threatened by many kinds of habitat alterations that may fragment or reduce the 

availability of flowers that produce the nectar and pollen they require, and decrease the number 

of abandoned rodent burrows that provide nest and hibernation sites for queens. Major threats 

that alter landscapes and habitat required by bumble bees include agricultural and urban 

development. In the absence of fire, native conifers encroach upon meadows which also 

decrease foraging and nesting habitat available for bumble bees. According to studies done in 

England (Goulson et al. 2008), grazing during the autumn and winter months may provide 

excellent bumble bee habitat and prevent the accumulation of coarse grasses. Heavy grazing and 

high forage utilization should be avoided since flowering plants providing necessary nectar and 

pollen may become unavailable, particularly during the spring and summer when queens, 

workers and males are all present and active.

There are only three collection records from national forest lands since 2000: two are on the 

Plumas, and one is on the LTBMU. 

Northern Goshawk – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species and a 

TRPA Special Interest Species. Goshawks use areas with high canopy closure, a high density of 

large trees, and open understories (Keane 1999, USDA 2001). 

Some of the threats facing goshawk include habitat loss and fragmentation (e.g., loss of large 

diameter trees), forest structure changes and changes in prey populations due to fire suppression 

and climate change, risk of habitat loss due to stand-replacing fires, and disturbance from human 

activity in and near territories. A study conducted by Morrison et al. (2011) in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin indicated that northern goshawks are susceptible to human disturbance; human activity 

was twice as high within infrequently occupied territories as compared to frequently occupied 

territories. Many kinds of human activities have been documented to affect raptors by altering 

habitats; physically harming or killing eggs, young, or adults; and by disrupting normal behavior 

(Postovit and Postovit 1987, Delany et al. 1999 as cited in Morrison et al. 2011). A recent study 

on nesting northern goshawk response to logging truck noise found that while goshawks alerted 

(turned their head in the direction of the noise) to the noise they did not flush and response was 

inversely proportional to the distance of the nest from the road (Grubb et al. 2012).

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-485
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

TRPA Code of Ordinance designated disturbance zone for goshawks is the 500 acres of best 

suitable habitat surrounding a population site, which shall include a 0.25-mile radius around each 

nest site. The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) also provides designation criteria, desired 

conditions, management objectives, and standards and guidelines for the protection of northern 

goshawk nests and activity centers, delineated as Protected Activity Centers (PAC). Goshawk 

PACs include the best available 200 acres (more or less depending on availability of suitable 

vegetation) of the highest quality nesting habitat, and the most recent nest site and alternate nests 

within a goshawk breeding territory as described in management direction for the forest (USDA 

2004). 

There are currently 35 northern goshawk PACs on the LTBMU, following a re-mapping effort in 

2008 to incorporate the most up-to-date detection, nest location, and land boundary information 

available. Three PACs were added in 2013 following an assessment of new nesting behavior 

during the 2012 season. In the last 10 years (2003-2012), goshawks have been detected in 30 

(94%) of the 32 PACs that were monitored during this time (excludes PACs added in 2013). 

Data for northern goshawk in the LTBMU are stored on the USDA Natural Resource Manager 

Natural Resource Information System (NRM NRIS) (USDA 2013b).

Bald Eagle – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was federally delisted as threatened under ESA in 

2007 and was selected as a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species. This species is protected 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and the winter and nesting population 

in the LTBMU is designated as a TRPA Special Interest Species. Bald eagles require open water 

with juxtaposed mature trees or steep cliffs for nesting, perching, foraging, and roosting (Bent 

1961 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). This species typically perches in “large, robustly limbed 

trees, on snags, on broken topped trees, or on rocks near water” (Peterson 1986 and Laves and 

Romsos 2000). Habitat (unpubl.USFS data 1994) and perch sites (Laves and Romsos 2000) 

identified in the Lake Tahoe Basin indicate that local bald eagles prefer late successional stands 

(particularly Jeffrey pine) and trees that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree 

canopy (particularly trees greater than 40 inches dbh, greater than 98 feet tall, and dead topped 

trees with robust, open branch structures). 

The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USFWS 1986) states that the main threats to this 

species in Zone 28 (Sierra Nevada Mountains) are disturbance at wintering grounds and loss of 

potential nest habitat. Bald eagles are also sensitive to human disturbance. In Washington, bald 

eagles have been found to be adversely affected by recreation that involves both pedestrian 

traffic and boat use by adversely affected feeding activity (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998).

Stalmaster and Newman (1978) found that wintering bald eagles were adversely affected by 

human disturbance and distribution patterns were significantly changed by human activity. 

Eagles were displaced in areas of high human activity and moved to areas of lower human 

activity. Flush distances were lower when the disturbance was on land than in the water and 

lower still if the eagle couldn’t see the cause of the disturbance. Knight and Knight (1984) found 

that bald eagles became habituated to canoes in areas where they were common.

TRPA Code of Ordinances includes the designation of a 0.5 mile radius buffer around a bald 

eagle nest that shall remain free from disturbance and have also designated bald eagle winter 

3-486 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

disturbance free zones in the LTBMU. The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) was 

developed prior to the delisting and also provides standards and guidelines to identify potential 

bald eagle nesting sites and manage them to encourage the reestablishment of four pairs. In May 

2000, also prior to the delisting, the LTBMU Bald Eagle Management Plan was prepared in an 

effort to recommend actions that will encourage the recovery of the species in the Basin. 

Bald eagles have been recorded in the Lake Tahoe basin since 1874 and occur year-round. Up 

until 2012, the LTBMU was conducting annual bald eagle nesting surveys in conjunction with 

osprey nesting surveys and in cooperation with California Department of Parks and Recreation,

Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). USFS no longer 

participates in these surveys but receives the data from TRPA. This species has been known to 

breed at Marlette Lake on the east side of Lake Tahoe (Nevada State Park land) and at Emerald 

Bay (California State Park land) on the south shore. There are two nesting territories in the 

Basin, one at Marlette Lake on Nevada State Parks land (one of the nests is an infrequently used 

alternate nest) and the other at Emerald Bay on California State Parks land. Bald eagle numbers 

peak during the fall and winter, corresponding with kokanee salmon spawning activity (Murphy 

and Knopp 2000). The LTBMU has hosted and now participates in (and Tahoe Institute for 

Natural Sciences (TINS) hosts) an annual mid-winter bald eagle counts. An average of 12 bald 

eagles (range 7-18) has been identified during the mid-winter surveys between 1999 and 2012. 

The number of individuals detected fluctuates annually; nearly twice as many individuals were 

detected in 2011 (N=17) as in 2010 (N=9) but 2012 had similar counts to 2009 (N=10). The 

LTBMU currently manages approximately 370 acres of the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek 

wetlands and meadows north of Highway 89 in the south shore region as bald eagle wintering 

habitat from October 15 through March 15 annually. 

Great Gray Owl– Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species. Great gray 

owls typically forage in meadows and early seral-stage habitats that support sufficient prey, 

primarily Microtus and Thomomys spp. (USDA 2004, Sears 2006). Nesting and roosting occur in 

adjacent conifer forests, generally in areas where canopy cover averages greater than 40 percent 

(USDA 2004). Some of the potential threats to this species include timber harvest, fire 

suppression, post-fire salvage harvest, grazing, and alteration of hydrological regimes that has 

reduced the number of large conifers and oak trees used for nesting, as well as the quality of 

meadows and forest stands used for foraging (Dull 1999, Hutto and Gallo 2006, Saab et al. 

2009). Additional threats include West Nile virus, direct and indirect human disturbance from 

recreational activities, and climate change (Gancz et al. 2004, Rauscher et al. 2008, Miller et al. 

2009, Hull et al. 2010). The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides designation 

criteria, desired conditions, management objectives, and standards and guidelines for the 

protection great gray owl activity centers, delineated as Protected Activity Centers (PAC). 

There are no PACs for great gray owls on the LTBMU and it is presumed that this species does 

not occur in the LTBMU and will not occur during the life of the Plan. Surveys for great gray 

owl have not been conducted on the LTBMU and this species has not been detected during largescale surveys conducted on the Basin for other owls. Nearby, surveys have detected great gray 

owls on the Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Tahoe National Forests but not on the Plumas or 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-487
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Sequoia National Forests. The nearest detection of this species to the Lake Tahoe basin occurred 

near Carson Pass in 1971 approximately 1.1 miles south of the LTBMU. A second great gray 

owl detection was reported near Grover Hot Springs State Park, approximately 7.9 miles 

southeast of the LTBMU in 1979. Based on the lack of detections on the Forest and the 

presumption that this species likely would have been detected during surveys for other owls if it 

were present, the great gray owl is not expected to occur in the Lake Tahoe basin. 

California Spotted Owl – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) is a Region 5 Forest Service 

Sensitive Species and a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the late seral, closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat on the LTBMU. Additional information for the California spotted owl 

as an MIS is provided in the section entitled Management Indicator Species.

Spotted owl nesting and roosting locations are strongly associated with mature coniferous forests 

with high tree canopy cover (≥70%), multilayered canopies, and an abundance of large trees and 

snags (Forsman et al. 1984, Bias and Guitierrez 1992, Call et al. 1992, Verner et al. 1992, Bond 

et al. 2004, Chatfield 2005). Spotted owl foraging habitat consists of a broader range of 

vegetation types that may include younger, more open habitat (Williams et al. 2011, Roberts and 

North 2012, Keane 2013). Large coarse woody debris is a key habitat feature of spotted owl 

prey. It has been suggested that some level of landscape (forest) heterogeneity may be an 

important consideration for spotted owl management and can improve spotted owl conservation

(Williams et al. 2011, Roberts and North 2012). Although forests with ≥ 70% canopy cover 

exist in the LTBMU, multilayered and very dense canopies that are often associated with spotted 

owls (especially northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest) are not characteristic of the 

forests here and many owls inhabit, mate, and reproduce in stand with < 70% canopy cover. 

Please refer to Section 3.4.11 - Forest Vegetation for a more detailed description of the 

characteristics of mixed conifer (and pine) forests in the LTBMU. 

The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides designation criteria, desired conditions, 

management objectives, and standards and guidelines for the protection of California spotted owl 

Protected Activity Centers (PAC) and home range core areas (HRCA). PACs include 300 acres 

of the highest quality nesting habitat available and the most recent nest site or activity center 

within a spotted owl breeding territory as described in management direction for the forest 

(USDA 2004). An HRCA is 1,000 acres, includes its associated PAC, and is comprised of the 

best available contiguous habitat. 

There are currently 22 California spotted owl PACs (and associated HRCAs) on the LTBMU, 

following a re-mapping effort in 2008 to incorporate the most up-to-date detection, nest location, 

and land boundary information available. One PAC was added in 2013 following an assessment 

of new nesting behavior during the 2012 season. During the last 10 years (2003-2012), spotted 

owls have been detected in 16 (76%) of the 21 PACs that were monitored during this time 

(excludes the PAC added in 2013). Data for California spotted owl found in the LTBMU are 

stored on the USDA Natural Resource Manager Natural Resource Information System (NRM 

NRIS) (USDA 2013b).

3-488 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Potential threats and stressors to this species include stand replacing catastrophic fires, expansion 

of barred owls (Strix varia), loss of large trees and dense canopy cover, habitat fragmentation, 

climate change, and disease.

Years of fire suppression have led to dense forested conditions with heavy fuel loading; these 

conditions can reduce the quality of foraging and nesting habitat (Roberts and North 2012). For 

example, extremely dense stand conditions characteristic of fire suppressed forests are not

typically used for spotted owl foraging (Verner et al. 1992, Irwin et al. 2007). Occupancy of 

nesting spotted owls in fire suppressed forests may also be negatively influenced by an 

increasing proportion of these smaller trees (< 23 inches in diameter) around the nest (Blakesley 

et al. 2005). 

Dense conditions characteristic of fire suppressed forests (especially ladder fuels) can also be 

correlated with an increased risk of fire. In a draft synthesis of recent available scientific research 

on California spotted owls, Keane (2013) concluded that spotted owls continue to occupy 

landscapes that have experienced low- to moderate-severity fire as well as some mixed severity 

fire. However, the effects of varying fire severities on spotted owl demographics (e.g., survival, 

reproduction) across multiple spatial and temporal (short term vs long term) scales are not well 

understood and the current research presents mixed results. 

High severity (catastrophic) fire is considered to be a major potential threat to the California 

spotted owl (USFWS 2006). Large-scale stand replacing fires can be detrimental to spotted 

owls, at least in the short term, possibly because these large areas do not contain habitat features 

important to spotted owls (Anthony and Clark 2008). High severity fires that kill most or all of 

the living trees effectively reduces the availability of preferred nesting and roosting habitat 

(mature coniferous forests with high tree canopy cover (≥70%), multilayered canopies, and an 

abundance of large trees and snags) that can take centuries to regrow. In southwest Oregon, 

Clark (2007) and Clark et al. (2011) found that annual survival rates were lower in northern 

spotted owls inhabiting burned areas or displaced by the wildfire as compared to owls that 

inhabited areas outside the burn perimeter. Clark (2007) observed that although 23 northern 

spotted owls used all types of fire severity, within burned areas owls strongly selected low 

severity or unburned areas with minimal overstory canopy mortality. In this burned landscape, 

owl high-use areas were characterized by lower fire severity and greater structural diversity. 

Clark (2007) and Clark et al. (2011) also found that post-fire salvage logging reduced owl habitat 

quality. Bond et al. (2009) reported that foraging may occur preferentially in high severity 

burned areas; the study followed seven owls in four year old burned areas and found higher than 

expected owl foraging in high severity burned areas. The study is limited by small sample size 

(7 owls), short duration (12 weeks), nonrandom selection of owls, and delay (4 years) following 

a wildfire. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that wildfires may have little short term impacts on 

spotted owls; the authors reported that northern, California, and Mexican spotted owl survival, 

site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success at 11 territories one year after fires seemed 

uninfluenced by the fires. Four of the territories were mapped as having experienced low-to 

moderate-severity fire and four experienced high severity fire that burned >30% of the territories. 

Roberts et al. (2011) estimated that California spotted owls studied in Yosemite National Park 

had similar detection, density, and occupancy rates between randomly selected unburned sites 

(16) and recently burned (<15 years since burn) sites (16) that had predominantly burned at lowto moderate- severity. Jenness et al. (2004) found no statistical relationship between fire with 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-489
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

mixed severity effects and Mexican spotted owl occupancy and reproduction in Arizona and 

New Mexico but the authors caution that higher occupancy and reproduction in unburned sites 

may not have been detected as statistically significant because of small sample size, lack of 

information on temporal and spatial variability in owl occupancy rates, and high variability in 

burn extent and severity. In a comparison of owl occupancy dynamics in burned versus 

unburned sites in the Sierra Nevada, Lee et al. (2012) found that the probability (model meanaveraged) of colonization and local extinction did not differ substantially between burned and 

unburned sites and the authors concluded that fire has no significant effect on occupancy 

dynamics. The authors also found that owls continued to occupy sites (a distinct area in which a 

single or territorial owl or pair had been detected) where almost one third (32%) of suitable 

habitat had been burned at high severity. They hypothesize that there may be a critical spatial 

threshold (proportion of a site) above which a burn at high severity could adversely affect 

spotted owl occupancy. Collectively, a large number of studies of fire effects on owls suggest the 

presence of large trees and high overstory canopy closure are the most important pre- and 

postfire conditions associated with spotted owl occupancy (Roberts and North 2012). However, 

it is clear that additional information is needed to better understand the effects of fire on spotted 

owls.

In the Sierra Nevada, between 1999 and 2002, 18 spotted owl PACs were severely affected by 

wildfire and could be considered “lost” (USDA 2004). From 2003 to 2008, a GIS exercise by the 

USFS found that 33 PACs had more than 75% of their area burned at either high or moderate 

severity, and rendered unusable by spotted owl, due to 8 major wildfires on NFS lands (see Table 

1 and footnotes in Yasuda Declaration on October 21, 2008 for Sierra Forest Legacy et al. vs 

Mark Rey, Tuolumne County Alliances for Resources and Environment et al., California Ski 

Industry Ass’n, and Quincy Library Group). The Moonlight fire on the Plumas National Forest 

burned approximately 65,000 acres (46,000 on National Forest System lands) in September 

2007. Based on fire severity assessment methods and severity maps (Safford et al. 2007, Miller 

2007, Miller and Thode 2007), a total of approximately 43,938 acres (National Forest and 

private) burned at high and moderate-high severity (Basal Area Mortality > 50%); approximately 

31,682 acres of forest vegetation was burned at high and moderate-high severity on National 

Forest system lands (Rotta 2011). This fire resulted in the immediate long-term loss of 17 

California spotted owl PACs and HRCAs, as well as the removal of 96% of the suitable nesting 

habitat and 86% of the suitable foraging habitat within the landscape (Rotta 2011). 

Overall, there is not a lot of available information about the effects of mechanical vegetation 

treatments on spotted owls and habitat condition (Keane 2013). The results of simulation 

modeling research summarized in Keane (2013) suggests that some fuels treatments can reduce 

fire risk and with minimal effects on owl reproduction, and may have long-term benefits of 

reducing wildfire risk that outweigh short-term effects of treatments. Seamans and Gutiérrez 

(2007) found that alteration of ≥20 hectares (49 acres) of mature forest in spotted owl territories 

may decrease the probability of colonization. The results from a separate opportunistic case 

study of fuel reduction treatments (mechanical thinning of understory trees and/or prescribed 

fire) on PAC occupancy and owl reproduction in the Stanislaus National Forest indicates that 

such treatments can be compatible with owl use and reproduction as owls continued to occupy 

the treated PACs and produce young (Rich 2007). In the Plumas National Forest, where the 

Moonlight fire resulted in the loss of PACs, fuel reduction treatments are occurring in the 

Meadow Valley Project area. Of the seven original confirmed pairs of spotted owls, there were 3 

3-490 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

confirmed pairs, one unconfirmed pair, and one barred owl in the project area in 2012 (Keane, 

pers. comm., 2013). The data cannot conclude cause for the change in spotted owl occupancy 

but show the association of treatment and change in spotted owl occupancy as well as occupancy 

of a strong owl competitor. The technique used in the Meadow Valley project, DFPZ (Defensible 

Fuel Profile Zone) is currently not practiced on the LTBMU but the results from this study 

demonstrate that although owls could incur short term impacts from fuel reduction treatments, 

this risk outweighs the potential consequences of losing the habitat to a stand replacing fire like 

the Moonlight fire which resulted in the immediate long-term loss of 17 California spotted owl 

PACs and HRCAs in the same National Forest. In their 12-month finding to not list the 

California spotted owl under ESA, the USFWS (2006) recognized that “the primary technique of 

fuels reduction, which is thinning understory trees with mechanical equipment and/or prescribed 

fire, may have detrimental effects on spotted owl habitat in the short term, but may favor 

development of habitat in the longer term, and may reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire that 

could substantially degrade or eliminate habitat”. In addition to the potential effects from fuel 

reduction treatments, more information is needed on the value of post-fire habitat and potential 

effects from alteration of this habitat on spotted owls. Northern spotted owls have avoided 

habitat treated during post fire salvage logging (Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011). 

Spotted owls face a number of stressors unrelated to fire and forest management activities 

including the invasion of barred owls (Strix varia), climate change, and disease and 

contaminants. As with the previous description of effects of fire and forest management 

activities, the information on ecological stressors comes primarily from Keane (2013). Barred 

owls are an increasing risk factor for California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Barred owls 

can hybridize and also out-compete spotted owls. Barred owls were first recorded within the 

range of the California spotted owl in 1989 on the Tahoe National Forest. Two sparred owls 

(hybrids of spotted and barred owls) were reported in the Eldorado National Forest during 2003 

– 2004 (Seamans et al. 2004), and one of these sparred owls is still present on the study area. 

Barred owls were first recorded in the southern Sierra Nevada in 2004 (Steger et al. 2006). 

Ongoing research has documented 73 records of barred or sparred owls in the Sierra Nevada to 

date, with the majority of records from the northern Sierra Nevada (Tahoe, Plumas, and Lassen

National Forests). Of note, five new records of barred owls were documented in the Stanislaus 

and Sierra national forests in 2012, indicating further range expansion of barred owls in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. Barred owl numbers are likely higher than documented in the Sierra 

Nevada, as there have been no systematic surveys for them to date. 

Across their range, spotted owls exhibit population-specific demographic relationships with local 

weather and regional climates (Glenn et al. 2010, Glenn et al. 2011, Peery et al. 2012). Based 

solely on projections of climate change (i.e., not incorporating other factors such as habitat, etc.), 

this population-specific variation is anticipated to result in population-specific responses to 

future climate scenarios, which could range from little effect to potentially significant effects. 

These population-specific responses could result in high vulnerability. For California spotted 

owls, Seamans and Gutiérrez (2007) reported that temperature and precipitation during 

incubation most affected reproductive output, and conditions in winter associated with the 

Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) most affected adult survival on the Eldorado National Forest. 

Weather variables explained a greater proportion of the variation in reproductive output than 

they did for survival. Further, these two weather variables were also included in the best models 

predicting annual population growth rate (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007). MacKenzie et al. (2012) 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-491
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

found that SOI or other weather variables explained little variation in annual reproduction for 

this same population of owls. Future responses to climate change are likely to be governed by 

complex interactions of factors that directly affect spotted owls and their habitat, as well indirect 

factors that can affect habitat (e.g., insect pests, disease, increased fire risk, etc.). Carroll (2010) 

recommended that dynamic models that incorporate vegetation dynamics and effects of

competitor species in addition to climate variables are needed for rigorous assessment of future 

climate change on spotted owls. 

Little information exists on disease prevalence in California spotted owl populations, and no 

information exists regarding the effects of disease on individual fitness or population viability. 

Blood parasite prevalence sampling for California spotted owls in the northern Sierra Nevada 

documented that 79 percent of individuals were positive for at least one infection, whereas 44 

percent of individuals tested positive for multiple infections (West Nile Virus (WNV)), a 

mosquito-borne flavivirus that was first detected in eastern North America in 1999 and spread 

rapidly across the continent. WNV has been demonstrated to have high acute species-specific 

mortality rates in many raptor species (owls, hawks, and their relatives) (Gancz et al. 2004, 

Marra et al. 2004). None of the 141 individual California spotted owl blood samples collected 

from the southern (Sierra National Forest, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park) or northern 

(Plumas and Lassen National Forests) Sierra Nevada from 2004 – 2008 have tested positive for 

WNV antibodies, which would indicate exposure and survival (Hull et al. 2010). Adult, 

territorial California spotted owls have high annual survival (80 – 85 percent) that has been 

stable across years, and no evidence has been published from the four long-term demographic 

studies indicating changes in adult owl survival. Nevertheless, although no effects have been 

documented to date, future outbreaks of WNV may pose a risk to California spotted owls. 

Four demographic studies of California spotted owl have been ongoing for a number of years 

within the Sierra Nevada: (1) Eldorado National Forest (since 1983); (2) Lassen National Forest 

(since 1990); (3) Sierra National Forest (since 1990); and (4) Sequoia-Kings Canyon National 

Park (since 1990). One of the primary objectives of the demographic studies is to monitor rate of 

change (lambda (λ)) in owl populations (i.e., the number of owls present in a given year divided 

by the number of owls present the year before). For these demographic models, a lambda of one 

indicates a stable population; less than one indicates the population is decreasing and greater than 

one indicates an increasing population. Lambda is estimated from models and is typically 

presented as an estimate of the rate of population change, along with the standard error (SE) or a 

95% confidence interval (CI). The 95% confidence interval represents the reliability of the 

estimate of lambda. Managers typically view a population as stable if the 95% confidence

interval overlaps a lambda of one. 

A meta-analysis of the data from 1990 to 2005 for the four spotted owl populations in study 

areas concluded that, with the exception of the Lassen study area, owl populations were stable, 

with adult survival rate highest at the Sequoia-Kings Canyon study site (Blakesley et al. 2010). 

The 95% confidence limit for lambda in the Lassen study area ranged from 0.946 to 1.001 

(estimated value 0.973), which barely included 1, and the analysis estimated a steady annual 

decline of 2 – 3% in the Lassen study population between 1990 and 2005 (Blakesley et al. 2010). 

Recent analyses from the same four demography study areas suggest that there may be a concern 

for decline in spotted owls within the three National Forest demography study areas in the Sierra 

3-492 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Nevada. A preliminary analysis conducted by Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project 

(SNAMP) in 2011 indicates that the owl population on the Eldorado National Forest may be

declining but the 95% confidence interval for lambda overlaps one (1) (Gutierrez et al. 2012). 

Tempel and Gutiérrez (2013) conclude that data from the Eldorado Density Study Area (60% 

USFS managed land in Eldorado National Forest and 40% private land managed timber 

companies) suggest a 31% decline in the spotted owl population size from1993-2010 but again, 

the 95% confidence interval slightly overlapped one (1) for all parameters. Using data for an 18-

year study period, Conner et al. (2013) found that the different estimators for ‘realized 

population change’ (expressed as ‘delta’ - ratio of population size at end time to initial 

population size) indicated population declines of 21-22% for the Lassen study area and 11-16% 

for Sierra study area, and an increase of 16-27% for Sequoia-Kings Canyon study area. The 

annual rate of population change (lamda) also showed a declining trend. However, similar to the 

analyses conducted by Tempel and Gutiérrez (2013) the confidence intervals overlapped 1.0 for 

all estimators and all study areas. As stated in Conner et al. (2013) “If a population is growing 

(lambda greater than 1), managers cannot tell whether the growth is from internal recruitment or 

immigration. Likewise, if a population is declining, managers cannot determine whether the 

declines are due to deaths within the population or emigration. Thus, additional information on 

specific vital rates is necessary to understand what is driving lambda and ultimately, the 

mechanisms driving population dynamics.” Causation for any potential decline in occupancy is 

unknown.

Willow Flycatcher – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species. 

Willow flycatchers are closely associated with meadows that have high water tables in the late 

spring and early summer, and abundant shrubby, deciduous vegetation (especially Salix spp.). 

Furthermore, this species prefers and is significantly more likely to occupy and defend territories 

that have standing water or saturated soils during the breeding season, often selecting the wettest 

portions within meadows (summarized in USDA 2001). 

The 1998 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides standards and guidelines for the protection 

of willow flycatcher sites, including guidance to develop restoration actions to restore 

historically occupied sites. 

Degradation and alteration of willow flycatcher habitat (i.e., montane meadows) is a primary 

factor contributing to population declines (Green et al. 2003). Degradation could include, but is 

not limited to: (1) alterations to the hydrological patterns leading to meadow drying, (2) 

destruction of shrub vegetation resulting in loss of nesting sites and cover for predator avoidance, 

(3) increased predator access to meadow interior, (4) loss of foraging substrate and decreased 

insect abundance, and (5) potentially increased contact with brown-headed cowbirds (Green et 

al. 2003). 

Livestock grazing, predation, and human activity have all been considered threats to flycatcher 

nesting habitat. Grazing has been essentially eliminated in the Lake Tahoe basin, assisting in the 

restoration of primary habitat for the species. However, grazing continues to be considered a 

suitable use on the LTBMU. Poorly managed grazing can alter the hydrologic and vegetative 

characteristics of meadows and contribute to poor quality habitat for nest selection and increased 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-493
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

visibility (vulnerability) of nests to predation (Brookshire et al. 2002, Auble et al. 1994, Stanley 

and Knopf 2002, Scott et al. 2003). Nest predation is the leading cause of nest failure in willow 

flycatcher nests in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Mathewson et al. 2011). Human activity (presence of 

people, dogs, and vehicles) has also been found to be a significant impact to land birds, 

surpassing that of habitat loss from development (Schlesinger et al. 2008). 

In the past three decades, willow flycatchers have undergone substantial population declines in 

California. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, the flycatcher population has declined from 1997-2010 

(Mathewson et al. 2011) and there is some level of uncertainty about the ability of the local 

population to rebound (Mathewson et al. 2012). Multiple factors likely contributed to the decline

including poor quality of meadow habitat, shortened breeding-season length and stochastic 

weather events, the initial small population size, and low reproduction that influenced dispersal 

dynamics (Mathewson et al. 2011). Mathewson et al. (2011) suggest that populations in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin would approach stable (λ=1) with increased reproductive success. Nest 

predation was the primary cause of nest failure at our study sites. The authors recommend two 

types of restoration, including: (1) restore meadows currently occupied by willow flycatchers 

and (2) restore meadows within 5 miles of occupied sites to provide habitat for dispersing 

flycatchers. Mathewson et al. (2011) suggest that restoration could enhance nest success and 

recommend increasing riparian shrub cover (e.g., willow) and improving meadow wetness to 

both increase vegetation and reduce predation rates on nests, fledglings, and adults. The USFS 

recognizes the need to restore meadows in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Several large-scale meadow 

and riparian restoration projects (e.g. Cookhouse Meadow, Big Meadow, Upper Truckee River, 

Taylor-Tallac, High Meadows, and Meeks Bay) have or will soon be restoring these habitats. 

Townsend’s big-eared bat – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive 

species. This species has been found in a variety of habitats including coniferous forests and 

riparian areas and is highly associated with cave and cave surrogate structure (e.g., mines, 

buildings) for roosting (Kunz and Martin 1982). The distribution of the species appears to be 

significantly constrained by the availability of suitable roosting sites and the degree of human 

disturbance at roosts. 

The primary threats facing this species throughout its range are disturbance and destruction of 

roost sites, timber harvest practices, and loss of riparian habitat (Piaggio 2005). However, the 

largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species (including pallid bat and fringed myotis) is 

white-nose syndrome. There is a grave concern that it could spread to the western states and 

California. As of October 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records suspected detections 

as far west as Oklahoma (http://www.fort.usgs.gov/wns/). This disease has rapidly spread 

throughout the eastern US and Canada since its discovery in 2006.

Currently, there are no standards and guidelines in the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) 

to protect this species. Measures to protect the species in the LTBMU have been developed on a 

project-specific basis. 

Townsend’s big-eared bat was first detected on the LTBMU in 2007 in Blackwood Creek and 

Big Meadow Creek watersheds. This species was identified again in 2009 at two adits and a 

3-494 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

vacant building in the LTBMU. This species has not been positively identified at survey 

locations in the LTBMU since 2009.

Pallid bat – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) was recently added to the Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive 

species list for the LTBMU. In high elevation areas, this species is associated with conifer 

forests (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983) and Baker et al. (2008) suggest open pine forest is 

preferred within these higher elevations areas. In forested habitats in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains, Baker et al. (2008) found pallid bats in areas with greater availability of Sierran 

mixed conifer and white fir than open meadows, grasslands, barren areas, and montane 

chaparral. They caution, however that they were unable to discern actual habitat use at a finer 

scale. Johnston and Gworek (2006) found pallid bat activity in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

greatest where there was open mixed conifer forest near short grassland habitat. Roosts located 

were primarily in incense cedar trees (ibid.). Crevices in rock outcrops are the primary roost 

sites, although buildings, caves, tree hollows, and mines are also used (Hermanson and O’Shea 

1983; Rambaldini 2005; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999; Miner and Stokes 2005; NatureServe 

2011). Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of 

redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole cavities in oaks.

As with the Townsend’s big-eared bat, the largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species is 

white-nose syndrome. Other habitat threats that are relevant to high elevation forests include the 

loss of large diameter snags and live trees for roosts due to fire (Miner and Stokes 2005). While 

this species typically roosts in rock outcrops, it often uses alternate day roosts, which large trees 

may provide. Retention of existing large trees and long term production of replacement large 

trees would provide potential habitat into the future. Mine closures may eliminate roosting sites 

and hibernacula for pallid bats, even though this species primarily roosts in rock outcrops 

(Rambaldini 2005; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Miner and Stokes 2005; Pallid Bat Recovery 

Team 2008). Likewise bridge reconstruction may eliminate roost sites if done in a way that does 

not provide a design suitable to pallid bats (Ferguson and Azerrad 2004).

The range in California is statewide and it is predicted to occur on every National Forest in 

the Region (CWHR 2008). Occurrence records from the state (CNDDB 2011) and Forest 

Service records (NRIS 2011) do not indicate that this species has been observed within the 

LTBMU but potentially suitable habitat exists in the LTBMU.

Fringed myotis – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) is a bat species that was recently added to the Region 5 

Forest Service Sensitive species list for the LTBMU. In general, this species is found in open 

habitats that have nearby dry forests and an open water source (Keinath 2004). In California, this 

species is found from approximately 4200 to 7200 feet in elevation in pinyon-juniper, valley 

foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifers (CWHR 2008). There is increased likelihood of 

occurrence of this species as snags greater than 11 inches (30 cm) in diameter increases and 

percent canopy cover decreases (Keinath 2004). Snag decay classes were two to four (Keinath 

2004) in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine. Open water sources may include artificial 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-495
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

sources, such as stock tanks and ponds, in addition to natural sources (Keinath 2004). The 

fringed myotis roosts in crevices found in rocks, cliffs, buildings, underground mines, bridges, 

and in large, decadent trees (Weller 2005). They day and night roost under bark and in tree 

hollows, and in northern California they day roost in snags only (Keinath 2004; Weller and Zabel 

2001). Medium to large diameter snags are important day and night roosting sites (Weller and 

Zabel 2001).

As with Townsend’s big-eared bat and pallid bat, the largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting 

species is white-nose syndrome. Habitat alteration threatens this species because it dependent on 

older forest types. Keinath (2004) summarized this in the Region 2 conservation assessment for 

the fringed myotis, indicating that this species depends on abundant large diameter snags and 

trees with thick loose bark. Thus, harvesting old growth and removal of snags for safety or fuel 

reduction reasons may reduce available roost sites. 

In California, it is distributed statewide except the Central Valley and the Colorado and Mojave 

Deserts (CWHR 2008). According to Forest Service records, the fringed myotis is found on the 

LTBMU.

Pacific Marten – Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The Pacific marten (Martes caurina) is a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species and a 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the late seral, closed canopy coniferous forest habitat 

component on the LTBMU. Additional information for the marten as an MIS is provided in the 

section entitled Management Indicator Species. This species was previously classified as 

American marten (Martes americana) but recent genetic and morphological evidence led to a reclassification as Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and of the subspecies sierrae (Dawson and 

Cook 2012).

In the Sierra Nevada, this species is known to inhabit high elevation (4,500-10,500 feet) latesuccessional, mature red fir and lodgepole pine forests with large, decadent live trees and snags, 

and complex physical structure near the ground comprised of an abundance of large dead and 

downed wood (Buskirk and Powell 1994 in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Zielinksi 2013). In the 

LTBMU, marten have also been associated with mixed conifer and pine habitat. Martens can 

inhabit younger forests if important elements of the mature forest are still present, especially 

structures for resting and denning (Purcell et al. 2012, Zielinksi 2013). Riparian areas, especially 

near mature forest, are important for foraging (Zielinksi 2013). The abundant large trees and 

dead-wood structures associated with marten presence provide prey resources, resting structures, 

and escape cover (Zielinksi 2013). Rest structures typically include snags, logs, and stumps; trees 

and snags used for resting are often the largest available (>35 inches in diameter) (Purcell et al. 

2012). Rest structures vary with season such that above-ground cavities are used in summer and 

subnivean logs, snags, and stumps are used during the winter (Zielinski 2013). Den structures 

typically include arboreal cavities in live trees, snags (Gilbert et al. 1997, Raphael and Jones 

1997, Bull and Heater 2000) and logs, rock crevices and red squirrel middens (Ruggiero et al. 

1998). Resting and denning structures may be the most limiting resource for marten on the 

landscape since this species uses multiple structures within their ranges (Purcell et al. 2012). 

3-496 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended) provides designation criteria, desired conditions, 

and standards and guidelines for the protection of marten den sites in the Sierra Nevada, 

including limited operating periods (LOPs), restrictions on vegetation treatments, and the 

requirement to mitigate impacts where a den site has been disturbed. Under the current 

direction, the LOP to protect den sites only applies to vegetation treatments; special use areas 

(i.e., recreation areas) are not required to implement an LOP to protect den sites.

Some of the threats facing martens include habitat loss and fragmentation, especially clearcutting, fuel reduction treatments, and wildfire (Zielinksi 2013). Marten are very sensitive to 

habitat loss and fragmentation and rarely occupy landscapes after >30% of the mature forest has 

been harvested (Zielinksi 2013). Martens tend to avoid clear cut openings or will cross only 

small openings (e.g., < 500 feet). However, openings that have some structure retained (e.g., 

isolated trees, snags, logs), were more likely to be crossed by marten in the Rocky Mountains, 

even if the openings were relatively large (maximum distance = 600 feet), than if the opening 

had no structures and were small (summarized in Zielinksi 2013). Females tend to be more 

specialized than males in their habitat needs and tend to avoid managed areas of lesser habitat 

value and greater predation risk (summarized in Zielinski 2013). 

The effect of thinning treatments (including fuel reduction treatments) on marten in the Sierra 

Nevada is currently being studied. The effects can be positive and negative for marten; positive 

if treatments set the trajectory toward historical conditions while retaining key habitat features 

(e.g., snags, large and complex trees, coarse woody debris), and if unsuitable stands are treated to 

accelerate the recruitment of mature forest characteristics and reduce the chance of catastrophic 

wildfire (Slauson and Zielinksi 2008). The effects can be negative if the treated habitat increases 

the risk of predation by reducing canopy cover significantly, removing resting and denning 

structures and escape cover (e.g., tree boles), and/or reducing the complexity of the understory 

(clear cutting from below). Treatments effects can also be negative if habitat patches require a 

lot of energy and risk to travel between (increased fragmentation), if treatment has adversely 

effected prey resources, and if den structures are reduced or altered in a way that reduces the 

survival of young (Slauson and Zielinski 2008).

According to Zielinksi (2013), there is a need to understand the tradeoff between treating stands 

to reduce fuel loadings and loss of the stand to catastrophic wildfire. Some simulation work for 

fisher suggests that the indirect and immediate negative effects of treatment are justified for the 

long term positive effects for the prevention of large wildfires in fisher habitat that could damage 

and fragment habitat over larger areas (Scheller et al. 2011). Purcell et al. (2012) suggests that 

research findings support the validity of recommendations made in North et al. (2009) to treat 

habitat for marten in areas where historically, fire would have burned less frequently, such as 

north-facing slopes, canyon bottoms, and riparian areas. Regardless, the type and timing of 

treatments as well as home range and landscape-level effects from treatments should be carefully 

evaluated to understand the short and long term outcomes.

In addition to vegetation management, marten are also sensitive to recreation activities, 

particularly snow activities (e.g., ski facilities). Much of the information presented on marten and 

ski resorts comes directly from Zielinski (2013) and Slauson (unpublished data). Ski resorts are 

considered likely to affect marten populations because they remove and fragment high-elevation 

fir forest habitat. The operation of ski resorts includes the continued compaction of snow, 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-497
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

presence of high densities of skiers, and nocturnal grooming activities. All these factors can 

have negative effects on marten both directly (females may avoid these areas) or indirectly (snow 

compaction and forest fragmentation facilitate high predation by coyotes) (Slauson et al. 2008). 

To create ski runs, ski resorts are considered likely to affect marten populations because they 

remove and fragment high-elevation fir forest habitat. To create ski runs, chair lifts, and 

associated facilities, trees are removed, creating open areas and fragmenting forest. Skiers and 

staff are active during the majority of the day, and grooming and some skiing activity occur 

during the night. Thus, martens that are sensitive to these activities may not find time for 

important foraging activities. Ski resort effects are not limited to winter, as habitat fragmentation 

is a year-round effect and many resorts are developing summer recreational activities (e.g., 

hiking, mountain biking).

There are approximately 25 ski resorts in the Sierra Nevada, and nearly all occur within the 

range of the marten (Zielinski 2013). The Lake Tahoe region includes approximately half of 

these resorts (not all found on the LTBMU), constituting the highest density of resorts in the 

Sierra Nevada and one of the highest in North America (Zielinski 2013). Kucera (2004)

conducted the only intensive study of martens in a ski area in California. He captured 12 

individuals at the Mammoth Mountain ski area, 10 of which were males, 1 was female, and 1 

was of unknown sex, resulting in a highly skewed sex ratio similar to what Slauson is finding at 

ski resorts in the LTBMU. The single female raised two kits, but did not use developed areas and 

only used natural rest sites. Martens appeared to move away from the ski area and into 

unmanaged forest after winter. Kucera (2004) suggested that this fits a seasonal use pattern 

where martens occupy ski areas during winter when natural prey is least available and humansupplied food is most plentiful, then they move into unmanaged forests in spring. This migration 

would allow them to exploit artificial food sources during winter, but return to places where 

females maintain home ranges to breed in summer. Realizing that this study required 

confirmation and a larger sample, Slauson and Zielinski (unpublished data) began a 4-year study 

in 2008 to evaluate the effects of ski area development and use on home range and demography 

of marten populations. Preliminary data are described below, a published report is forthcoming.

Although martens do occupy portions of many ski areas in the LTBMU, female martens appear 

to exhibit a higher sensitivity to forest fragmentation from ski-run creation than males, avoiding 

areas highly fragmented by ski runs (Slauson and Zielinksi unpublished data). These results are 

similar to those for clear cuts in that males may show some plasticity in their use of managed 

habitat but females are more selective. For example, although Slauson et al. (in prep) have 

detected martens using approximately 70% of the Heavenly ski area during the spring, females 

use less than 33% for reproductive habitat. Furthermore, while males occupy more highly 

fragmented portions of ski areas than females, male survivorship appears to be lower in sites 

with higher fragmentation (Slauson and Zielinksi unpublished data). Martens give birth to their 

young in late March and early April, typically coinciding with the end of the ski operations 

period in most years. As the snowpack breaks up martens shift their activity to be more active 

during the daytime to focus their foraging activities on diurnally active species, such as 

chipmunks and golden-mantled ground-squirrels (Slauson and Zielinksi unpublished

data). Therefore, there is a greater potential for human-marten interactions during the late spring 

and early summer when both humans and martens are active during the daytime (Slauson and 

Zielinksi unpublished data) and this potential for interaction may increase with new national 

policy allowing ski facilities to host more summer activities.

3-498 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other snow activities may affect marten but data from the LTBMU indicate that OHV/OSV use 

did not affect marten occupancy or probability of detection and that overall OHV/OSV use in the 

study areas was low (1 OHV/OSV pass every 2 hours) and exposure occurred in <20% of a 

typical home range (Zielinski et al. 2008).

Within the LTBMU, marten appear to be well distributed in the western and southern portions 

but are comparatively rare in the northern and eastern portions (Slauson et al. 2008). Slauson et 

al. (2008) analyzed data from several marten surveys that were conducted in the LTBMU 

between 1993 and 2005 and found that marten were detected at 36% of all sample units that were 

surveyed, occupying areas supporting mesic conifer forest typically dominated by red fir, white 

fir, western white pine, and lodgepole pine (Slauson et al. 2008). The majority of detections 

were made in the western (50% of sites) and southern (31% of sites) regions of the LTBMU. 

Detections in the northern and eastern portions of the basin were scarce despite 30% of the total 

survey effort occurring in these two areas, and the authors suggested that these areas may have 

supported less suitable habitat conditions (e.g., open canopy) due to drier conditions and also 

likely influenced by the development that has altered the composition and connectivity of 

suitable habitat along the transition from mesic to xeric forest types from west to east in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin (Slauson et al 2008). Due to the contemporary development patterns on the 

southern end of the Lake Tahoe Basin combined with natural factors, the southern distribution of 

martens in the Basin is most likely a peninsular distribution, extending from the southwest 

(Luther Pass area) where martens are likely able to move in and out the southern portion of the 

Basin. This peninsular distribution in the south portion of the LTB has no potential for input of 

martens from the north, south, or east due to the lack of suitable habitat combined with the 

substantial level of development that has occurred. Peninsular distributions of martens are more 

reliant on the existing conditions within their distribution to support their persistence than 

portions of the distribution better connected, such as the west shore population.

Slauson et al. (2008) stressed the importance of the west shore as the only known linkage for 

populations north and south of the Basin. Recent modeling suggests that the west shore of Lake 

Tahoe is part of an important corridor linking northern and southern populations. Consistent 

with Slauson et al. (2008), there is a gap in marten occupancy and habitat just west of the Basin 

but suitability increases again just west of this gap, creating another parallel habitat corridor 

(Spencer & Rustigian-Romsos 2012) that may not have been identified in Slauson et al. (2008).

Two marten dens have been positively identified in the Lake Tahoe basin with a third possible, 

although there are likely greater than 30 breeding females in the LTBMU in any given year, each 

using many dens for kit rearing (Slauson, pers. comm. 2011). All known/possible dens were 

discovered opportunistically in 2009 and 2012 and are predominantly on the west and southern 

portion of the basin. One den that was positively identified in 2012 is located at an elevation of 

approximately 6650 feet and within the CWHR Jeffrey Pine type, class 5M. The den identified in 

2009 is located at an elevation of approximately 6560 feet and within the CWHR Sierra Mixed 

Conifer type, class 4M. Moriarty et al. (Table 1, 2011) indicates that various 4M habitat types 

(lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir, subalpine conifer, and white fir) are considered “high 

quality habitat” for marten. CWHR also classifies some 4M habitat as high quality denning 

habitat for marten. 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-499
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Preliminary data from a study of marten in the Lake Tahoe Basin suggest that areas used by 

females for reproduction were stable and did not change annually which suggests that 

reproductive habitat is a limiting factor for marten populations (Slauson and Zielinksi 

unpublished data). Thus the maintenance of existing suitable reproductive habitat is one of the 

most critical factors for maintaining marten populations and distributions.

Historically, martens were understood to be well distributed throughout the Cascades and 

northern Sierra Nevada but recent surveys suggest that the populations are now fragmented, 

distribution is reduced, and suitable habitat has also been reduced and isolated in parts of the 

range (Zielinksi et al. 2005, Kirk and Zielinksi 2009, Spencer & Rustigian-Romsos 2012). In a 

study of marten in northeastern California, north of the LTBMU, Kirk and Zielinksi (2009) 

reported that marten populations detected are associated with areas that contain the largest 

amount of reproductive habitat consisting of mature, old forest. The highest density of 

detections was located in the largest protected area in the study region. Moriarty et al. (2011) 

reported approximately 60% fewer detections of marten at Sagehen Experimental Forest (SEF) 

on the Tahoe National Forest than those in the 1980s. These results, although on a smaller 

spatial scale, are similar to those reported by Kirk and Zielinksi (2009). Although the cause of 

the decreased detections is unclear, Moriarty et al. (2011) hypothesized that this was associated 

with loss and fragmentation of habitat; during the same period 39% of forested areas at SEF

experienced some form of timber harvest (11% clear-cut or shelterwood and 28% salvage). 

Habitat and occupancy models developed by Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos indicate that habitat 

connectivity for marten is fragmented north of the Plumas National Forest where martens appear 

to be restricted to isolated or semi-isolated high elevation areas (consistent with Kirk and 

Zielinksi (2009)) whereas south of the Plumas, habitat connectivity does not appear to be greatly 

limiting for martens although the authors suggest that Interstate 80 may be a significant barrier to 

movement. An emerging issue across marten populations in California is a highly skewed sex 

ratio, near 2:1 males to females (Slauson pers. comm. 2013). Reproductive habitat appears to be 

much more limited throughout the range. Therefore, there is a greater need for maintaining 

existing reproductive habitat and restoring it where it has been lost (Slauson pers. comm. 2013).

Marten occupancy and geographic range is predicted to be influenced by climate change such 

that the species will be highly sensitive to climate change, and would probably experience the 

largest climate impacts at the southernmost latitudes (i.e. in the southern Sierra Nevada) (Lawler

et al. 2011). 

TRPA Special Interest Species 

The TRPA has designated Special Interest Species that are locally important because they are 

public interest species or are rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered species designated under 

state or federal species protection acts. The northern goshawk and bald eagle are considered 

Special Interest Species and have been described in the previous section entitled Forest Service 

Sensitive Species; all other Special Interest Species are described below.

Waterfowl – TRPA Special Interest Species 

Waterfowl Special Interest Species include species of ducks, geese, shorebirds, loons, grebes, 

mergansers, rails, gulls, terns, and herons. For these species groups, undisturbed marsh and 

riparian vegetation is critical habitat for nesting and feeding (TRPA 2004a). Successful nesting, 

3-500 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

breeding, and feeding in these species is challenged by human presence in suitable habitats that 

can cause disturbance of individuals and result in displacement, nest abandonment, increased 

energy expenditure, reduced energy intake (i.e., lower feeding rates), among other consequences 

(Belanger and Bedard 1990 and Rogers and Smith 1997 as cited in TRPA 2004a). 

TRPA Code of Ordinances includes a measure that calls for the protection of wetlands for 

nesting and resting sites for waterfowl as well as waterfowl management areas in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. The current LRMP (as amended) includes provisions to manage suitable wetlands for low 

levels of human disturbance between March 1 and June 30 for waterfowl (except Pope Beach 

recreation site which may be opened beginning Memorial Day weekend); harassment by dogs 

must be controlled. 

Golden Eagle – TRPA Special Interest Species 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is associated with early successional forests and shrub 

communities for foraging and cliffs and large trees for nesting. Threats to this species include 

disturbance by human as a result of recreation activities, particularly rock climbing, as well as 

loss of habitat.

The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes a zone within a 0.25 mile radius of golden eagle nest 

sites that is to be protected from habitat manipulation while occupied by golden eagles. 

Golden eagle surveys have been conducted during the past several years in the LTBMU. The 

species was detected in 2009 at Angora Peak. Golden eagle was not positively identified during 

2010 or 2011 surveys but incidental detections of golden eagles were made by LTBMU staff in 

2011 at Meiss Meadow and Desolation Wilderness. No information on golden eagles is known 

from 2012.

Osprey – TRPA Special Interest Species 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is migratory and arrives in the Tahoe Region from South and Central 

American wintering grounds in March and April when the snow begins to melt and fish return to 

shallower waters. Osprey is associated with open forests with large snags for nest sites that are 

typically located near open water. Nest sites include large coniferous and deciduous trees, cliffs, 

and poletops located near or over water. Primary threats to osprey in the LTBMU include 

disturbance from recreation activities (e.g., boating, camping, etc.) and loss or degradation of 

habitat due to conflicts with recreation needs. 

The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes a zone within a 0.25 mile radius of osprey nest sites that 

is to be protected from habitat manipulation while occupied by osprey. 

Detections of active osprey nests in the LTBMU have fluctuated since 1997. The number of 

active nests detected decreased between 2003 and 2005, and 2007 and 2008 but there has been 

an overall increase in the number of active nests detected since 1997 with approximately 11 

active nests detected in 1997 and 27 in 2011. Since 2008, the number of active nests detected has 

been steadily increasing with 22, 24, 26, and 27 active nests detected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 

2011, respectively. Information for osprey in 2012 is not yet available to the USFS.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-501
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Peregrine Falcon – TRPA Special Interest Species 

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is associated with rivers, wetlands, lakes, or other 

aquatic features for breeding and cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds, and human-made structures for 

nesting. Nests are usually situated on open ledges or potholes and a preference for southern 

facing slopes increases with latitude (USFWS 1984). Peregrine falcons are threatened by human 

disturbance from recreation activities, including rock climbing.

The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes a zone within a 0.25 mile radius of peregrine nest sites 

that is to be protected from habitat manipulation while occupied by the falcons. The current 

LRMP (as amended) includes a standard that prohibits rock climbing on nesting cliffs between 

April 1 and July 31. 

Three birds were introduced to the Lake Tahoe Basin in each of 1985, 1986, and 1987. From 

1987 to 2007 there had been no official record of peregrine falcon in the basin other than a 

handful of incidental detections. In 2007 there were three reported incidental detections. Surveys 

for peregrine falcons began in 2008 and a pair was detected but successful nesting was not 

confirmed. From 2009 through 2012, successful nesting has been confirmed in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. As of 2012, two locations in the LTBMU had confirmed successful peregrine falcon 

nests. 

Mule deer – TRPA Special Interest Species 

Mule deer are associated with riparian areas, meadows, and early to mid-successional habitats. 

Threats to mule deer include habitat fragmentation and loss.

The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes measures to protect mule deer fawning habitat as well 

as migration and movement corridors. 

Results from the Multi-species Inventory Monitoring (MSIM) in the LTBMU indicate that the 

mule deer may have declined slightly since early/mid 1900s, as it was described as a common 

resident historically, whereas now it appears to be less common but still present. During MSIM 

surveys in 2007, the mule deer was found to be broadly distributed across the Lake Tahoe Basin 

having been identified at 13 (22%) of sampled sites.

Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds have become a focus of conservation concern due to evidence of declining 

population trends for many species. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the 

Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the 

suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use 

objectives” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) 

Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition 

to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 

PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan, references goals and objectives for integrating 

bird conservation into forest management and planning. 

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The 

3-502 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration 

and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other 

federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of 

migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales 

and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

To facilitate a regional approach to bird conservation, regional geographic units called bird 

conservation regions (BCRs) were developed under the North America Bird Conservation 

Initiative (http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.html). BCRs encompass landscapes with similar bird 

communities, habitats, and resource issues. In Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (2008) identified the species in each BCR in greatest need of 

conservation action and proactive management to prevent the need for listing them as 

endangered or threatened. These species are termed Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and a 

list is given for each BCR. A BCC may be present in a BCR but not included in that BCR’s list 

because its population numbers are not a concern in that region.

In addition, Audubon California (2009) has designated 145 important bird areas in the state. 

See http://www.ca.audubon.org/iba for additional information about these areas. 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-503
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.23.3 Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the potential direct and indirect environmental consequences of the 

activities proposed by each program area under the four Forest Plan alternatives on terrestrial 

wildlife habitat condition and terrestrial wildlife species productivity. Cumulative effects are 

described in Section 3.5 of this chapter. MIS are described separately in Section 3.4.14 of this 

chapter. 

Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration

It is anticipated that restoration of aquatic habitat and watershed condition under all alternatives 

would have long-term benefits to terrestrial wildlife habitat and special-status terrestrial wildlife 

species in the LTBMU. This expectation is based on the assumption that restoration projects 

under all alternatives would not only improve physical habitat elements such as vegetation 

diversity and structural complexity but also achieve restoration of natural processes that help 

ecosystem functions and maintain wildlife habitat over the long-term. In other words, planting 

riparian vegetation alone may not achieve restoration of wildlife habitat over the long-term but 

planting vegetation that facilitates recruitment, and fulfills major functions of riparian habitats 

such as physical filtering of water, stabilization of banks and floodplains, water storage, can 

benefit wildlife species (George and Zack 2001). 

The most pronounced positive trend in habitat condition and species productivity is expected to 

occur under alternatives B, C, and E. These alternatives function similarly to A, which is also 

expected to show a positive trend, but Alternatives B, C, and E provide clear, written strategies 

and objectives that are lacking in Alternative A. The most pronounced positive trend in habitat 

condition is expected to be experienced in wet meadow, aspen, montane riparian, and marsh and 

lake shore habitat types because these habitat types are specifically targeted during restoration of 

watershed condition and aquatic habitat. The most pronounced positive trend in productivity is 

expected to be experienced by willow flycatcher, bald eagle, northern goshawk, Townsend’s bigeared bat, peregrine falcon, osprey, waterfowl, and mule deer because these species are either 

reliant on the aforementioned habitat types (i.e., willow flycatcher with meadows; bald eagle 

with marsh and lakeshore habitat; waterfowl with marsh, wetland, and riparian habitats) or 

associated to some degree with these habitat types (i.e., northern goshawk with aspen; 

Townsend’s big-eared bat and meadows, marsh, and montane riparian; peregrine falcon with 

rivers, wetlands, and lakes; osprey with lakeshore and marsh habitat; mule deer with riparian 

corridors and meadows). Those species that are reliant on riparian habitat for nesting, cover, 

and/or foraging are expected to have the most pronounced positive trend. A long-term 

demographic study in the Lake Tahoe Basin indicates that the population trend of willow 

flycatchers has been declining (Mathewson et al. 2007, 2011, 2012). Although Mathewson et al. 

(2012) are not confident that the trend can be reversed the authors suggest that restoration efforts 

that improve meadow conditions (i.e., water table, shrub cover, etc.) in both occupied and nearby 

(dispersal) meadows may improve the condition of breeding habitat for the benefit of the species.

Because migratory birds are so ubiquitous and diverse, maintenance and restoration of many 

types of habitats, including aquatic habitat under this program area, is relevant to migratory 

birds. As a result, provisions for these species are integrated into numerous desired conditions, 

objectives, and standards and guidelines that would target restoration of habitat under 

3-504 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives B, C, and E. Such considerations are already in place under Alternative A. 

Alternative D includes protection measures but does not include restoration following the 

completion of currently planned projects.

In the absence of restoration under Alternative D, following the completion of currently planned 

projects, it can be expected that the condition of various habitat types normally targeted by 

watershed and aquatic restoration (i.e., wet meadow, montane riparian, aspen, marsh and Lake 

shore) would remain stable with the potential to diminish, and the productivity of associated 

special status species would also remain stable but with the potential to decline. Many of the 

aforementioned habitat types in the Lake Tahoe Basin are being overcrowded and encroached 

upon by conifers and degraded by urbanization and recreation, essentially changing the structure, 

function, and value of these habitat types for wildlife (Manley et al. 2010). For example, without 

restoration and in the absence of disturbance such as fire, it is likely that conifers will continue to 

encroach and shade out aspen trees in the understory (Shepperd et al. 2006); the result would 

include a loss of aspen as well as negative impacts on herbaceous cover and stand moisture that 

are essential habitat components for many mammal and bird species (Manley et al. 2010). 

Studies in the Lake Tahoe Basin have demonstrated that healthy herbaceous communities and 

limited conifer intrusion in aspen may be optimal habitat conditions for aspen-associated 

breeding birds (Richardson 2007, Richardson and Heath 2004). 

Habitat degradation under Alternative D from lack of restoration could be the most pronounced 

for wet meadow, marsh and lake shore habitat, montane riparian, and aspen habitat types as well 

as for willow flycatcher, bald eagle, and northern goshawk. Effects may be the most pronounced 

for willow flycatcher, a species that is dependent upon wet meadows where riparian shrub cover, 

water table, and soil saturation in meadows is sufficient and bald eagle, a species that relies on 

marsh and lakeshore habitat for foraging and nesting opportunities. Without restoration of 

meadows and associated water sources that maintain meadow wetness, willow flycatchers could 

be at an increased risk of predation and could experience a loss in insect prey based on the results 

of willow flycatcher demographic studies in the LTBMU. Townsend’s big-eared bats forage in a 

variety of habitats but it can be expected that a decline in productivity could occur in those 

habitats where water tables are diminished and the habitat no longer supports sufficient insect 

prey.

Although it is possible that habitat condition could decline without restoration, Alternative D

proposes to use fire as a primary tool for vegetation management and the use of fire, when 

combined with aquatic restoration efforts, could benefit habitats such as aspen and historically 

wet meadows.

In terms of climate change, the restoration strategies associated with Alternatives A, B, and C all 

provide opportunities to maintain or improve biodiversity of the landscape and also improve 

resilience of watershed systems and their associated habitats to better enable these habitats and 

their communities to adapt to changing climate conditions. Alternatives B and C go one step 

further than Alternative A and recognize the importance of improving aquatic habitat 

components for associated species in addition to reducing stream sedimentation. Alternative E 

not only recognizes the importance of improving aquatic habitat for sensitive species but also 

includes clear desired conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines that address 

climate change. Without the opportunity to actively restore or maintain habitats under 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-505
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Alternative D, vulnerable habitats may be more at risk for degradation or loss as conditions 

change. 

Biological Resource Protection 

The condition of terrestrial wildlife habitat is expected to be maintained under all alternatives 

under the Biological Resource Protection Program Area and with a potential for improvement in 

condition under Alternatives B, C, and E because these alternatives include desired conditions,

strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines that: (1) reflect the contemporary needs of 

special-status species and associated habitat in the LTBMU, (2) incorporate restoration 

objectives to meet desired conditions, and (3) emphasize important habitat features and 

movement corridors that could support community assemblages. Although the species- and 

location-specific approach emphasized by Alternative A (and also adopted under Alternative D) 

has value for the protection of den and nest sites, wet meadows for willow flycatchers, cliffs for 

peregrine falcons, PAC habitat for spotted owls and goshawks, and late seral closed canopy 

forest (Old Forest Emphasis Areas) for associated species, this more narrow species-specific 

approach may be unable to maintain or enhance habitat elements important to many specialstatus species and their associated species assemblages across the landscape. Alternatives B, C, 

and E have been developed in such a way that they focus on the retention and creation of 

important habitat elements (e.g., snag retention, cliff and cave accessibility, meadow restoration, 

habitat connectivity) rather than specific habitat requirements of individual species with the 

exception of spotted owls and northern goshawk that continue to have protected habitats in the 

form of PACs under all alternatives. An added benefit of this approach is that the habitat 

features identified may also support other species that use these features, inhabit this habitat type, 

and/or are part of the species assemblage that supports these special-status species. However, 

Alternative A (and D) includes more stringent standards for the retention of PAC canopy cover

and retention of trees greater than 30 inches in diameter. The goal of Alternative A is to create 

more late seral close canopy habitat and the goal of Alternative D is to grow more big trees. In 

this way, the trends in species productivity under Alternative A may be better than those under 

Alternatives B, C and E for species associated with late seral closed canopy forest (e.g., marten, 

spotted owl, northern goshawk). However, Alternative E (more than Alternatives B and C) 

clearly prioritizes the protection of late seral closed canopy habitat where it occurs (rather than in 

pre-designated areas) through standards and guidelines and allows for the ability to improve 

PAC habitat for the benefit of spotted owls and goshawks where the condition has deteriorated. 

Alternative E also includes a standard that treatments shall not reduce canopy cover in dominant 

and co-dominant trees by more than 10% across a stand. Alternative E (and B and C to some 

extent) also provides the greatest flexibility to reduce the risk of large scale catastrophic wildfire 

that could essentially reduce vast amounts of suitable nesting and denning habitat for species 

associated with mature forest. Alternative E also emphasizes the value of burned forest habitat

to associated species and addresses the importance of being able to adapt to a changing climate. 

The measures to protect habitat components (e.g., movement corridors, cliff habitat) and 

restoration objectives can assist the habitats and wildlife communities of the LTBMU in being 

better able to adapt to the stresses of changing climate conditions. Alternative E contains specific 

objectives related to wildlife habitat under changing climate conditions. Wildlife would benefit 

from the emphasis on natural processes that is characteristic of Alternative D, especially the 

reintroduction of fire. However, logistical constraints for the use of fire under this (and all) 

3-506 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

alternative, and lack of proposed restoration following completed projects could fall short of 

enabling terrestrial wildlife species and associated habitat components to be better adapted to 

climate change.

The potential for the most pronounced positive trend in species productivity under the Biological 

Resources Protection Program Area is expected to occur under Alternatives B, C, and E, but 

particularly Alternative E, for western bumble bee, willow flycatcher, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

pallid bat, fringed myotis, peregrine falcon, waterfowl, osprey, golden eagle, mule deer, and 

migratory birds. Alternatives B, C, and E emphasize the restoration of a minimum of three 

willow flycatcher historic and occupied habitat sites. Western bumble bee may benefit from 

meadow restoration that improves flowering vegetation (through improved hydrologic function) 

but may also be limited by hive locations where meadow wetness increases and small mammal 

burrows decrease. Restoration of meadow systems as well as riparian habitats as proposed under 

these alternatives is also expected to benefit mule deer that forage in meadows and aspen, and 

species like Townsend’s big-eared bats that forage over water features. These alternatives 

officially recognize the importance of cave and cave-surrogate habitat in the LTBMU for 

Townsend’s big-eared bat and include measures to protect this habitat and protect the species 

through implementation of a Limited Operating Period (LOP). Peregrine falcon and golden 

eagle are expected to benefit from the more all-encompassing protection measures provided to 

cliff habitat under these alternatives. Bald eagles, waterfowl, and osprey are expected to benefit 

from the restoration efforts proposed for aquatic habitat under Alternatives B, C, and E. Bald 

eagle and osprey are also expected to benefit from the measures to protect and retain large and 

complex snags. 

Measures to protect migratory bird habitat were considered when developing the desired 

conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines for the Biological Resources 

Protection Program Area under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. All Alternatives contain measures

to maintain and protect habitat for migratory bird species. 

Alternative A provides standards and guidelines for the protection of PACs and marten den sites 

and may provide the most effective approach to protect these species where they are known to 

occur in the LTBMU except in recreation areas where LOPs do not apply (unless vegetation 

treatments are occurring). Alternatives B and C are relatively silent when it comes to protection 

of marten den sites. Like Alternative A, Alternative E provides measures to protect marten den 

sites as well as PACs and complex structural stand features (i.e., down woody debris, snags, etc.) 

and connectivity of habitat. Both Alternative A and E allow vegetation treatments in PACs but 

Alternative E also allows treatments in PACs for the restoration of habitat to improve or 

maintain condition for the species. Alternative E has the same standards for the protection of 

marten den sites as Alternative A.

PACs continued to be protected under all Alternatives. Restoration of PAC habitat under 

Alternatives B, C, and E, although intended to benefit the long term condition of habitat for the 

species, could temporarily affect habitat for spotted owls and goshawks. The potential for 

impacts would depend on the location and scope of the specific restoration project. Although 

potential impacts are described here, the intent of restoration is to improve habitat for the specific 

benefit of the spotted owl and goshawk and therefore, impacts, if they were to occur, would be 

temporary. Generally, temporary impacts could include the alteration of key habitat elements 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-507
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

(e.g., canopy cover, large trees, snags, coarse woody debris, etc.), alteration of foraging habitat 

and/or prey base, reduced reproductive success, and/or reduced survival of adults. Reduction in 

canopy cover and/or removal of large trees (or snags) to allow for growth of larger trees 

(competitive release) could negatively affect nesting attempts or nest success if thermal 

protection is modified and/or predation increases. Adult survival (as well as reproductive 

success) could be challenged by restoration actions if habitat suitability for prey is altered (e.g., 

removal of coarse woody debris, removal of shrub layer) and adult owls or goshawks now need 

to expend more energy and expose themselves to increased predation risk to locate and catch 

prey. Alternative E provides clearer guidance than Alternatives B and C for the retention of 

canopy cover and basal area for a PAC and for the General Forest. Alternative E also states that 

70% canopy cover is the desired condition for PACs whereas Alternatives B and C use 50%

cover as a desired condition. Alternative E also states that treatments shall not reduce canopy 

cover in dominant and co-dominant trees by more than 10% across a stand.

Many of these potential impacts are not expected to occur because PAC restoration projects 

would be driven solely by the purpose and need to maintain and/or restore suitable habitat for 

spotted owls and goshawks. Resource protection measures would be in place for any PAC 

restoration project (e.g., snag retention, canopy cover, etc.) in order to retain suitable habitat,

including important structures. If impacts were to occur on a project-specific basis, it is not 

expected that any of these potential impacts would be lasting because of the aforementioned 

reasons. Therefore, potential impacts from PAC restoration, if they were to occur, are assumed to 

be temporary. 

The long term benefit that can be realized by conducting focused restoration activities to 

maintain and/or improve habitat condition for spotted owls and goshawks in PACs, as opposed 

to doing nothing, may outweigh the short term impacts that could occur. Under the current 

direction (and Alternative D), treatments allowed in PACs are intended to reduce fuels and are

permitted where PACs overlap the WUI. Many PACs overlap the WUI in the LTBMU. Fuel 

reduction treatments are an ongoing activity under all alternatives and would be designed to be 

consistent with achieving PAC desired condition. Still, many forested stands in the Sierra 

Nevada (and the LTBMU) that are outside WUI, are becoming increasingly stocked with trees, 

particularly smaller, shade tolerant trees. Many stands also contain unusually high levels of slash 

and large downed wood. These dense, thicket-like conditions of trees can compromise the 

suitability of spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat and make it more susceptible to 

catastrophic wildfire. Goshawks also are adapted to foraging in more open forested conditions 

and nesting in stands that allow a clear flight path in to the nest from below, conditions that are 

not similar to forested stands with thickets of smaller trees. Without some type of focus-driven 

restoration for the benefit of the stand condition for these species, PAC habitat could deteriorate 

over time and become more susceptible to widespread negative effects from insects, drought, 

disease, and catastrophic stand replacing fire. 

Although fire is a historic part of the processes affecting habitat in the Sierra Nevada and insect 

outbreaks are also part of the ecological processes that influence forests within this region, the 

forested stands within the LTBMU are outside of their natural range of variability and more 

susceptible to high severity crown fires and massive, widespread die offs from insect outbreaks. 

Stand replacing fires and insect outbreaks that completely remove nest and roost trees, and that 

are on a large geographic scale (especially compared to the relatively small size of the LTBMU)

3-508 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

are not likely to benefit these species. Therefore, the long term benefit of these focused 

restoration efforts are believed to outweigh the potential for short term effects. Alternative E 

proposes to restore the same number of PACs as Alternatives B and C but this alternative, more 

than the other alternatives, provides the clearest guidance for suitable PAC conditions. 

Ultimately, restoration of PACs would proceed under an adaptive management framework in 

which response to restoration would provide insight to the design of potential future treatments.

Forest Vegetation Management and Fire

For the most part, forest vegetation, fuels, and fire management approaches would be conducted 

in conjunction with wildlife habitat desired conditions. However, each alternative includes 

varying degrees of flexibility in the type of technique that can be used (e.g., hand thin, 

mechanical thin, prescribed fire), size of trees that can be removed, the extent to which the 

canopy can be opened, size of early seral openings that can be created, the amount of post-fire 

habitat that can be treated, and the extent of wildland fire management. These approaches could 

conflict with sensitive terrestrial wildlife species and alter wildlife habitat; the potential for 

impacts and magnitude of potential impacts depends on the proposed management actions that 

would be evaluated during project development and as part of the interdisciplinary team process 

under NEPA. Protection measures are in place for biological resources under all alternatives and 

additional protection measures could be created during project development. 

All alternatives allow for the creation of early seral openings. Alternative D would emphasize 

hand thinning and prescribed fire to accomplish this desired condition; these techniques would 

be most compatible with wildlife habitat and wildlife species. However, implementation would 

be challenged by limited size of trees that can be removed and the need for conditions conducive 

to safe prescribed burning or wildland fire management. Alternatives B, C, and E have the 

greatest flexibility to create the most and the largest openings (up to 10 acres). Alternative C can 

create the most acres of openings each year. Early seral openings can have both beneficial and

harmful effects on wildlife, depending on the location of the opening, sensitive resources present, 

and structure of the opening following treatment. Early seral openings can increase 

heterogeneity on the landscape and may favor the colonization of early seral-associated small 

prey species. Conversely, openings can disrupt movement where they are created in otherwise 

continuous forested habitat. Openings can also increase predation risk where individuals are 

forced to cross these areas. Openings are characterized by edge habitat that can be usurped by 

non-native species such as brown headed cowbirds and barred owls. Spotted owls and martens 

are the species with the greatest potential for adverse impacts from early seral openings. The 

creation of large gaps or large areas of low-quality habitat may affect dispersal of young and 

adult owls and successful colonization of unoccupied territories (Keane 2013). Openings can 

adversely affect marten movement and predation risk, and martens tend to avoid openings, 

especially under snow conditions when openings can make individuals susceptible to predation

(see species account above). However, marten may cross openings that have some retention of 

structure such as trees or coarse woody debris. Alternative E clarifies that early seral openings 

would retain trees (including clumps of trees); early seral openings would not be synonymous 

with clear cuts. Alternative E clarifies that early seral openings would not be created in late seral 

habitat, but could be created in mid seral habitat, including mid seral closed canopy habitat; this 

latter habitat type is used by marten and spotted owl in the LTBMU and these species could be 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-509
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

adversely affected by the opening and the fragmentation of mid seral closed canopy habitat. 

Alternative E includes clearer guidance than Alternatives B and C on the process for selecting 

locations of openings and design of openings with the least potential for conflict with other 

resources, including sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. 

Predicted trends in early, mid (closed and open canopy), and late (closed and open canopy) seral 

stages are summarized in Section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation). These trends are based on modeled 

outputs using the SPECTRUM model with limited constraints for wildlife habitat beyond those 

for PACs and HRCAs. The model used prescriptions, operational constraints, and disturbance 

(e.g., fire, bark beetle) to assess the relative ability of the various alternatives to achieve the 

vegetation desired conditions, not to create, protect (except for PACs and HRCAs), or evaluate 

wildlife habitat. The model output indicates that late seral closed canopy habitat for all forest 

types combined increases under Alternatives A and D over a fifty year period following Plan 

implementation (see Table 3-42). Conversely, late seral closed canopy habitat is predicted by the 

model to experience no change under Alternatives B and E and a slight decrease under 

Alternative C (see Table 3-42). Based on model output, it would appear that Alternatives A and 

D are predicted to provide more late seral closed canopy habitat than the other alternatives for 

species such as California spotted owl, Pacific marten, Northern goshawk, wolverine, and great 

gray owl. However, late seral closed canopy habitat is comprised of CWHR classes 5M, 5D, and 

6 and the model predicts that 5D increases substantially and 6 decreases substantially across all 

alternatives (Table 3-75). Therefore, it would appear that the real driver of differences between 

the alternatives in terms of late seral closed canopy habitat is the trend in 5M which generally 

shows more positive (substantially increasing) trends under Alternatives A and D and more static 

to moderately increasing trends under Alternatives B, C and E except for red fir which is 

predicted to show no change under Alternative A, slight decrease under Alternatives B and E, 

and moderate decrease under Alternatives C and E. Spectrum model CWHR class outputs are 

shown below to more comprehensively illustrate predicted changes to habitat not readily seen 

with the more lumped seral stages presented in the Forest Vegetation (3.4.11) section. 

3-510 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-76 SPECTRUM model predicted changes in late seral closed canopy CWHR classes 5M, 

5D, and 6 for the five Alternatives.

Percent changes are categorized as: No change (0-10 percent change); or Increase or Decrease that is 

either Slight (11-20 percent change), Moderate (21-50 percent change), or Substantial (>50 percent 

change).

According to the model output, mid seral closed canopy habitat decreases under all five 

alternatives (see Table 3-42). Under all alternatives this pattern is driven primarily by a decrease 

in 4M and 4D CWHR classes (Table 3-76). However, 4D in red fir forests increases under all 

alternatives. Overall, 3M tends to increase and 3D increases or stays the same. Marten and 

goshawk are associated with 4M and 4D habitats for denning, nesting, foraging, resting, and 

roosting. The 4M and 4D CWHR classes are also associated with moderate capability habitat for 

the spotted owl.

Seral Stage Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

All Forest Types

5M Moderate 

Increase

No change No change Moderate 

Increase

No change

5D Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

6 Substantial 

decrease 

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

White fir/mixed conifer

5M Substantial 

increase

No change No change Moderate 

increase

No change

5D Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

6 Substantial 

Decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

Decrease

Jeffrey Pine

5M Substantial 

increase

Moderate 

increase

Moderate 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Moderate 

increase

5D Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

6 Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Red fir

5M No change Slight 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Slight 

decrease

5D Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

6 Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-511
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-77. SPECTRUM model predicted changes in mid seral closed canopy CWHR classes 3M, 

3D, 4M, and 4D for the five Alternatives.

Percent changes are categorized as: No change (0-10 percent change); or Increase or Decrease that is 

either Slight (11-20 percent change), Moderate (21-50 percent change), or Substantial (>50 percent 

change).

Alternatives A and D incorporate Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) land designations. 

OFEAs were not delineated by the local unit but through a regional process and for the purpose 

of connecting habitats of old forest dependent species Sierra Nevada wide. However, these areas 

in the LTBMU do not contain all of the old or late seral closed canopy forest stands in the 

LTBMU. Alternative E would emphasize the same concepts (desired conditions) originally 

Seral Stage Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

All Forest Types

3M No change Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

increase

Moderate 

increase

Substantial 

Increase

3D Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase 

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

Increase 

4M Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

4D Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

White fir/mixed conifer

3M Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

increase

3D Substantial 

Increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

4M Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

4D Substantial 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Jeffrey Pine

3M Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Moderate 

increase

Moderate 

decrease

3D No change No Change No change No change No change

4M Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

No change Moderate 

decrease

4D Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Red fir

3M Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

3D No change No Change No change No change No change

4M Substantial 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Substantial 

decrease

Moderate 

decrease

4D Substantial 

increase

Substantial

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

Substantial 

increase

3-512 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

designed for Alternative A, but apply them to each location of late-seral forest throughout the 

LTBMU. That is, design treatments to enhance/perpetuate the existing late-seral forest stands 

while enhancing/promoting mid-seral adjacent stands that most effectively connect late-seral 

habitats (e.g. spotted owl or Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core 

Areas (HRCAs)). In order to enhance or perpetuate late-seral stands, in some cases on a projectspecific basis, prescriptions will need to have some flexibility in order to accomplish this 

objective. That is, have the ability to kill or remove trees greater than 30 inches in diameter. 

This option, though an exception, will become more essential as larger trees become more 

prevalent, but still need space to grow. Such a prescription that includes this exception will 

focus primarily on outcomes with wildlife habitat in mind. 

These flexibilities, although intended to improve the condition of late seral forests, have the 

potential to affect species associated with mature forest like marten and spotted owl. For 

example, removal of trees larger than 30 inches in diameter could alter the prey base, reduce the 

canopy cover, and/or increase potential for predation where the tree provided protection for 

nesting or denning locations. Nest trees would not be removed. All of these potential impacts 

are dependent on the treatment and scope of activities, a level of detail that is beyond the scope 

of this analysis since projects and locations are not assigned by any alternative. 

The removal of large trees could also benefit the habitat of species associated with mature forest 

conditions. The limited exceptions under which a tree greater than 30 inches in diameter would 

be removed are focused, for the most part, on the enhancement of a stand and directed towards 

improving resiliency and reducing susceptibility to insects, disease, drought, and large-scale 

catastrophic fire over the long term. Removal of some larger trees could also promote the 

accelerated growth of adjacent trees to even larger diameters and reduce the risk for catastrophic 

fire where these trees are densely packed. Alternative E clarifies the limited exceptions under 

which a tree greater than 30 inches in diameter can, but not must, be removed. This alternative 

also clarifies that selected trees would not need to be removed but could be girdled for snag 

creation or felled for coarse woody debris. 

The lack of one-size-fits all minimum canopy retention levels for the general forest under 

Alternatives B and C as opposed to Alternatives A and D could have negative impacts on species 

associated with dense canopy cover such as goshawk, spotted owl, and marten. Of the three 

alternatives that allow reduction in canopy cover, Alternative E contains the most clear 

protection measures for retention of canopy cover including a standard that treatments shall not 

reduce canopy cover in dominant and co-dominant trees by more than 10% across a stand. 

Reducing the canopy cover in a stand could increase the risk of predation, alter thermal 

conditions of the stand, and cause displacement of individuals and/or their prey depending on the 

location and scope of treatments. These types of impacts could be of short duration and also be 

mitigated by strategic spatial and temporal spacing of treatments as well as the implementation 

of resource protection measures and LOPs at the project level. Species typically associated with 

dense canopy cover throughout their range are found in habitat with variable canopy cover 

conditions in the LTBMU. For example, marten in the LTBMU have been found denning in 

habitats characterized by 40-59% canopy cover (CWHR class “M”) and many spotted owl and 

goshawk PACs in the LTBMU that contain successful nesting pairs are also located in stands

characterized by average canopy covers between 40 and 59%. Reduction in the canopy of late 

seral closed canopy habitat is not expected to have lasting negative effects on these and other late 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-513
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

seral associated species since the canopy would not typically be reduced to a point where late 

seral closed becomes late seral open canopy habitat. Ultimately, the purpose of treating late seral 

stands is to promote resiliency of this habitat for the long term. 

In general, forest vegetation treatments can have both positive and negative effects on sensitive 

terrestrial wildlife habitat. Little is understood about the effects of forest thinning on many 

sensitive species in the Sierra Nevada. For example, the effects of thinning on marten in the 

Sierra Nevada are currently under study. Some thinning projects may benefit marten provided 

that key habitat elements are retained following treatments or the treatment sets the trajectory for 

the improvement of habitat to achieve mature conditions (Slauson and Zielinski 2008). Spotted 

owl may also benefit from treatments that improve heterogeneity on the landscape. As with 

thinning treatments, little is known about the impacts of fuel reduction projects on species 

associated with more mature forest conditions. Fuel reduction treatments that remove understory 

features like coarse woody debris and shrubs may negatively affect marten and other species that 

are associated with these understory features. All alternatives include treatments to reduce fuels 

in the WUI.

The late-successional, and often dense forests favored by spotted owls and goshawks for nesting 

and roosting, and marten for denning and resting are at risk to stand-replacing fires because of 

heavy fuel loading (Agee et al. 2000 as cited in Roberts and North 2012). Although fire is a 

natural and beneficial part of the landscape, the forested stands within the LTBMU are outside of 

their natural range of variability and more susceptible to high severity crown fires. Stand 

replacing fires that completely remove nest and roost trees and denning and resting sites, and that 

are on a large geographic scale (especially compared to the relatively small size of the LTBMU) 

are not likely to benefit these species. Spotted owls persist in landscapes influenced by fire but 

there is not a lot of information to suggest that nesting and roosting habitat is retained and 

occupied in the long term following a stand-replacing event. Therefore, the long term benefit of 

vegetation treatments in reducing the potential for large scale high severity fires are believed to 

outweigh the potential short term effects but more research is needed. Recent research by Lee et 

al. (2012) suggests that some proportion (32%) of an owl “site” can be severely burned and still 

be occupied by owls but so little is known about whether or not there exists (and what that would 

be) a threshold in owl tolerance based on the proportion of the landscape that experiences a high 

severity fire. Forest landscapes exposed to repeated burning are often buffered from the effects 

of future wildfires and characterized by a mosaic of forest patched with high structural 

heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales (Collins et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2008 as cited in 

Roberts and North 2012). This heterogeneity can improve spotted owl persistence by protecting 

late-successional patches from stand-replacing fire and potentially enhancing the abundance or 

diversity of prey species within an individual territory (resulting from greater habitat diversity).

Where fire occurs on the landscape, whether it be prescribed or wild, the alternatives differ in the 

approach for creation and retention of this habitat. Alternative C would conduct the most 

prescribed burning but Alternatives B, D, and E would allow for the most acres of managed 

wildland fire, including areas outside of Desolation Wilderness. Alternative D does not allow for 

restoration of burned forest habitat beyond activities that would be needed to meet public safety. 

Both spotted owls and marten can be adversely affected by the removal of burned habitat, 

depending on the size and location of the activities. Therefore, Alternative D would provide the 

most habitat protection for species associated with burned forest habitat. However, because this 

3-514 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

alternative is unable to thin trees greater than 12 inches in diameter and has limited ability to 

allow for wildland fire under safe conditions, it can be expected that forests under this condition 

would be extraordinarily dense and any fire that occurs under this alternative may be a crown 

(high severity fire) and remove key habitat elements for nesting and denning. Therefore, 

Alternative D would provide for the greatest retention of burned forest habitat but also has the 

greatest risk of large-scale high severity fires. All other alternatives allow for restoration of 

burned forest habitat which could remove snags used for nesting, roosting, denning, and/or 

resting and result in adverse effects to associated species. Alternative E, unlike the other 

alternatives proposing restoration, prioritizes wildlife habitat needs in the decision to conduct 

and development of restoration projects. 

Vegetation treatments are expected to have a long term positive influence on habitats such as 

meadows, montane riparian, and aspen and species such as western bumble bee, willow 

flycatcher, northern goshawk, and mule deer where they occur in these habitat types in the 

LTBMU. In theory, these positive effects are expected to be greatest under Alternative D but 

more likely Alternatives B, C, and E because of the ability to remove larger diameter conifers 

than Alternatives A and D; conifers in these communities in the LTBMU are currently 

outcompeting aspen and other native riparian vegetation where they coexist and encroaching on 

meadows and montane riparian communities. These alternatives would also allow for a greater 

scope of prescribed burning and managed wildfire than Alternative A (but not D) which could 

more naturally mimic natural disturbance regime and allow for greater regeneration of 

vegetation. Meadows could respond positively where encroaching conifers have been removed 

from perimeters and where underburns are utilized to regenerate native meadow vegetation. 

Vegetation treatments to remove conifers from the overstory of aspen stands and use fire as a 

tool to disturb soil in the understory can improve aspen condition (Sheppard et al. 2006). 

Similarly, thinning montane riparian communities from encroaching conifers may reduce 

competition with riparian species such as willow, alder, among others. 

Creation of early seral stages and improvements of late seral forested conditions are important 

for associated migratory bird species that use these habitat types. 

Although grazing is not anticipated to be used as a primary or secondary form of vegetation 

management, grazing can have negative effects on wet meadows and montane riparian habitat 

and associated species such as willow flycatcher. Grazing can directly cause structural alterations 

to willow flycatcher habitat that could “expose nests, reduce substrate for insects, and diminish 

foliage cover that protects nests” (Mathewson et al. 2007). Some grazing can be beneficial for 

the western bumble bee but having grazing degrades habitat for this species. 

All alternatives include protection measures for biological resources. These protection measures 

include LOPs, PAC and HRCA stand structure guidelines, habitat connectivity guidelines, down

woody material and snag retention guidelines, and others as described in Chapter 2 and the Draft 

Forest Plan Revision. Additional protection measures can be developed during project 

development. 

Project-level effects of the methods used for treatments and the locations of treatments would be 

evaluated when projects come online. Overall, taking into account the program-level objectives

of these alternatives, it would appear that Alternative D would be the most compatible with 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-515
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

wildlife habitat objectives theoretically because it primarily uses fire (and hand techniques) to 

restore habitat and focuses on the creation of large trees that could benefit species such as the 

spotted owl, goshawk, and marten. This alternative also shows an increase in late seral closed 

canopy habitat. However, Alternative D does not have the flexibility to use other techniques or 

respond to changing management scenarios if conditions conducive to safe burning or managed 

wildland fire cannot be met. Therefore, this alternative has the potential to be limited in its 

applicability and may not be able to achieve forest resiliency desired conditions. Alternative A 

focuses on the retention of late seral closed canopy habitat for the benefit of associated species 

(this habitat increases under A) and also has more a feasible implementation approach than 

Alternative D. Moreover, Alternative A limits the removal of trees larger than 30 inches dbh and 

sets strict standards for closed canopy retention. Alternative A may provide the greatest benefit 

to late seral closed canopy-associated species. However, both Alternatives A and D have 

restrictions on vegetation treatments that may reduce their ability to improve resilience to 

stressors that could increase under changing climate scenarios. Alternatives B, C, and E have 

restoration strategies and objectives that would more readily achieve desired conditions for 

increased resiliency of stand conditions to changing climate conditions and stressors but would 

include the potential to remove large diameter trees and reduce canopy cover. However, 

Alternative E provides guidance for the retention of canopy cover and basal area in late seral 

closed-canopy stands, retention of post fire habitat, and creation of early seral stages and removal 

of large trees in ways that would minimize conflicts with wildlife associated with these habitat 

types and structural elements. Under Alternative E (and B), there would be no measureable 

change in the amount of late seral closed canopy habitat. Under Alternative C, late seral closed 

canopy habitat would decrease slightly for all forest types. Mid seral closed canopy habitat and 

CWHR class 6 would decrease under all alternatives and this potential change in habitat would 

challenge associated species such as marten, spotted owl, and goshawk.

Recreation 

It is expected that habitat condition and species productivity have the potential to trend 

negatively under all alternatives as recreation demand, and consequently use increases. 

However, the magnitude of potential change by each recreation resource varies by each 

alternative. Alternative C provides for the greatest potential increase in acres of recreation sites

(acres), day use parking, and overnight accommodation units. However, Alternative A provides 

for the second greatest potential expansion in these three developed recreation areas but provides 

for the greatest increase in ski areas and slopes, nearly twice that proposed by the other 

alternatives. The effects of Alternative A may parallel if not exceed those of Alternative C 

because of the ability of Alternative A to have the greatest expansion of ski areas and slopes, 

create new facilities as described in the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (as amended), and apparent 

inapplicability of LOPs and vegetation management standards and guidelines in recreation areas 

under the current direction. Alternatives B and E are similar in nearly every way (and propose far 

less expansion than Alternatives A and C) except E proposes a slightly greater number of 

overnight accommodation units than Alternative B. Alternative D proposes a reduction in 

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

Alternatives A, B and E do not recommend any area for wilderness designation. Alternative E 

includes a new backcountry area in the northwest corner of the LTBMU where many sensitive 

species, especially late seral associated species are located. Although Alternative C includes the 

3-516 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

recommended designation of Dardanelles as a wilderness area, which can be viewed as 

beneficial for protecting natural resources as they currently exist, the total amount of potential 

expansion and creation of developed recreation facilities could counteract the potential benefit of 

the wilderness designation when viewed from a Basin-wide perspective. Alternative D proposes 

two areas for Wilderness. Ultimately, effects on sensitive terrestrial wildlife species by any 

proposed alternative would be dependent upon sites that are selected and the sensitive resources 

that use or are adjacent to these sites. 

Many of the recreational facilities currently found in the LTBMU (excluding ski facilities) are 

located around the Lake Tahoe perimeter, especially around the South shore, and are adjacent to 

sensitive habitat types like lake marsh and shore, meadows, and riparian communities (i.e., 

streams, creeks and rivers). These habitat types have the potential to experience the most 

pronounced negative trend in habitat condition under Alternatives C and A which could affect 

bald eagle, willow flycatcher, waterfowl, mule deer, migratory birds and osprey. These species 

and groups are sensitive to human disturbance and habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation 

that could result from facility expansion and/or creation. There is potential for permanent 

displacement of these species in areas with increased developed recreation. 

Habitat types such as Jeffrey pine, white fir-mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine are also expected 

to experience a negative trend where they exist within and adjacent to developed recreation 

areas, especially campgrounds and ski areas, and species such as spotted owl, northern goshawk, 

marten, and wolverine are expected to be adversely affected where expansion and creation occur 

in or adjacent to occupied forested habitat although wolverine are not expected to occur at or 

near developed recreation sites due to the heavy human use and relatively low elevation 

compared to other areas in the LTBMU. 

Overall, Alternative D has the potential to reduce recreation facilities and would include the 

recommended designation of two wilderness areas. Although Alternative D is expected to have a 

positive trend in habitat condition and the productivity of species because of the potential

reduction of developed recreation facilities, it is possible that a negative trend could be 

experienced if recreation capacity under this alternative fails to meet demand and recreation use 

either continues in what would now be unmanaged areas and/or use shifts geographically to

previously less used areas or shifts by type and includes more dispersed recreation activities in 

areas that previously experienced low levels of use. 

Recreation can have varying degrees of adverse impacts on terrestrial wildlife resources such as 

habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; disruption of behavior (e.g., foraging, reproduction, 

etc.); reduction or alteration in supply and availability of food and cover; direct physical harm to 

individuals and/or offspring (e.g., eggs, young, etc.); and increased refuse, anthropogenic food 

sources, noise, and pet presence. Although it remains unclear which species are most affected by 

recreation and how the growing number of visitors may amplify those effects (Manley et al. 

2010), examples from some studies can improve our limited understanding of recreation impacts 

on various species found in the LTBMU. For example, a study conducted by Morrison et al. 

(2011) in the Lake Tahoe Basin indicated that northern goshawks are susceptible to human 

disturbance; human activity was twice as high within infrequently occupied territories as 

compared to frequently occupied territories. Bald eagles in Washington have also been found to 

be adversely affected by recreation that involves both pedestrian traffic and boat use by 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-517
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

adversely affected feeding activity (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Many kinds of human activities 

have been documented to affect raptors by altering habitats; physically harming or killing eggs, 

young, or adults; and by disrupting normal behavior (Postovit and Postivit 1987, Delany et al. 

1999 as cited in Morrison et al. 2011). Human activity was shown in Schlesinger et al. (2008) to 

be a greater disturbance to land bird species in the Lake Tahoe Basin than even loss of habitat 

from development.

Additional recreation facilities and consequential increased human use (see assumptions above) 

can not only lead to harassment and disturbance of species that tend to be more secretive but also 

attract other species to developed sites because of additional anthropogenic sources (e.g., food, 

denning and resting sites, etc.). Habitat enrichment (i.e., supplemental food) occurs in developed 

areas of the Lake Tahoe Basin and can lead to population growth and/or shifts in species 

distributions towards more developed sites (Manley et al. 2010). In the Lake Tahoe Basin, bear 

encounters in campgrounds, resorts, and recreation residences are frequent and a number of 

conflicts have been recorded, sometimes resulting in euthanization of individual bears. These 

types of conflicts are expected to increase with expanded and/or new facilities that support an 

increased capacity of visitors. However, Alternative E now includes a desired condition and 

strategy directly focusing on the need to improve developed recreation site conditions to 

minimize the potential for human-bear conflict. Developed recreation sites can also attract a 

variety of small mammals and birds that respond to an increased food supply. Martens appear to 

be benefiting from anthropogenic resources in some ski areas in the Lake Tahoe Basin. In these 

ski areas, martens have been reported using anthropogenic food sources (e.g., dumpsters), using 

resort structures (e.g., chalets, buildings) as rest sites, and their tracks in snow are occasionally 

detected beneath lift lines. Food available at ski areas, from humans, may also attract small 

mammals which, in turn, may provide food for martens. 

Although downhill ski resorts in the LTBMU may provide wildlife (e.g., marten) with 

anthropogenic food and resting resources, these resorts have several potential adverse effects on 

wildlife species. As described by Manley et al. (2010), potential adverse effects of ski resorts on 

wildlife include: “(1) forest losses and fragmentation (only shrub and grass layers remain on ski 

slopes), which affect late seral associated species, such as Pacific marten, northern goshawk, 

California spotted owl, and spotted skunk; (2) high human disturbance during daytime on ski 

slopes may create barriers to habitat use and between-habitat patch movement for diurnal 

species; (3) changes in forest cover and human disturbance may create “sink” habitat for Pacific

marten; (4) night lighting and grooming on ski slopes may interfere with the behavior of 

nocturnal species; and (5) losses of snags in forested areas between ski runs owing to hazard tree 

removal can locally reduce wildlife habitat quality”. While martens do occupy portions of many 

ski areas in the LTBMU, female martens appear to exhibit a higher sensitivity to forest 

fragmentation from ski-run creation than males, avoiding areas highly fragmented by ski runs 

(Slauson and Zielinksi unpublished data). Furthermore, while males occupy more highly 

fragmented portions of ski areas than females, male survivorship appears to be lower in sites 

with higher fragmentation (Slauson and Zielinksi unpublished data). Furthermore, there appears 

to be a highly skewed sex ratio of 2:1 in favor of males at certain ski resorts in the LTBMU, 

indicating that high quality reproductive habitat is limiting at these ski resort areas. Snow 

compaction from grooming alters surface consistency making it easier for larger-bodied 

carnivores (e.g., coyotes [Canis latrans]) which, unlike martens are not adapted for deep, soft 

snow, to expand their winter ranges and compete with or prey on martens. Skiers and staff are 

3-518 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

active during the majority of the day at high densities and during the night conducting grooming 

activities, creating a higher likelihood for marten-human encounters and their associated 

disturbances (e.g., decreased frequency of prey captures due to interruptions while hunting). 

Finally, ski resort effects are not limited to winter, as permanent effects (e.g., fragmentation) are 

present year-round, and because many resorts are developing summer recreation (e.g., hiking, 

mountain biking). Alternative A proposed nearly twice as much potential expansion of ski areas 

and slopes as any other alternative. It should also be noted that under the current direction 

(Alternative A) LOPs for old forest dependent species such as marten do not apply to recreation 

areas.

The addition of Dardanelles and Freel Peak as Wilderness designations can contribute to longterm positive trends in habitat conditions and species productivity. However, there is also a 

possibility for long term negative trends. The Freel Peak area includes old-growth forest stands 

as well as a variety of ecological important streams and montane riparian areas. Designation as a 

wilderness can benefit species by precluding management activities (i.e., timber harvest) and 

limiting potentially adverse human activities such as mountain biking and OHV use. This 

conservation approach has long been employed to help protect natural resources from 

degradation associated with human actions. However, climate change has been associated with 

and will continue to influence shifts in ecological processes and patterns, and species ranges, 

movements, and phenologies (Bradley et al. 1999, Cole and Yung 2010, Safford et al. 2012) 

among other newly emerging patterns. Biotic communities may shift but not shift together and 

newly formed communities may be comprised of new and different species assemblages with 

potential for new predatory and/or competitive interactions (Stralberg et al. 2009). Furthermore, 

the concept of ecosystem management represents a shift in conservation ecology in that it takes 

on a view of “nature in flux, rather than balance” and aims to protect ecosystem structure and 

function through adaptive management to maintain both biodiversity as well as adaptive capacity 

(Kalamandeen and Gillson 2007, Grumbine 1994, 1997 as cited in Kalamandeen and Gillson 

2007). Therefore, while wilderness designation can benefit terrestrial wildlife species in these 

areas, protection of species and community assemblages may be limited to a snapshot in time 

and may not be protective in the future if natural processes aren’t sufficient to maintain habitat 

conditions due to factors such as climate change, risk od stand-replacing fire, non-native species 

invasions (e.g., barred owl), insect outbreaks and other pathogens, among others.

Access to NFS Roads and Trails

The most pronounced negative effect on habitat condition and species productivity is expected to 

occur under Alternative C because of the combined increase in mechanized, OHV, and 

motorized trails under this alternative and the types of dispersed recreation activities that can 

occur on these trails. All species have the potential to be affected under Alternative C although 

species such as willow flycatcher, bald eagle, spotted owl, osprey, peregrine falcon, northern 

goshawk, and marten are expected to experience the most pronounced negative effect.

Roads and trails in the LTBMU traverse various upland and riparian habitats and have the 

potential to adversely affect wildlife habitat and species. Newly created trails and roads lead to 

permanent habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss. For example, nest predation in willow 

flycatchers has been shown to increase with habitat fragmentation and disturbance (Wilcove and 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-519
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Robinson 1990 as cited in Mathewson et al. 2009), and increased habitat edge provides favorable 

habitat for brown-headed cowbirds that parasitize willow flycatcher nests. “Trails or other paths 

created through meadows may expose willow flycatcher nest sites, reduce substrate for insects, 

diminish foliage cover that provides protection for adults and fledglings from predators and 

could potentially encourage adults to abandon nests or relocate” (Mathewson et al. 2007). 

Fragmentation can also lead to isolation of individuals and populations that can cause a reduced 

carrying capacity of the habitat, inability of individuals to find mates, and/or lead to the habitat 

becoming a sink habitat in which the reproduction rate does not offset the rate of population 

decline (i.e., emigration, death, low reproductive rates). Associated infrastructure such as 

culverts can disrupt or alter hydrology and contribute to desiccation of meadow systems, 

alteration of stream and creek flow, and consequently alter vegetation condition and the wildlife 

associated with these systems. Upgrades and maintenance of existing roads and trails have the 

potential to temporarily displace individuals and or alter normal behavior during implementation 

of these ground disturbing activities. 

In addition to the roads and trails themselves and associated infrastructure, human use of the 

trails and roads for dispersed recreation activities (e.g., driving, hiking, mountain biking, OHV 

and OSV use) can lead to direct mortality and injury in the form of vehicle strikes; temporary 

and permanent displacement of wildlife; alteration of normal behavior and activities by wildlife 

species (e.g., foraging, nesting, denning, etc.); and spread of noxious weeds. Prolonged or 

consistent use of trails and roads can lead to permanent displacement of individuals from 

territories, nest or den abandonment, and/or alteration of foraging behavior and species-specific 

effects can lead community-wide effects. “Higher trophic level species such as northern 

goshawk, California spotted owl, American marten” may be particularly vulnerable to 

disturbances from dispersed recreation activities (Manley et al. 2010) and impacts to these 

species could result in a cascading effect through lower trophic levels. 

The type of dispersed recreation activities can vary by season and have varying degrees of 

impacts on terrestrial wildlife species although the variation in some of these effects is not well 

understood. Rock climbing can disturb cliff-nesting birds and crevice-roosting bats. Limited 

research has shown that the effect of hiking versus bicycling did not induce a different 

disturbance response (i.e., flushing) by bison, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope in Utah (Taylor 

and Knight 2003). However, hikers move more slowly on trails than bicyclists and it has been 

suggested that this longer residence time may pose a greater disturbance to sensitive species 

(Manley et al. 2010). Conversely, bikes move quickly through habitat but may pose a greater 

risk of physical impacts (Manley et al. 2010). Although OHV use is restricted to designated 

trails in the LTBMU, this activity can damage vegetation, disturb wildlife, impact nesting 

success of breeding birds, alter movement patterns of mammals, and cause a reduction in wildlife 

populations (Luckenbach and Bury 1983, Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). In a study of OHV trail

use and songbirds in northern California, Barton and Holmes (2007) found that two of 18 species 

studied were less abundant at sites on OHV trails than at sites 250 meters from trails, and no 

species were more abundant on trails. In the winter, OSV (i.e., snowmobile) use compacts snow 

and creates noise. Some small mammals (i.e., voles) may have difficulty navigating through 

compact snow layers but some predators may use compacted snow for travel, changing the 

spatial pattern of their movements and predation (Manley et al. 2010). Data for one study 

conducted in the LTBMU found that OHV/OSV use did not affect marten occupancy or 

probability of detection and that overall OHV/OSV use in the study areas was low (1 OHV/OSV 

3-520 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

pass every 2 hours) and exposure occurred in <20% of a typical home range (Zielinski et al. 

2008). Activities such as backcountry snowshoeing and cross country skiing are not expected to 

adversely affect wildlife because they are limited in spatial and temporal extent. 

3.4.23.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Alternatives A and D would have the fewest consequences for species associated with late seral 

closed canopy forests because these alternatives focus heavily on the retention of this habitat 

type and associated elements (e.g., large diameter trees, canopy cover). And model output 

predicts that late seral closed canopy forest increases under these alternatives. However, 

limitations on vegetation treatments could result in increasingly dense stands that are further 

outside their range of natural variability and at a risk greater than the other alternatives to 

widespread die off from insect outbreak, drought, climate change effects, or high severity 

wildfires. Conversely, Alternatives B, C, and E focus on restoring forest structure and type and

improving forest resiliency and in doing so, have greater flexibility to remove large diameter 

trees, reduce canopy cover (although E has retention levels), and create early seral openings

which would have consequences for species associated with late seral habitat. However, model 

output predicts that late seral closed canopy habitat would not decrease under Alternatives B and 

E. Late seral closed canopy forest is predicted by the model to decrease slightly under 

Alternative C and this could challenge species associated with more mature forest characteristics 

such as spotted owl and marten. Mid seral closed canopy forest is predicted by the model to 

decrease under all alternatives and this could also have consequences for mature forest 

associated species unless mid seral is moving to late seral closed canopy habitat.

In terms of restoration, Alternative D would introduce fire back to the landscape as a primary 

means of restoration and this approach would be preferable. However, there is the potential for 

significant limitations in the applicability of this approach and the lack of options for conducting 

restoration where fire can’t be used. Alternative D also doesn’t continue the active watershed 

and aquatic restoration program proposed under the other alternatives following the completion 

of currently planned projects. Without restoration, habitats could deteriorate and no longer meet 

the life history requirements of associated species. These habitats and species communities 

could also be less able to adapt to changing climate conditions. The ability to continue 

restoration under Alternatives A, B, C, and E could improve condition for species associated 

with these habitats such as meadows and aspen stands. 

The LTBMU is a heavily recreated area with vast opportunities for all-season activities. Often, 

recreation activities have adverse consequences for terrestrial wildlife through disturbance (e.g., 

noise, human presence, pets) and habitat degradation. More recreation opportunities could lead 

to an increase in human-wildlife conflict with species such as bears and mountain lions. 

Alternatives A and C propose to expand recreation sites, overnight accommodation units, and 

parking more than the other alternatives. Alternative A proposes to double the acreage of NFS 

lands open to ski areas and slopes which could have negative consequences for species 

associated with high elevation forested habitat such as marten (and possibly wolverine). 

Standardized LOPs for mature forest-associated species do not apply to recreation areas under 

any alternative and this lack of protection could have detrimental consequences for denning or 

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-521
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

nesting wildlife. Under Alternative D, the size of recreation sites and ski areas and slopes could 

be reduced, and this reduction could have positive consequences for species that occupy these 

areas, particularly martens that are known to occupy ski resorts in the LTBMU. However, 

challenges could occur where visitors continue to use decommissioned areas and/or shift 

recreation activities to previously unused or little used areas.

Overall, Alternative C could have the greatest potential for adverse consequences for terrestrial 

wildlife species productivity and habitat condition because this alternative proposes the most 

intense (most acres over shortest period of time) vegetation treatments, greatest expansion of 

developed recreation sites, overnight accommodation units, and parking, second greatest 

expansion of ski areas and slopes, as well as an expansion of road access to NFS lands. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Alternatives A and D would trend towards achieving desired conditions for protection of PAC 

and HRCA habitat, connectivity of late seral habitat (OFEAs), and retention of elements 

associated with late seral habitat (e.g., canopy cover, large trees). However, these alternatives 

could struggle to improve PAC habitat where it is degraded or threatened and could have an 

increased risk (instead of decreased) to catastrophic wildfire, a major threat to California spotted 

owl and other late seral associated species. Conversely, Alternatives B, C, and E have the ability 

to improve the condition of PAC habitat where condition has deteriorated. However, Alternative 

C may not be able to achieve the desired condition for PAC habitat and late seral habitat because 

of the ability to conduct more rapid and intense vegetation treatments and the potential for 

increased recreation. 

Many of the desired conditions are focused on habitat elements (e.g., snags, habitat connectivity, 

cliff or cave habitat) or broad types of biological resources (e.g., terrestrial habitat, warm water 

fishes, raptors, etc.) but not on specific species themselves. Alternatives B, C, and E would be 

better positioned with appropriate strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines than 

Alternative A to achieve these types of desired conditions. Alternative D includes the same 

desired conditions and standards and guidelines as Alternatives B, C, and E but fails to follow 

the same restoration objectives and strategies to achieve these desired conditions. 

3-522 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-78. Comparison of Alternatives by Habitat Type and Special-status Species

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats

Riparian Habitats 

(Wet meadows, 

Montane riparian, 

Lakeside marsh 

and shore habitat, 

Aspen)

Condition maintained 

with potential for 

positive trend from 

restoration and 

enhancement; 

potential risk from 

developed recreation 

expansion and limits 

on diameter of trees 

that can be removed 

(e.g., encroaching 

conifers). 

Condition maintained 

with potential for 

positive trend more 

than Alternatives A 

and A from restoration 

and enhancement and 

vegetation treatments 

(including prescribed 

and managed fire) to 

improve structure and 

resiliency; potential 

risk from developed 

recreation expansion. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but greater potential 

risk from recreation 

expansion and 

increase access to 

NFS lands. 

Condition maintained 

with potential for 

positive trend from 

reduced recreation 

areas and access, and 

greatest use of fire; 

potentially greatest 

risk from wildfire, 

shifting or continued 

unmanaged recreation 

use, increased OHV 

access, and limits on 

diameter of trees that 

can be removed (e.g., 

encroaching conifers).

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Coniferous 

Forests (Jeffrey 

pine, white firmixed conifer, red 

fir, lodgepole pine, 

subalpine conifer)

Condition maintained;

potential for 

decreasing trend in 

condition of mid and 

late seral stage; 

greatest potential risk 

from ski area 

expansion.

Condition maintained; 

potential for positive 

trend in condition of 

late seral stage and 

resiliency to standreplacing fire and 

beetles more than 

Alternatives A and D.

Similar to Alternative 

B but potential risk 

from ski area 

expansion greater 

than Alternatives B, D, 

and E. 

Condition maintained; 

potential benefit from 

reduced recreation 

sites and ski area 

operational 

boundaries; potential 

risk to resiliency from 

restricted restoration 

and risk of wildfire.

Similar to Alternative 

B but with added 

positive benefit from 

new and revised 

standards and 

guidelines for late 

seral closed canopy

forest.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-523
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Montane chaparral Potential for 

decreasing trend in 

condition where 

vegetation treatments 

aren’t targeting 

creation/maintenance 

and habitat is 

becoming converted 

to forest.

Potential for 

increasing trend in 

condition more than 

Alternatives A and D 

where approach may

create/maintain 

habitat. 

Similar to 

Alternative B. 

Potential for 

increasing trend in 

condition more than 

any other alternative 

where fire is allowed 

to burn and create this 

habitat. 

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Cliff,Cave, and 

Cave-Surrogate 

Habitat

Condition maintained; 

potential for 

decreasing trend 

without protection 

measures.

Condition maintained; 

potential for positive 

trend from measures 

to protect and restore 

one site.

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Similar to 

Alternative A.

Similar to Alternative 

B but with improved 

standard and 

guideline for LTBMU 

conditions.

PACs and HRCAs Condition maintained; 

potential for 

decreasing trend in 

mid and late seral 

habitat condition and 

wildfire risk; potential 

risk from developed 

recreation expansion 

and greatest potential 

risk from ski area 

expansion.

Condition maintained; 

potential for positive 

trend in late seral 

habitat condition and 

resiliency from 

restoration more than 

Alternatives A and D; 

risk from removal of 

large trees and 

canopy reduction less 

than Alternative C and 

more than Alternatives 

A and D.

Similar to Alternative 

B but greater potential 

risk from more intense 

and rapid vegetation 

management 

approach, expansion 

of developed 

recreation, and 

increased access to 

NFS lands.

Condition maintained; 

potential benefit from 

use of prescribed fire, 

and reduced 

recreation sites and 

ski area operational 

boundaries; potential 

risk from restricted 

restoration and risk of 

wildfire.

Similar to Alternative 

B but with stronger 

and more relevant 

desired conditions and 

standards and 

guidelines.

3-524 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wildlife Species Protected Under ESA

Pacific fisher Species not expected 

to occur.

Same as Alternative A Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Wildlife Species Proposed Under ESA

Wolverine If present, potential 

benefit from predicted 

increase in late seral 

closed canopy habitat 

(5M & 5D); potential 

risk where habitat 

deteriorates and is at 

risk to catastrophic 

disturbance (e.g.,fire)

and expansion of 

developed recreation, 

especially ski area 

operational 

boundaries greater 

than all other 

Alternatives. 

If present, potential 

benefit from 

treatments that 

improve resiliency of 

habitat and predicted

increase in red fir 5D; 

risk from predicted 

slight decrease in red 

fir 5M, and expansion 

of developed 

recreation less than 

Alternatives A and C.

If present, potential 

benefit from 

increasein red fir 5D; 

risk from predicted 

decrease in red fir 5M 

and overall late seral 

closed canopy habitat, 

expansion of 

developed recreation, 

especially ski area 

operational 

boundaries, and 

access to NFS lands.

If present, potential 

benefit from predicted 

increase in overall late 

seral closed canopy 

habitat (5M & 5D) and 

reduced ski areas; 

potential risk from 

moderate decrease in 

red fir 5M and where 

habitat deteriorates 

and is at risk to 

catastrophic 

disturbance (e.g.,fire), 

and increased OHV 

access.

Similar to Alternative 

B but with added 

benefit from strategies 

and standards and 

guidelines to protect 

late seral close 

canopy habitat.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-525
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Western bumble

and willow 

flycatcher

Potential for positive 

trend from meadow 

restoration; risk from 

grazing, developed 

recreation expansion, 

treatments to treat 

invasive species, and 

limits on diameter of 

trees that can be 

removed (e.g., 

encroaching conifers). 

Similar to Alternative 

A but with less risk 

from developed 

recreation expansion 

(less than A and C); 

greater benefit from 

ability to remove 

larger encroaching 

conifers, greater use 

of prescribed fire, and 

objectives to improve 

meadow condition. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but with greater 

potential risk from 

developed recreation 

expansion and more 

roads/trails; greater 

benefit from ability to 

remove larger 

encroaching conifers, 

more prescribed and 

managed wildfire, and 

objectives to improve 

meadow condition for 

willow flycatcher. 

Potential for positive 

trend from meadow 

restoration, reduced 

recreation areas, and 

greatest use of 

prescribed and 

managed wildfire; risk 

from lack of 

restoration, greatest 

risk of wildfire, 

potential shifting 

recreation use, 

grazing, and limits on 

diameter of trees that 

can be removed (e.g., 

encroaching conifers).

Similar to 

Alternative B.

3-526 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Northern Goshawk

and California 

spotted owl

Potential benefit from 

predicted increase in 

late seral closed 

canopy habitat (5M 

&5D); risk from 

predicted decrease in 

CWHR types 6, 4M 

and 4D; risk from 

potential post fire 

habitat restoration, 

decreasing trend in 

condition of PAC 

habitat (and increased 

risk of wildfire) due to 

lack of restoration,

and expansion of 

developed recreation, 

especially ski area 

operational 

boundaries greater 

than all other 

Alternatives.

Potential benefit from 

restoration of 

degraded PAC 

habitat, overall static 

amount of late seral 

closed canopy habitat, 

and predicted 

increase in CWHR 5D; 

risk from predicted 

decrease in CWHR, 6, 

4M, &4D, and 

predicted slight 

decrease in red fir 5M; 

risk from lower desired 

condition canopy 

cover for PACs and 

HRCAs, post fire 

habitat restoration less 

than A but more than 

D and E, loss of large 

trees, reduction in 

canopy cover, and 

early seral openings,

and expansion of 

developed recreation 

less than Alternatives 

A and C. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but greater potential 

risk from predicted 

slight decrease in late 

seral closed canopy 

habitat (especially red 

fir 5M), accelerated 

pace of forest 

vegetation treatments, 

and expansion of 

developed recreation 

(especially ski areas), 

and access to NFS 

lands. 

Similar to Alternative 

A except potential 

benefit from reduced 

recreation areas, 

especially ski resorts 

and less emphasis on 

fuel reduction in 

burned forest habitat; 

risk from predicted 

decrease in red fir 5M 

and greatest risk of 

wildfire. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but with added 

benefit from more 

stringent desired 

conditions and 

standards and 

guidelines for canopy 

cover, late seral 

habitat and key 

elements, and 

retention of burned 

forest habitat.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-527
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Bald eagle Potential for positive 

trend from habitat 

restoration and 

predicted increase in 

late seral open canopy 

habitat (5S & 5P) and 

CWHR class 5D and 

5M in white fir/mixed 

conifer and Jeffrey 

pine; risk from 

predicted loss of 

CWHR class 6 and 

from developed 

recreation expansion. 

Similar to Alternative 

A but risk from 

developed recreation 

expansion less than 

Alternatives A and C

and CWHR class 5M 

is predicted to 

increase only in 

Jeffrey pine. 

Similar to Alternative 

A but with potentially

greater risk from 

developed recreation 

expansion and CWHR 

class 5M is predicted 

to increase only in 

Jeffrey pine.

Potential for positive 

trend from increase in 

late seral open canopy 

habitat , and reduced 

access and developed 

recreation sites; 

potential risk from lack 

of restoration and 

increased wildfire 

potential, and potential

shifting recreation use 

from inability to meet 

demand.

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Great gray owl Species not expected 

to occur.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Townsend’s bigeared bat, Pallid 

bat, Fringed 

myotis

Potential for positive 

trend where 

restoration improves 

foraging habitat and 

prohibits removal of

large trees (potential 

roosts); risk from

predicted decrease in 

mid seral open and 

early seral foraging 

habitat (Pallid), from

developed recreation 

expansion, and from

lack of cave and cavesurrogate standards 

and guidelines. 

Potential for positive 

trend from restoration 

and inclusion of cave 

and cave-surrogate 

standards and 

guidelines; potential 

risk from predicted 

decrease in early seral 

foraging habitat 

(Pallid), ability to 

remove large trees 

(potential roosts), and 

developed recreation 

but less than 

Alternatives A and C.

Similar to Alternative 

B except potential 

benefit from predicted 

increase in mid seral 

open foraging habitat 

(Pallid) and increased 

risk from developed 

recreation expansion.

Similar to Alternative 

A but potential benefit 

if abandoned 

recreation structures 

can be used as roosts; 

risk from lack of 

restoration and

increased wildfire, and

if roosts excluded from 

decommissioned 

recreation structures. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but with improved 

standard and 

guideline for LTBMU 

conditions.

3-528 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Pacific marten Potential benefit from 

predicted increase in 

late seral closed 

canopy habitat (5M 

&5D); risk from 

predicted decrease in 

CWHR types 6, 4M 

and 4D; risk from 

potentially diminishing 

quality of habitat and 

risk of wildfire (at level 

less than Alternative 

D); risk from 

inapplicability of LOPs 

at recreation areas, 

expansion of 

developed recreation 

areas, especially ski 

area operational 

boundaries greater 

than all other 

alternatives.

Potential benefit from 

predicted increase in 

CWHR type 5D; risk 

from predicted 

decrease in CWHR 

types 6, 4M, &4D and 

predicted slight 

decrease in 5M in red 

fir; risk from loss of 

large trees, early seral 

openings, and 

reduction in canopy 

cover; risk from

expansion of 

developed recreation 

especially ski areas 

and no LOP but at 

level less than 

Alternatives A and C. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but greater potential 

risk from predicted 

slight decrease in late 

seral closed canopy 

habitat (especially red 

fir 5M), accelerated 

pace of forest 

vegetation treatments, 

greatest expansion of 

developed recreation 

(especially ski areas) 

and access to NFS 

lands. 

Similar to Alternative 

A except potential 

benefit from reduced 

recreation areas, 

especially ski areas 

and less emphasis on 

fuel reduction in 

burned forest habitat

and predicted 

increase in late seral 

closed canopy habitat; 

risk from predicted 

decrease in red fir 5M 

and greatest risk of 

wildfire. 

Similar to Alternative 

B but with added 

benefit from more 

stringent desired 

conditions and 

standards and 

guidelines for late 

seral habitat and key 

elements, 

andretention of burned 

forest habitat.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-529
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

TRPA Special Interest Species

Waterfowl Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

aquatic habitat; 

challenges from 

increased developed 

and dispersed 

recreation.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

aquatic habitat; 

challenges from 

increased developed 

and dispersed 

recreation but at level 

less than 

Alternatives A and C. 

Similar to Alternative

A but greater risk from 

greater expansion of 

developed recreation.

Similar to Alternative

A but with potential for 

declining trend where 

habitat restoration not 

implemented.

Similar to 

Alternative B

Golden eagle Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

foraging habitat and 

protection of nesting 

habitat. 

Similar to 

Alternative A

Similar to 

Alternative A

Similar to Alternative 

A but with potential for 

declining trend where 

habitat restoration not 

implemented.

Similar to 

Alternative A

Osprey Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

due to disturbance 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation. 

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

due to disturbance 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation 

but at a level less than 

Alts A and C.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

due to disturbance 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration; 

potential for 

diminished 

productivity without 

restoration; challenges 

due to increased 

dispersed recreation 

(e.g., OHV).

Similar to 

Alternative B

3-530 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Peregrine falcon Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

from restoration of 

foraging habitat and 

protection of nesting 

cliffs from rock 

climbing. 

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

from restoration of 

foraging habitat; 

protection of nesting 

cliffs; and objective to 

remove anthropogenic 

disturbance from a cliff 

(or cave) site. 

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

from cliff protection 

measures and 

restoration of foraging 

habitat; potential for 

diminished 

productivity where 

future restoration not 

implemented.

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Mule deer Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation 

but at level less than 

Alts A and C.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

from increased 

developed and 

dispersed recreation.

Potential for stable or 

improved productivity 

with restoration of 

meadow and riparian 

habitat; challenges 

where restoration not 

implemented and 

habitat condition 

diminishes, potential 

for positive trend 

where fire is 

introduced to meadow 

systems to restore 

condition.

Similar to 

Alternative B.

Chapter 3 | Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species ■ 3-531
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Resource Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Migratory birds Improved habitat 

conditions with 

watershed and aquatic 

restoration; challenges 

from increasingly 

dense forested 

conditions and 

increased developed 

and dispersed 

recreation.

Improved habitat 

conditions with 

watershed and aquatic 

restoration as well as 

forest restoration; 

challenges from 

increased developed 

and dispersed 

recreation.

Improved habitat 

conditions with 

watershed and aquatic 

restoration as well as 

forest restoration; 

challenges from 

increased developed 

and dispersed 

recreation.

Improved habitat 

conditions with 

watershed and aquatic 

restoration; challenges 

from lack of future 

habitat restoration; 

increasingly dense 

forested conditions 

and increased 

dispersed recreation.

Similar to 

Alternative B

3-532 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.24 Water Quality and Soil Erosion 

3.4.24.1 Introduction 

Water quality is a key component and indicator of watershed condition. Degradation of other 

components of watershed condition (i.e. soil quality, SEZ and stream channel condition) are 

often reflected in water quality condition. 

Fine sediment (<20 microns) transport to Lake Tahoe, and its effect on lake clarity is a primary 

water quality concern in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Nutrient inputs (nitrogen and phosphorus) are 

also a concern, particularly as they affect near shore clarity. Invasive species in the forms of both 

aquatic plants and mollusks have also been recently identified as a major contributor to adverse 

impacts on near shore clarity. 

Soil erosion is the primary process for fine sediment and associated nutrient transport to the 

Lake. Other aspects of soil quality (i.e. soil productivity) are addressed in Section 3.4.22 - Soils. 

Erosion processes include sheet, rill, gully and channel erosion. The USFS has a variety of 

qualitative and quantitative techniques for assessing the scope and scale of management activity 

impacts on soil erosion and sediment transport at the project scale. Assessment of impacts at the 

programmatic scale presented in this Forest Plan relies primarily on qualitative assessment of 

past project scale analysis. 

Methodology

The following indicators are utilized to describe current conditions and water quality impacts 

from forest management activities:

• Current Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP) Tributary Monitoring 

data for suspended sediment and nutrients. 

• TMDL milestones for reduction of fine sediment and nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe 

from Upland and Stream Channel source areas. 

o BMPEP Implementation and Effectiveness scores

o WEPP Analysis, utilizing measurements of soil attributes

o Roads and Trails Water Quality Risk Assessment Scores

o Stream Condition Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Data

• State Water Quality Standards

LTIMP Tributary water quality data is available on the USGS website, and is scheduled for 

presentation in the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2011 Lake Tahoe Threshold Evaluation 

Report. The methodology for assessing impacts of Forest management activities in achieving 

TMDL milestones is based on results from past Forest monitoring reports for the subset of 

indirect indicators identified above. This includes annual USFS Regional BMPEP evaluation 

reports, soil quality monitoring reports related to fuels reduction practices (including WEPP 

analysis), roads and trails BMP upgrades monitoring reports, stream channel/floodplain 

restoration effectiveness monitoring reports, and existing Watershed Analysis and Ecosystem 

Assessment reports.

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-533
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Assumptions

• Past water quality monitoring in the basin has proven to be largely inadequate to detect 

measurable adverse impacts to water quality specifically related to Forest Service 

management activities, such as roads and timber harvest. The Forest Service has 

developed other qualitative and quantitative methods that provide a better direct 

measurement of ecosystem impacts from Forest Management activities that have the 

potential to impact water quality

• Under all the alternatives, proposed changes in recreation infrastructure will consider 

impacts as they relate to the ecological values of riparian areas and wetlands (SEZs). 

Under all the alternatives, opportunities to protect and restore the ecological function of 

SEZs will be identified and considered, as part of future proposed actions related to 

increase recreational opportunity and capacity.

3.4.24.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Water Quality 

Past analysis of water quality monitoring data indicates that in general, forested lands do meet 

the current state regulatory standards; however, there are exceptions.

Watersheds that have experienced significant past disturbance, and have large sections of 

unstable stream channels frequently exceed state standards for sediment and nutrients 

(Blackwood, Trout Creek, and Upper Truckee River are a few examples). The total phosphorus 

standard is frequently exceeded in many more watersheds; however, water quality analysis 

indicates this standard is frequently exceeded in undisturbed watersheds, and may need to be 

revised.

The only WQ monitoring the Forest has done related to human health impacts is limited to fecal 

coliform monitoring at the Baldwin and Meiss grazing allotments, and a site investigation and 

remediation effort at the old Meyers Landfill site. 

Although research in other parts of the country indicate established water quality standards are 

frequently not exceeded in water bodies within and adjacent to grazing, in situations where 

grazing use is not concentrated, this has not been the case in Lake Tahoe. Because the size of 

grazing allotments and capable grazing acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin are relatively small, 

forcing concentrated use, the California state fecal coliform standards (fecal coliform 

concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more 

than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 m) have 

frequently been exceeded in Lake Tahoe within and downstream of grazing allotments. In 

general, violations are rarely documented prior to presence of livestock, but have been frequently 

documented during periods of active use.

Fecal coliform was monitored at two of the three grazing allotments permitted within the 

LTBMU, from 1999-2001 at the Meiss Grazing Allotment in the Upper Truckee watershed, and 

from 1999 through 2007 at the Baldwin Allotment in the Tallac watershed. Water quality data 

was collected throughout the grazing season as part of the Annual Operating Instructions. When 

3-534 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

a given allotment or pasture reached the allowable-use, including water quality, that allotment or 

pasture was rested from grazing for the remainder of the season. Because the data was used as a 

management tool, no annual reports analyzing the results were composed. However, information 

regarding the impacts to water quality was used in both the Meiss Allotment Decision Notice and 

the Baldwin Allotment Decision Memo (USFS, Meiss DN, 2009). The Baldwin Allotment is 

closed and the Meiss Allotment is vacant. 

The Meyers landfill investigation has detected a significant plume of vinyl chloride (VC). This 

VC contamination is not currently affecting drinking water sources, and remediation and cost 

recovery efforts are currently in progress.

Past water quality monitoring in the basin has proven to be largely inadequate to detect 

measurable adverse impacts to water quality specifically related to Forest Service management 

activities, such as roads and vegetation management. The interagency basin wide tributary 

monitoring program (LTIMP) was designed to collect data on overall watershed responses, but 

was not designed to separate out the impacts of individual land uses. Past water quality 

monitoring performed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit related specifically to forest 

service management activities (such as roads and vegetation management) resulted in the 

eventual conclusion that in-stream water quality monitoring was a poor measure to detect 

impacts because when they occur, they tend to be episodic in nature, and difficult to capture 

through typical stream monitoring programs. (Norman, 2000; Norman, 1997; Norman, 1996; 

Norman, 1996).

The Forest Service has developed other qualitative and quantitative evaluations that provide a 

better direct measurement of ecosystem impacts from Forest Management activities that have 

the potential to impact water quality. The discussion below described current conditions and 

trends related to water quality at the watershed scale, as measured through a Basin wide tributary 

monitoring program, as well as the results of past USFS initiated monitoring efforts.

The Lake Tahoe Basin has a long data record of tributary water quality data, provided through 

the LTIMP. This program is funded through TRPA and USGS, and recently has also been 

supported with funds through the USFS Erosion Control Grants program (for almost 1/3 of the 

cost of the program). 

From this data, the State of California currently lists 8 tributary water bodies as impaired, and the 

State of Nevada lists seven tributary water bodies as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act (2010 List). These tributaries are located within the Lake Tahoe Basin boundary; 

therefore most of the tributaries mentioned include both USFS and private lands. The receiving 

water body, Lake Tahoe is listed by both states.

Two of the California streams currently have approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

targets related to sediment, (Heavenly Creek, 2002 and Blackwood Creek, 2008) and TMDLs are 

scheduled to be developed for the other water bodies and constituents. The Lake Tahoe TMDL 

approved by the EPA in 2011, is a joint effort between CA and NV. The Lake Tahoe TMDL 

requires the USFS to track and report on efforts to reduce loading from National Forest lands. 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-535
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Most of the California streams (Table 3-73) and Lake Tahoe are listed because of sediment and 

nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe and subsequent impacts to Lake Tahoe clarity. However based 

on the TMDL analysis, upland sources (the forested non-urban portions of the watersheds) are 

estimated to contribute only 9% of the total fine sediment loading to the Lake, with atmospheric 

(15%) and urban sources (72%) the largest contributors. Forested non-urban sources are 

currently estimated to contribute 26% of the phosphorus and 15.5% of the nitrogen loading to the 

lake. 

The six Nevada streams are listed (Table 3-78) because of zinc, iron, and in one instance 

pathogen violations. Two of the California streams are listed because of pathogens. The 303(d) 

listed waterbodies, other than Lake Tahoe, are listed below along with the pollutants causing 

listing.

Table 3-78. Listed 303(d) stream segments in the Lake Tahoe Basin (2010)

Segment Measured Impact

California

Blackwood Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, iron

Cold Creek nitrogen

General Creek iron, phosphorus

Heavenly Valley Creek phosphorus, chloride, sediment

Tallac Creek pathogen

Trout Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogen , iron 

Upper Truckee iron, phosphorus

Ward Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, iron

Note* iron and chloride WQ stds may be revised

Nevada

Second Creek zinc

Wood Creek pathogen

Third Creek zinc

Incline Creek iron

Glenbrook Creek iron

First Creek zinc

Reporting of current water quality conditions and trends reported through Forest monitoring has 

been presented in the Forest Monitoring Program Annual Report for 2004/2005 through 

2009/2010. The only analysis of water quality data that has been completed and presented in 

these reports during this time period is for Heavenly Ski Resort and the Marlette Creek, 

Blackwood Creek, and Cookhouse Meadow Restoration projects.

3-536 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Water quality data indicates significantly improved conditions within the Heavenly Ski Area, 

with the water quality well below the TMDL standard for Heavenly Creek. There are still 

persistent exceedances of standards for iron (which appears to be natural causes) as well as 

chloride at all three Heavenly creek WQ sites, however these were also exceeded at the 

undisturbed reference site on Hidden Creek. State effluent standards for the California Lodge 

parking lot, Edgewood Creek, and below the Boulder parking lot are also typically exceeded. 

Heavenly has recently completed new BMPs at both these facilities, and is continuing to 

investigate and improve the performance of these BMPs. 

Monitoring at the dam removal and stream restoration project at Marlette Creek indicates that the 

new channel has been continuing to adjust after restoration, with evidence of continued bank 

erosion and channel scour and deposition. Water quality data has not proven to be a useful 

measure of project effectiveness, compared to instream channel measurements and photopoints. 

Therefore water quality monitoring has been discontinued, and future monitoring at this site will 

rely on channel measurements and photopoints, repeated at 3 year intervals to track channel 

adjustments and determine whether future restoration efforts are necessary. Based on this 

monitoring, deficiencies in the restoration design approach of this project have been identified, 

and have resulted in improved integration of geomorphic principles in later projects. 

Water Quality monitoring was conducted at the Cookhouse Meadow/Big Meadow Creek and 

Blackwood creek restoration projects, during implementation only. This monitoring was 

required as part of State NPDES permitting, to determine whether state standards were 

maintained during project implementation. This monitoring indicates that state standards for 

turbidity (no more than 10% exceedance over background levels) are frequently exceeded during 

implementation of in-channel stream restoration projects. However because background levels 

are typically very low (between 0.1 and 2 NTUs), the level of exceedances has usually stayed 

below 5 NTUs. There are exceptions when major precipitation events, and/or diversion failures 

have occurred during implementation; however, these have been of relatively short duration and 

magnitude. The LTBMU is continuing to learn from past experience, to improve the timing, 

implementation, and maintenance of construction BMPs at these projects. Ongoing monitoring 

at both of these projects indicates there has already been substantial water quality benefits at both 

sites, as evidenced by measurements of more frequent and longer duration overbank flows, 

sediment deposition in the floodplain, and reduced channel erosion (Norman, 2009 and Oehrli, 

2009) 

Desired conditions and attributes for water quality as described in the 1988 Forest Plan have 

been refined through the Pathway 2007 process. The intent of the original desired condition 

statements has not been substantially changed through this refinement, but rather reflects an 

attempt to provide a better organized and uniform approach. The proposed attributes for pollutant 

load reduction related to lake clarity however do reflect a major change in how attainment of 

water quality desired conditions are measured through the development of the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Total Maximum Daily Load Model by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. The 

TMDL model has assigned sediment and nutrient load reduction milestones for every watershed 

for each pollutant sources within that watershed, in order to meet the total load reductions needed 

to protect Lake Tahoe clarity. A crediting program is being developed to assign regulatory 

targets for achieving pollutant load reduction targets for urban sources.

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-537
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

There is no crediting program related to USFS sources, however the USFS will be required to 

report annually on actions taken to achieve TMDL milestones, for upland and stream channel 

source categories on USFS managed lands. TMDL regulatory agencies (Lahontan and NDEP) 

will use select metrics within the Tahoe Regional Planning Agencies Environmental 

Improvement Program (EIP) performance measures tracking and reporting program to evaluate 

progress for upland and stream channel sources. The LTBMU will continue to provide data to 

the EIP performance measure tracking and reporting program. 

EIP performance measures will be used in conjunction with current state water quality standards 

to measure attainment of desired conditions and regulation of management activities to protect 

the beneficial uses for waters within the Lake Tahoe Basin as identified in the Lahontan Basin 

Plan. (LRWQB, 2005)

All the management activities contained within the TMDL model are assigned disturbance 

coefficients that estimate their degree of impact on water quality. The Forest will continue to 

adapt its monitoring program to provide better information to inform and validate the parameters 

used in the TMDL model related to Forest Management activities. The Forest monitoring 

program is anticipated to focus primarily on parameters related to soil quality, stream channel 

geomorphic condition, and BMP effectiveness. As requested by TMDL regulators, the LTBMU

will routinely provide key findings (and citations) developed through its internal monitoring 

programs, that provide useful information for evaluation of TMDL implementation.

Region 5 has developed guidance for management prescriptions and practices to protect water 

quality through the Region 5 Water Quality Management Program. This is described more fully 

in the Soil Erosion section presented below.

And finally, a Draft “Stream Condition Assessment of the Lake Tahoe Basin in 2009 and 2010 

using the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS)” report, 

conducted through a SNPLMA research agreement with Humboldt State University, in 

coordination with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, indicates that overall the majority of 

Tahoe Basin streams are in good to excellent condition as it relates to the macroinvertebrate 

community (O’Dowd and Stubblefield, in prep). Macroinvertebrates are widely being accepted

and utilized as a valuable indicator of water quality.

Groundwater Quality

In May 1975, leachate discharge was detected associated with the Meyers Landfill site. Volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and vinyl chloride were detected in the ground water beneath the 

landfill. These substances also reached nearby Saxon Creek. In the decades since, a plume of 

contaminated ground water has migrated thousands of feet offsite and poses a potential threat to 

domestic water supplies. An interim remedy is nearing completion which stabilizes the landfill 

and prevents rainwater from infiltrating into the landfill waste and thereby feeding more 

contaminated leachate to the ground water. The final remedy will determine the best means of 

controlling and removing the ground-water contamination.

3-538 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is the primary process driving water quality impacts from forest management 

activities. Maintaining functional characteristics of soils such as hydrologic function, soil 

cover, and soil porosity, and soil productivity, are essential to maintaining overall watershed 

condition as it relates to erosion processes that effect water quality. The clarity of Lake Tahoe, 

the primary water quality concern in the Lake Tahoe Basin, is inextricably linked to controlling 

inputs of fine sediment to the lake, as well as nutrients bound to sediment particles. Therefore 

maintaining soil quality is a critical component of the Forests water quality protection program.

The Forest Service has developed a number of protocols to evaluate the potential for Forest 

management activities to adversely impact water quality, including evaluations of standard 

Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs). Forest Service BMPs have been 

systematically evaluated through the Region 5 Best Management Practices Evaluation Program 

(USDA Forest Service 2000) at randomly selected sites since 1992. 

Monitoring through the Regional Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) has 

demonstrated an increase in implementation and effectiveness of BMPs employed for erosion 

control since the inception of the program. An extensive set of Forest Service Regional BMPs 

are prescribed for projects in all program areas, and additional project-specific BMPs are often 

prescribed. The annual BMPEP monitoring reports discuss monitoring results in detail, and are 

posted on the LTBMU external website; this data is presented in Table 3-79.

Table 3-79. Comparison of overall Best Management Practices Evaluation Program Ratings

Year of 

Evaluation # eval Implemented & Effective (%)

Not 

Implemented & 

Effective (%)

Implemented & 

Not Effective 

(%)

Not Implemented 

& Not Effective 

(%)

1992-2002 194 72.2 11.3 11.3 5.2

2003 45 80 0 13.3 6.7

2004 66 78.8 7.6 12.1 1.5

2005 39 94.9 2.6 2.6 0

2006 33 78.8 6.1 9.1 6.1

2007 32 78.1 6.25 9.4 6.25

2008 39 95 2.5 2.5 0

2009 30 90 7 3 0

2010 37 90 5 5 0

2003-2010 321 85 5 7 3 

As can be seen in the table above, there has been a 13% improvement in overall BMP 

implementation and effectiveness ratings in for period between 1992 through 2002, and the 

period 2003 through 2010. In 2011, a new “at risk” category was added to the rating system, 

which describes those BMPs in between an effective and not effective rating. In 2011, 95% of 

the 38 BMPs scored were rated as effective, with 2 BMPs (5%) rated “at risk”. In 2012, 94% of 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-539
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

the 35 BMPs scored were rated effective, with 2 BMPs (6%) rated ineffective. The Forest 

objective is to maintain 100% implementation and 95% effectiveness ratings.

Effectiveness deficiencies that historically seemed to recur persistently appear at roads crossings, 

recreation facilities and the Baldwin grazing allotment. As reported in Regional reporting of 

BMP implementation and effectiveness integrating results from all Region 5 forests, the most 

serious deficiencies occur when BMPs are not implemented as prescribed, or maintained, prior to 

significant storm events, as recently described in the 2009 LTBMU BMPEP report. Through 

regular reporting of the success of BMP implementation and effectiveness the Forest has become 

more responsive in correcting deficiencies.

TRPA BMPs are also prescribed and implemented where appropriate. The Special Uses Program 

required implementation of erosion control BMPs for owners of summer cabins on NFS land; 

and implementation of these BMPs was completed between 2005 and 2010. 

Road and trail monitoring has been effective in identifying areas where runoff or off-road use 

has caused erosion. Inter-department communication of repair needs has improved, facilitating 

more timely repairs. In addition the LTBMU has also developed a water risk assessment for 

roads, which is utilized in conjunction with a watershed erosion prediction model to predict 

erosion potential (WEPP). The Forest completed a three-year evaluation of the Forest Roads 

Retrofit program in 2007, evaluating the effectiveness on retrofits implemented between 2003 

and 2005 (USFS, 2007). Using a qualitative road risk assessment, this evaluation indicates that 

there has been a reduction in the number of high and medium risk road segments through the 

roads retrofit program. The water quality risk assessment estimates that the majority of the 

Forest Service system road network presents virtually no risk to water quality, because of the 

location, grade, and proximity to stream channels of these roads. However there are

approximately 11 miles of water quality risk road segments located adjacent to stream crossings, 

or exhibiting chronic erosion features, that will continue to have sediment loading potential. 

These water quality risk road segments will require more frequent maintenance and monitoring 

of BMPs, and may require more aggressive design measures to lower water quality risk. An 

addendum to this report was produced in 2009 that performed the same type of evaluation for the 

4.2 miles of road that were retrofitted between 2006 and 2008. 

An evaluation of a subset of these surveyed road segments (approximately 2/3) utilizing the 

WEPP runoff and erosion prediction model estimates a reduction in sediment yield from Forest 

Roads, from 23 tons per year, to 2 tons per year as a result of BMP upgrades. The WEPP model 

provides an estimate of annual erosion rates, and the model state that based on a comparison 

between measured and estimated results, WEPP has approximately 50% accuracy. Even with 

the limitations in the accuracies of WEPP modeling, it is clear that reducing the hydrologic 

connectivity of roads has had a substantial impact on reducing the water quality impacts from 

Forest roads.

Design strategies include limiting unpaved parking areas, limiting foot traffic in sensitive areas, 

reducing the area where foot traffic occurs, and providing hard surfaces in intensively used areas. 

Systematic monitoring of campsites in Desolation Wilderness began in 2008, as a joint project 

with the Eldorado National Forest and is still ongoing. This program describes environmental 

impacts to campsites and identifies campsites where visitor use has decreased plant cover and 

3-540 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

vegetative litter, compacted soil, and resulted in the creation of multiple trails. The program also 

identifies other impacts not related to soils.

Prescribed fire has been largely successful in reducing fuels without significantly impairing soil 

productivity. There have been instances where fire has burned too hot and a reddening of the soil 

suggests a possible altering of soil physical and chemical properties, but these have been rare and 

their spatial extent has been small.

To minimize soil disturbance, over the snow logging was recommended in the 1988 plan, but 

weather patterns have severely limited the feasibility of this practice in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

In recent years, low ground pressure equipment has been used in fuels reduction projects as a 

means to minimize soil disturbance. This equipment has been run on rubber tires instead of 

tracks, which limits soil displacement and compaction. There has been a large variety of 

research conducted in other parts of the nation, which indicates that this type of equipment can 

have minimal impacts on soil quality when operated under appropriate soil moisture conditions 

(Han et al 2007). Due to the high level of concern related to the potential for soil quality 

degradation in the Tahoe Basin, and resulting impacts to Lake Tahoe, the LTBMU decided to 

initiate a soil quality monitoring program to evaluate the impacts of this technology specifically 

on Tahoe Basin soils. 

Between 2006 and 2009, the LTBMU collected data on soil quality parameters at three separate 

fuel reduction projects around the Basin, which utilized low ground pressure harvesting 

equipment. These projects represent a range of soils types around the Basin from west shore 

(Ward Unit 5, 2007) , south shore (Heavenly SEZ, 2008) and east shore (Roundhill, 2009). The 

Heavenly SEZ fuels reduction project was a pilot project to evaluate mechanical treatments on 

soils classified as SEZ. The full monitoring reports for these three projects are posted on the 

LTBMU website. 

Measured soil quality parameters include soil moisture, hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), bulk 

density, and soil cover. This data was then analyzed to determine pre and post project differences 

and whether regional soil quality guidelines were met. Measured soil quality data, as well as 

other specific site characteristics (i.e. slope, % canopy cover, and soil composition) were then 

input into the WEPP Hillslope model to determine to what degree measured changes in soil 

quality resulted in predicted changes to erosion response. The following conclusions can be 

drawn from these monitoring efforts:

• Regardless of where you are in the Tahoe Basin, soils consist primarily of coarse sandy 

loams with naturally high infiltration capacities. Therefore even though hydraulic 

conductivity was reduced by 27% to 62% as a result of management activity, median 

Ksat measurements between the three projects post-project were still 3.7 in/hr (Ward), 

2.4 in/hr (Heavenly SEZ), and 2.08 in/hr (Roundhill). In one of the Roundhill units, post 

project Ksat measurements actually indicate an increase. We believe this result indicates 

that our sampling size (n=60) was not adequate to overcome the inherent variability that 

exists in this parameter in nature, and assume that this result means that there was no real 

change in Ksat in that particular unit.

• CTL harvester/forwarder equipment has not resulted in ecologically significant effects on 

the variety of Tahoe Basin soils evaluated, under the soil moisture conditions in which 

project operations occurred (5 to 11% soil moisture content). Soil cover after treatments 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-541
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

averaged around 90%, and soil porosity decreases were less than 5%. With the 

combination of robust soil cover, very small decreases in porosity and infiltration 

capacities still ranging from 2 to 3.7 in/hr post project; soil stability, soil hydrologic 

function, and soil productivity are not adversely impacted.

• WEPP modeling further indicates no ecologically adverse effects related to changes in 

runoff, erosion rates, or sediment transport as result of fuels reduction treatments. Among 

all three projects predicted sediment yield post project, using a 20 to 30 year climate 

simulation, ranged from 0.0 to 0.1 ton/acre/year. 

Seasonal gate closures have been effective in limiting damage to roads and trails, which in turn 

limit off-road erosion (USDA Forest Service 2003, 2005a). LTBMU policy for timing gate 

closures favors resource protection through a conservative approach. Limiting off-highway 

vehicles to established routes and snowmobiles to designated areas has further prevented soil 

resource damage, but effectiveness is somewhat limited by law enforcement resources. As 

mentioned above, project design on developed recreation sites is being employed to limit 

disturbance from foot traffic to smaller areas and less sensitive areas. Hardened surfaces are 

provided on the most heavily used pathways and in parking areas.

Legacy compaction from logging activities in the 1950s and 1960s is still evident in many areas, 

but there are no visible or measurable effects on ecosystem condition as it relates to erosion and 

increased peak flows, or effects on vegetation). 

Many stable disturbance features from the Comstock logging are now preserved for their historic 

value. Most of these roads, flumes, railroad grades, and other features have stabilized, so they no 

longer represent erosion sources. 

Soil condition as it relates to soil erosion on NFS lands can generally be considered to be within 

desired ecological condition. The Forest has a relatively small and maintained road and trail 

network, and BMPs have and are being implemented at all dispersed and developed recreation 

facilities. The Forest has three grazing allotments (Trout Creek, Meiss, and Cold Creek)), but all 

are currently in vacant status (Section 3.4.18 – Range Resources). Restoration efforts have 

increased soil cover on ski slopes at the Heavenly Ski Area by an average of 20% between 1991 

and 2003. However much of this cover is in the form of grass that requires ongoing irrigation and 

efforts are continuing at the resort to implement more sustainable soil restoration techniques, that 

do not require irrigation, at specific ski slope locations that have high connectively to water 

bodies. 

The LTBMU anticipates having adequate funding to provide effective erosion control and soil 

restoration where new planned (and unplanned) soil disturbance is an issue, and to continue a 

program for monitoring impacts to soil condition as well as the Regional Best Management 

Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP). Soil monitoring will continue to focus on impacts 

related to the use of mechanical equipment to treat vegetation as well as prescribed fire impacts. 

Regional Soil Quality Standards adopted in 1995, providing more detailed direction for assessing 

soil resource conditions than the Forest Plan, and were the starting point for developing the 

LTBMU soils monitoring program, as documented in the LTBMU soil monitoring plan, which is 

updated annually. 

3-542 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ongoing monitoring of roads and trails will also continue, as the Basin continues to maintain its 

roads and trails network. Recent monitoring results from trails indicates that because of the low 

erosion and sediment delivery potential for these features, monitoring can be limited to routine 

visual surveys. Roads monitoring will continue to utilize a more intensive approach that relies

on formal condition assessments, and WEPP modeling.

 

Stream Channel and Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) Condition as it affects Soil Erosion and 

Reduction of Fine sediments and nutrient loading. 

The term stream environment zone (SEZ) was created by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 

and is unique to the Lake Tahoe basin. It is a term used to attempt to define ecotypes that are 

heavily influenced by the presence of groundwater and/or surface water during at least part of the 

year, for the purposes of developing regulatory policies and standards related to these ecotypes. 

SEZs include ecotypes that lie adjacent to stream channels, and lakes, as well as those that are 

not directly connected to surface water bodies. SEZs include perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral stream channels, and lands typically termed as wetlands/fens/marshes (which have 

relatively high connectivity to water) as well as dryer ecotypes that have a lesser degree of 

connectivity to surface and groundwater (such as dry meadows and aspen stands). SEZs include 

a wide variety of wetland and riparian ecotypes which are addressed through numerous existing 

federal (USFS, EPA, FWS) and State planning and guidance documents and initiatives, even 

though the term SEZ is not used in these documents. SEZs should be considered to be a subset 

of ecotypes that lies within the zone described in the 2004 SNFPA ROD as Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCOs). There is tremendous overlap between these two concepts of 

defining this ecotype.

These ecotypes are considered to be high value as it relates to a variety of ecosystem functions 

including water quality. As such, stream environment zones are a critical subcomponent of 

overall watershed condition as described above, and are the areas where degraded watershed

function is most apparent. Maintaining functional characteristics of stream environment zones 

such as stream channel floodplain connectivity, vegetative cover, and soil hydrologic function 

are essential to maintaining overall watershed condition. 

In the 1988 Forest Plan, goals and desired conditions for SEZs were included in the water quality 

desired conditions. These goals and desired conditions were expanded and given more of an 

ecosystem context by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004a), 

In 1996, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) was completed. This document described 

and analyzed available knowledge, observations, and data with respect to riparian areas, 

wetlands, and stream channel conditions throughout the range. The results of SNEP suggested 

land use impacts in riparian areas, wetlands, and stream channels are greater than are seen in any 

other portion of the landscape. The study also enlightened management’s view in that conditions 

in these ecotypes are often a reflection of watershed condition as a whole and suggested a more 

comprehensive approach to watershed management. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

was, in part, a response to these findings. Proposed in 2001 and completed in 2004, the 

amendment has specific standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) 

management, and is directly applicable to ecotypes referred to as SEZs in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

The SNFPA amendment directs Forests throughout the range to take actions and restore physical 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-543
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

processes in RCAs that lead to healthy, self-sustaining ecosystems. Applicable direction from the 

SNFPA has been incorporated into all alternatives. 

A presidential visit in 1997 led to the creation of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in the year 

2000, which authorized funding for actions to restore and enhance the Lake’s clarity, which 

includes efforts to restore SEZs. From 2005 through 2012, the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act has provided the funding for this work, and enabled the LTBMU to take a 

multi-disciplinary approach to the restoration of ecosystem processes at a watershed scale, to 

estimate how ecosystem conditions have deviated from natural trajectory, and then develop and 

implement projects to restore watersheds to a more natural trajectory. It is believed that this 

approach will lead to healthier functioning, self-sustaining ecosystems.

The LTBMU has initiated and completed several watershed-scale ecosystem analyses and has 

already begun to implement large-scale projects to meet LTBMU ecosystem restoration goals. 

Goals are largely defined by guidance provided in the SNFPA. Although SNFPA did not use or 

recognize the term SEZ, it did describe goals, objectives, strategies, and standards and guidelines 

for Riparian Conservation Areas. The definition and criteria for delineating RCAs is different 

than that for SEZs, however the management guidance is directly applicable to both. 

Movement towards these desired conditions is accomplished through prevention and restoration 

of resource damage. Restoration is discussed below; prevention is largely accomplished through 

BMP implementation, and is discussed in the water quality and soils sections of this chapter. 

In 1988, the Watershed Restoration program’s primary goals were to reverse the downward trend 

in the quality of water flowing into Lake Tahoe from tributary streams on national forest 

lands,(as was demonstrated by data collected from the LTIMP tributary monitoring at the time), 

enhance and protect natural riparian function, and maintain and protect soil productivity and 

character.

The program completed a Watershed Improvement Needs (WIN) Inventory that identified many 

of the basin’s erosion and potential water quality problems. Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) 

focused on actions that included stream bank stabilization, controlling erosion at road crossings, 

and structural and non-structural habitat improvements for cold-water fish species. Floodplains 

have unique sediment filtering and nutrient recycling capabilities; therefore restricting 

disturbance and restoring floodplain connectivity to stream channels is a priority. Additionally, 

recommended restorative actions for existing disturbances in SEZs and riparian areas, identified 

in the WIN, is also a priority. The Plan also supports the conservation of soils as an underlying 

strategy for maintaining vegetation and preventing further degradation of water quality.

Over a 12-year period (1988-2000), approximately 500 acres of SEZ lands were treated.

Many treatments were small in scale and most were site specific i.e. stabilization of an 

excessively eroding stream bank. Most treatments have exhibited some degree of success with 

respect to meeting program goals.

Between 2000-2010 Watershed and SEZ restoration was planned and implemented at a larger 

scale. As described in the previous section under watershed condition, based on a variety of 

resource inventories the LTBMU contracted numerous watershed assessments between 2001 and 

3-544 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

2004. These assessments reflect a fundamental shift in watershed management philosophy as 

reflected in the SNFPA, and identified restoration needs and opportunities for SEZs within those 

watersheds. The LTBMU also identified degraded conditions on a few discrete areas on the 

landscape that did not warrant a full-scale watershed analysis, but were addressed through 

smaller scale environmental assessments. 

The following identifies the SEZ restoration projects implemented as a result of watershed 

assessments and environmental analysis conducted during this period:

2002 – Ward Creek fill removal and floodplain enhancement (3 acres) 

2003 – Blackwood Phase I (Fish Ladder Removal) (2 acres)

2003 – Reconstruction on Lonely Gulch Creek (3 acres)

2003 – Dam removal on South Fork Marlette Creek (6 acres)

2005 through 2007 – Big Meadow Cookhouse channel construction (20 acres)

2006 – Blackwood Phase II (Barker Pass Bridge, culvert replacement) (4 acres)

2008 through 2009 -Blackwood Restoration IIIB, Reach 6 (40 acres) 

2010 -2012– Blackwood Phase IIIA, Reach 1 (30 acres)

2010- 2012- Cold Creek in High Meadows Restoration, (100 acres) 

Monitoring conducted to date on these projects indicate that restoration efforts have been 

measurably successful in restoring ecosystem function in terms of reducing stream channel 

erosion and improving floodplain connectivity. Monitoring results and analysis are documented 

in numerous reports which are available on the LTBMU external website). These reports have 

also identified where restoration efforts have fallen short and the importance of incorporating 

sound principles of geomorphic function in restoration designs. Long term monitoring programs 

are in place to track effectiveness of existing and future efforts, and to inform adaptive 

management of the restoration program.

Current Forest Plan direction adopts TRPA and Lahontan RWQCB direction for SEZs, for all 

lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The USFS SNFPA added a wealth of guidance for Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs), which are similar in definition to SEZs, but usually include much 

broader buffer zones. The guidance however is directly and appropriately applicable to both 

SEZs and RCAs.

Unlike current SEZ regulations, management activities are not prohibited in RCAs if analysis is 

conducted that shows that the project will meet the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) 

and the RCA standards and guidelines. The RCO analysis process is very sound and needs little 

change to meet the LTBMU’s needs for Forest Plan revision. The RCA desired conditions and 

objectives were incorporated into the SEZ desired conditions in the Pathway 2007 process. At 

this time, the Forest Plan does not specifically reflect the changes in watershed resource 

management thinking since 1988. 

The local State Water Resources Control Board has developed a Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) model for Lake Tahoe. This model estimates that 3% of total fine sediment to Lake 

Tahoe comes from stream channel erosion. Projects to stabilize degraded stream channels and 

restore floodplain connectivity will play a relatively small but important role in achieving TMDL 

load reduction targets for both stream channel erosion, as well as “treating” runoff from upland 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-545
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

contributing source areas. The TMDL identified the Upper Truckee, Blackwood Creek, and 

Ward Creek as the three most significant contributors of stream channel erosion to Lake Tahoe. 

Along with the projects identified in the previous section, future projects planned on USFS lands 

in the Upper Truckee and Blackwood watersheds are expected to result in measurable 

improvements to sediment loading over time in these watersheds. A geomorphic based TMDL 

was also established specific to the Blackwood watershed, which identifies TMDL targets based 

on geomorphic parameters (sinuosity, vegetation cover, and slope). All large scale opportunities 

for stream channel restoration actions have been completed in the Blackwood watershed, and 

LTBMU monitoring programs are in place to measure attainment of the Blackwood TMDL 

targets over time.

As described above, many of the major stream channel floodplain restoration projects identified 

on National Forest lands have been completed, and several others are in progress in the Upper 

Truckee River watershed). Many of these projects are also expected to provide substantial 

benefits to biological resources, as aquatic habitat is improved in stream channels, and riparian 

habitat in adjacent floodplains, and for some of these projects these biological benefits are the 

main driver for project prioritization. 

Smaller scale stream channel restoration projects to restore stream channel function will continue 

to be tracked through the Watershed Improvement Program, described in the previous section 

under Watershed Condition. 

Many future SEZ restoration projects on the LTBMU will focus more on the biological 

components of SEZ, such as meadow and aspen stand restoration through thinning and 

prescribed fire. 

Additionally, restoration analysis identified that cessation of natural fire regimes in and adjacent 

to some SEZs is a potential threat to ecosystem function. Similar to the vegetation and fuels 

management strategy in the rest of the LTBMU, natural disturbance processes in SEZs need to 

be mimicked by using vegetation manipulation and prescribed fire. The drought and subsequent 

bark beetle infestation in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in high rates of Lodgepole pine 

mortality in riparian areas. Many of the affected riparian areas are within the wildland-urban 

interface and constitute a fire hazard. Limited handwork has been done to reduce fuel 

accumulations, but until recently local regulations adopted by LTBMU have prohibited the use 

of methods other than hand cutting and over-snow logging, so the vast majority of these areas 

remain untreated at present. 

The LTBMU recently implemented a pilot treatment project (Heavenly SEZ Fuels Reduction 

project) to test the effects of using low impact mechanical harvest equipment to treat fuels on 

SEZ soils. Monitoring results from this project are documented in the Heavenly SEZ Fuels 

Reduction Monitoring Report, 2008, and indicate that low PSI forwarder harvester equipment 

can be used in these areas under appropriate soil moisture regimes without causing adverse 

ecological impacts to soils, or hydrology. From these results an SEZ sensitivity rating protocol 

has been developed to identify SEZs within the boundaries of future projects that also indicate 

this level of resiliency. Wetter SEZ types, that do not exhibit dry moisture soil conditions, would 

still be limited to hand treatment or over the snow treatments. 

3-546 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Thinning and prescribed burn treatments are likely to be a desired management practice to utilize 

in SEZs well into the future to reduce fuel loads, and restore desirable riparian vegetation 

communities (and associated animal species) and subsurface/groundwater interactions within 

meadows and Aspen stands. Current restrictions on mechanical equipment used in SEZs needs to 

be removed and replaced with management standards and guidelines presented for RCA in the 

SNFPA in the new Forest Plan. The biological aspect of SEZ restoration is described further in 

the Section 3.4.3 – Aquatic Wildlife.

Climate Change

The affected environment for climate change would be the same in this section and the water 

quantity and watershed sections. 

As described in Appendix C – for Climate Change Trend Assessment, the changes in 

temperatures and amounts and timing of precipitation due to climate change have led to earlier 

peak streamflows in most Sierra Nevada streams, with higher spring flows and lower summer 

flows. Streamflow data show that peak snowmelt in the LTB is occurring 21⁄2 weeks earlier today 

than at the beginning of the 1960’s. Spring flows may not necessarily be higher in the Tahoe 

Basin, but peak flows may occur more frequently, i.e. several peak flow spikes may occur 

throughout the winter and spring runoff due to rain on snow events, or extended periods of warm 

weather.

3.4.24.3 Environmental Consequences 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Habitat Management

Under all the alternatives, the LTBMU would continue to implement to the USFS Watershed 

Improvement Program (WIP), and soil and water BMP program, The BMPs provide water 

quality protection from current and new activities, while watershed restoration actions under the 

WIP addresses adverse effects of past land uses. Soil and water protection BMP guidance is 

provided through recently updated US Forest Service Regional guidance ( R5 FSH 2509.22, 

Chapter 10 Water Quality Management Handbook, 2011) and recently completed US Forest 

Service National guidance (USDA, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, 2012). 

A critical component of improving conditions in Lake Tahoe watersheds is implementation of 

stream channel restoration projects where under current conditions, stream channels exhibit 

unstable channel banks, and have eroded and incised to the point that they are no longer 

hydrologically connected to adjacent floodplains. Restoration projects currently in progress 

(defined as in planning phase currently and/or implementation has been funded and initiated) 

would be implemented under all of the alternatives. These currently planned projects address the 

bulk of the unstable channel reaches that have been identified on NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. 

Under alternatives A, B, and C, and E the LTBMU would continue planning for implementation 

of both large and small scale restoration projects to restore degraded stream channels, beyond 

those projects for which planning and implementation has already been initiated. Under 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-547
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

alternative D, future projects would not be planned to actively restore degraded stream channels. 

Some implementation of the National Watershed Improvement Program would occur, through 

removal of existing active stressors on these systems, (such as poorly designed stream channel 

crossings or hydrologic diversions). However systems that are out of equilibrium (as exhibited 

by headcuts, incision, accelerated bank erosion) as a result of past land use practices, climate 

change or other stressors not under the control of the USFS management, would be allowed to 

adjust through natural processes

Under all the alternatives, currently planned USFS stream channel and watershed improvement 

restorations are expected to be achieved within the next 15 years, and the benefits of this work 

measured through assessments of watershed and stream channel condition, and contributions to 

achieving TMDL milestones. However under Alternative D, the achievement of longer term 

TMDL stream channel milestones and geomorphic equilibrium from reaches on NFS lands, may 

take several decades longer than could be achieved through active restoration.

Vegetation Management

All the alternatives propose to utilize a variety of vegetation treatment options to reduce wildfire 

risk and improve forest health. Wildfire can result in significant impacts related to water quality 

and soil erosion, as documented in numerous studies across the country, which have been 

synthesized in the following document, Wildland fire in ecosystems; effects of fire on soils and 

water (Neary et al 2005).

Although the focus treatment types and vegetation prescriptions vary between the alternatives, 

all the potential treatment options proposed in the alternatives pose some level of short term risk 

of soil erosion and subsequent impacts to water quality. These risks will be managed by a 

variety of established BMPs, and the standards and guidelines presented in the Revised Forest 

Plan. Therefore at the programmatic scale there are no differences among any of the alternatives 

as they affect water quality and soil erosion, in relationship to vegetation management activities. 

Vegetation management activities will not adversely affect current 303d listings, or impact the 

forests ability to achieve TMDL milestones for upland source areas.

However alternative D does create a greater risk to water quality with a reduction in vegetation 

management activities, because with limited active fuels management there is a subsequently 

greater risk of catastrophic wildfire. A synthesis of research on the impacts of wildfire on water 

quality was published by the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the US Forest Service 

(Neary et al 2005). The results from this synthesis conclude that the magnitude of effects on 

water quality is driven primarily by fire severity, which is a qualitative term, describing the 

amount of fuel consumed. Wildfires are more severe than prescribed fire, and as a result are 

more likely to produce significant effects on water quality in terms of sediment and nutrients. 

Canopy-consuming wildfires are expected to be the greatest concern to managers because of the 

loss of canopy coupled with the destruction of soil aggregates. These losses present the worstcase scenario in terms of impacts to water quality, particularly if followed by heavy rains on 

recently burned lands. In addition a synthesis of research specific to promoting resiliency in 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem was prepared by the Pacific Southwest Research Station in 2013. As 

described in various sections of this document, fuels management (through mechanical treatment 

and prescribed fire) as well as wildfire can have a wide variety of adverse impacts to soil and 

3-548 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

water quality. However the Effects of Wildfire section in Chapter 5 of this report states as a 

general conclusion, that management strategies that reduce the potential for uncharacteristically 

severe wildfires in Sierra Nevada forests will help limit erosional losses and conserve essential 

soil functions (Long J. et al, 2013). 

The most significant risk to water quality as it relates to vegetation management practices are 

those associated with both permanent and temporary roads utilized as part of vegetation 

management projects. This is because roads can create linear conduits for concentrating flows 

and eroded sediments, if BMPS are not properly implemented and maintained. 

Sustainable Recreation

The scale and nature of proposed activities related to management of recreation facilities and 

opportunity, including management area designations, also do not vary substantially in terms of 

potential effects to water quality between alternatives. Once again established standards and 

guidelines and BMPs to protect soil and water quality will be part of any proposed changes in 

recreation infrastructure or opportunities. 

Snowmobile use will continue to be allowed in all areas that are not designated as closed in the 

OSV use maps, under all the alternatives. There has been much concern expressed by the public 

regarding the potential impacts of this use on water quality. There are two potential concerns 

related to this permitted use as it relates to hydrology, soils, and water quality. First is potential 

for ground disturbance, if sufficient snow cover is not maintained on travel routes. This concern 

is addressed in the Section 3.4.22 – Soils of this FEIS. 

The second is the impacts of vehicle emissions on water quality, as exhaust emissions (VOCs 

and PAHs and nitrogen) are discharged and accumulate within the snowpack. There has been 

limited research conducted on water quality impacts from snowmobile emissions, primarily in 

Yellowstone and Grant Teton National Park. The results of this research indicate that although 

these emissions have been documented in the snowpack, there has been no evidence of 

exceedance of water quality standards in adjacent water bodies, related to VOCs and PAHs 

(Arnold 2006, Reah 2005, and NPS 2011). Limited data collection of PAHs related to 

snowmobile use was also conducted 2006 in Blackwood Creek in Lake Tahoe as part of a Phd 

thesis (McDaniels Phd Thesis, 2013). Similar to the National Park research, this research also 

documented increasing accumulation of PAHs in the snowpack adjacent to areas utilized by 

snowmobiles, as well as increases in PAH flux in Blackwood Creek during the two week time 

period in May when samples were collected. Although the McDaniels thesis was silent 

regarding the levels of PAH contamination relative to EPA standards, further investigation by the 

USFS determined that measured levels were far below current EPA drinking water standards for 

these compounds, as well as levels at which detrimental impacts to aquatic life have been 

documented. 

The incremental amount of OSV contributions to nitrogen loading is relatively small, but could 

be important if total loading is close to or exceeds a critical load of nitrogen (NPS 2011). 

According to the Tahoe TMDL, the amount of total nitrogen loading in the Tahoe Basin (largely 

from out of basin atmospheric sources) is such that Lake Tahoe is considered to be largely 

phosphorus limited, in terms of effects on lake clarity. 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-549
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

It is also important to note that existing research was conducted during a time when the majority 

of snow mobiles in use were utilizing 2-stroke engines, which produce much more of these 

pollutants, then 4-stroke engines that are becoming much more prevalent and are required to 

meet current EPA standards for emissions. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are 

reduced by 50% and 30% respectively when comparing average 2 stroke engines to current EPA 

snowmobile requirements (NPS 2011). See Section 3.4.2 – Air Quality for further discussion of 

snowmobile emissions.

Based on an analysis of the existing research, we conclude that continued OSV use, as proposed 

under all the alternatives, will result in negligible impacts to water quality. 

Under all the alternatives, proposed changes in recreation infrastructure will consider impacts 

related to the ecological values of riparian areas and wetlands (SEZs). Under all the 

alternatives, opportunities to protect and restore the ecological function of SEZs will be 

identified and considered, as part of future proposed actions related to increased recreational 

opportunity and capacity. 

The most significant difference that may exist between alternatives in this regard, may relate to 

the economic cost. For example, under alternatives B, C, and E it is proposed to expand 

developed and dispersed recreation capacity by increasing facility capacity. This may require 

more expensive design options to be able to achieve both an increase in recreational capacity, 

while at the same time mitigating or even restoring ecological function in areas where facilities 

exist within lands classified as SEZ

Under alternatives C and D the Dardanelles and/or Freel Peak Roadless areas are proposed for 

wilderness designation (See FEIS Map 10). This designation would result in limitations on any 

future watershed restoration activities that would involve the use of mechanical equipment. 

There currently are no known restoration needs in these proposed areas, and in the absence of the 

potential for human disturbance it is not anticipated there will be future needs identified in these 

areas. Future active restoration beyond currently planned projects is not proposed under 

Alternative D. 

Access and Travel Management (ATM)

Similar to recreation facilities as described in the section above, the scale and nature of proposed 

activities related to management of forest roads, trails and associated access facilities also do not 

vary substantially in terms of potential effects to soil erosion and water quality. Once again, 

established standards and guidelines and BMPs to protect soil and quality will be part of any 

proposed changes in these components of forest infrastructure. In addition, under each of the 

alternatives the LTBMU will continue to pursue opportunities to retrofit, relocate, or 

decommission roads and trails to reduce potential sediment and nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe, 

as part of the Uplands Forest TMDL management strategy. 

As described in the affected environment section, a large volume of the potential opportunities in 

this regard has already been accomplished over the past decade. However there will continue to 

be improvements where opportunities still exist, such as the in areas of recent land purchases.

3-550 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Climate Change

The stream channel and floodplain restoration efforts planned under all the alternatives will 

result in these systems being more resilient to any hydrologic adjustments that occur due to 

future climate change. Geomorphologically stable stream channels and floodplains that exist in a 

state of dynamic equilibrium are better able to adjust to climate change impacts to hydrology, 

without resulting in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat, water quality, or water quantity. 

Hydrologic adjustments resulting from climate change occurs at a relatively slow rate as 

compared to hydrologic changes caused by human disturbance.

3.4.24.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Under all the alternatives, the LTBMU would continue to implement to some degree the USFS 

Watershed Improvement Program (WIP), and soil and water BMP program, The BMPs provide 

protection from current and new activities, while watershed restoration actions under the WIP 

addresses adverse effects of past land uses. 

Under Alternatives A, B, C and E, the LTBMU would continue planning for implementation of 

both large and small scale restoration projects to restore degraded stream channels, beyond those 

projects for which planning and implementation has already been initiated. Under Alternative 

D, future projects would not be planned to actively restore degraded stream channels. Some 

implementation of the National WIP would occur, through removal of existing active stressors 

on these systems, (such as poorly designed stream channel crossings or hydrologic diversions). 

However systems that are out of equilibrium (as exhibited by headcuts, incision, accelerated 

bank erosion) as a result of past land use practices, climate change or other stressors not under 

the control of the USFS management, would be allowed to adjust through natural processes. 

Under all the alternatives USFS stream channel and watershed improvement restorations are 

expected to be achieved within the next 15 years, and the benefits of this work measured through 

assessments of watershed and stream channel condition, and contributions to achieving TMDL 

milestones. However under Alternative D, the achievement of longer term TMDL stream 

channel milestones and geomorphic equilibrium from reaches on USFS lands, may take several 

decades longer than could be achieved through active restoration.

There is no substantial difference in consequences to water quality between all the alternatives 

based on planned Forest Management activities related to Vegetation Management, Recreation, 

or ATM 

Because vegetation management treatments are primarily concentrated in a “ring” around lake 

Tahoe adjacent to urban areas (the WUI) , there is little to no potential for adverse consequences 

related to cumulative watershed affects under any of the alternatives, except as it relates to 

achieving overall reductions in pollutant loading affecting Lake Tahoe clarity as presented in the 

TMDL. Watersheds in Lake Tahoe are generally characterized by some level of urbanization in 

the lower third of the watersheds, with primarily stable forested uplands in the upper 2/3 of the 

watershed. Regardless of the specific type and scale of treatment options used as described 

Chapter 3 | Water Quality and Soil Erosion ■ 3-551
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

under all the alternatives in the WUI, implementation of BMPs are expected to result in neutral 

environmental consequences as it relates to achievement of TMDL milestones, stream channel 

condition, or watershed hydrologic response.

All the strategies and objectives proposed under all the alternatives will not change the LTBMUs 

goal of doing its part to achieve the Lake Tahoe Basin TMDL milestones related to stream 

channels and forest uplands. The TMDL milestones for these two pollutant sources are a 12% 

reduction in fine sediment from Forest Uplands, and a 53% reduction of fine sediment from 

stream channels. As described in the TMDL water quality control plan, it is anticipated that 

these reductions will be achieved through past actions as well as through implementation of 

strategies as currently described under all the alternatives including implementation of BMPs, 

facilities roads and trails retrofits and decommissioning, implementation of currently planned 

restoration projects, and removal of existing stressors. 

These efforts will be reported and tracked annually, as part of the LTBMUs contribution to the 

Lake Tahoe TMDL management strategy.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Implementation of BMPs are expected to be successfully in protecting soil and water resources, 

and maintaining state water quality standards, as part of implementation of forest management 

actions proposed under all the alternatives. 

Under all the alternatives, all planned USFS stream channel and watershed improvement 

restorations are expected to be achieved within the next 15 years, and the benefits of this work 

measured through assessments of watershed and stream channel condition, and contributions to 

achieving TMDL milestones. However under Alternative D, the achievement of longer term 

TMDL stream channel milestones and geomorphic equilibrium from reaches on USFS lands, 

may take decades longer than could be achieved through active restoration, as this is the time 

scale at which geomorphic equilibrium is re-established through natural processes after 

disturbance.

3-552 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.25 Water Quantity 

3.4.25.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on surface and 

groundwater quantity that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It 

examines, in detail, all of the alternatives for revising the 1988 Land and Resources Management 

Plan (as amended) for the LTBMU (1988 Forest Plan). 

Surface waters and ground waters are vital components of watersheds. Functional quantities of 

water flowing above ground in rivers, streams, springs, lakes, ponds, and marshes, and below 

ground in aquifers and underground rivers, must be maintained through management of water 

uses. Conjunctive-use management explicitly recognizes the interdependence of ground water 

and surface water within a watershed and is the framework within which water uses are best 

evaluated.

Methodology

 

Metrics 

• Water quantity- General discussion of current water uses, consumptive and nonconsumptive- including in stream flow requirement based on water rights and uses 

inventory and LTBMU Groundwater study. 

Assumptions

• While groundwater demand is expected to continue increasing, at this time it appears that 

ground-water quality and quantities are sufficient to support use throughout the Lake 

Tahoe Basin by private, municipal, and commercial users within and adjacent to National 

Forest System lands. 

• At this time, it appears that surface water users in the Lake Tahoe Basin are not 

exceeding their allocated amounts and there are no potential illegal diversions or 

withdrawals

Chapter 3 | Water Quantity ■ 3-553
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.25.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Groundwater

As the current Forest Plan predicted, there has been an increased demand for ground-water 

usage. While the demand is expected to continue increasing, at this time it appears that groundwater quality and quantities are sufficient to support use throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin by 

private, municipal, and commercial users within and adjacent to National Forest System lands. 

The US Geological Survey produced a report in 2007 which presents a compilation of existing 

hydrogeologic data and other information needed to determine the extent and characteristics of 

the aquifers in the Tahoe Basin (USGS, 2007).

The potential for overuse of ground water in the Basin is significant, however, as water demands 

generally mirror population increases and ground water is looked upon as a more stable supply 

than surface water. Ground-water levels appear to have stayed within historic ranges, with 

sufficient recharge rates to meet the demands of users; there have been no reports of wells drying 

up or of declining trends of water levels

The sufficiency of ground water to meet the natural resource needs of National Forest System 

lands in the Basin is presently not known (e.g., to maintain springs, stream baseflows, wet 

meadows, marshes, fens, bogs and other ground-water dependent ecosystems). However, it is 

important that sufficiency be determined to facilitate management of these natural resource 

needs. In the absence of such information, wise use of the resource requires that rather than 

using forest waters, the use of water sources located off NFS lands will be preferred when the 

water will actually be used off-forest (FSM 2542). Land use fees will be collected for ground 

water extraction, injection, or water pipeline operations authorized as special uses in accordance 

with FSM 2715 and FSH 2709.11, Chapter 30.

Another important consideration is that water shortages may be created by contamination of 

ground water, both in direct loss of the purity of the affected ground water, and in consequent 

loss of purity of springs or streams replenished by the affected ground water. The largest 

volume of ground water affected by contamination in the Basin is associated with the Meyers 

Landfill, where a plume of ground-water contamination has migrated offsite several thousand 

feet over decades. Although there have been reports of several small ground-water 

contamination incidents associated with fueling locations and underground storage tanks in the 

Basin, no other large-scale contamination incidents have been discovered. In the past, it was 

assumed that the desired conditions of preventing ground-water shortages and water quality 

degradation were being met in NFS lands within Lake Tahoe Basin; that assumption will be 

tested through ongoing inventories of ground-water uses, localized studies associated with 

discoveries of ground-water contamination, and water needs assessments of ground-water 

dependent ecosystems. 

Surface Water

At this time, it appears there are no potential illegal diversions or withdrawals, Adjudication of 

water rights within the Basin continues, however, and this underscores the need to thoroughly 

evaluate any proposal to withdraw water from surface waters to determine the potential 

3-554 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

environmental impacts. The points of diversion (POD) and points of use (POU) have been 

verified for water rights held on NFS lands in the Basin. Water quantities will be verified as part 

of these ongoing water rights verification efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The LTBMU regulates runoff at Fallen Leaf Lake dam to prevent flooding along the lake and to 

delay peak runoff into Taylor Creek. Through the regulation of dam releases, channel 

degradation can be prevented and habitat integrity maintained.

Current Conditions and Trends

Management of Ground Water

Users of ground water on National Forest System lands include forest uses (e.g., administrative 

facilities, developed recreation sites, fire support, snow- and water-related recreational activities, 

and instream enhancement of fish and wildlife) and special use permits for ski resorts, 

concessionaires, and recreation residences. Measurement and reporting of the quantity of water 

utilized is required for all ground water withdrawals from high-capacity wells located in NFS 

lands; however, withdrawals do not have to be measured or reported from wells equipped only 

with a hand or windmill pump. The details of most groundwater withdrawals (e.g., location, 

depth, flowrate) under special use permit have not yet been verified; these are being handled 

during special use permit renewals at this time. A comprehensive water rights verification and 

monitoring program for ground-water withdrawals is underway and will be ongoing, and that 

may increase the pace at which all forest uses of ground water are characterized. 

In addition to water rights verification, ground-water resources and ground-water dependent 

ecosystems in the Lake Tahoe Basin will be inventoried and characterized. The LTBMU is in the 

process of developing a program for inventory and characterization of ground water and groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Management of Surface Water 

In the past, the USFS has measured streamflows to characterize water quantity at various 

locations in the Basin, in conjunction with water-quality monitoring efforts to evaluate 

management impacts. The USGS and TRPA fund a Basin-wide monitoring program (Lake 

Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program, LTIMP) that continues to monitor water quantity and 

quality at numerous tributaries throughout the Basin.

The Engineering Department of the LTBMU operates a data logger that takes hourly stage 

measurements at Fallen Leaf Lake and a data logger on Taylor Creek downstream of the Fallen 

Leaf Lake dam that takes hourly flow measurements. In addition, the Engineering Department 

takes occasional flow measurements on Glen Alpine Creek above Fallen Leaf Lake. The 

LTBMU Engineering Department is also responsible for regulating flows at Fallen Leaf Lake 

dam. This is the only location in the Lake Tahoe Basin where the USFS is responsible for such 

duties.

Chapter 3 | Water Quantity ■ 3-555
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

The LTBMU maintains existing water rights and obtains new water rights with land acquisitions 

and when other opportunities arise to put water to beneficial use for ecosystem conservation. 

Flow measurements are taken for water rights purposes as part of the Proof of Beneficial Use 

process of acquiring water rights in the State of Nevada. For the State of California, Statements 

of Diversion and Use are filed every three years concerning existing USFS water rights in 

California. The LTBMU is also preparing documentation to apply for conversion of existing 

consumptive water rights to riparian water rights, where previous consumptive uses of water 

have been discontinued. Existing reserve and riparian water rights are being maintained.

3.4.25.3 Environmental Consequences 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Habitat Management

Under all the alternatives, the LTBMU will continue to follow national direction as it relates to 

management of surface water and groundwater quantity (and quality), to ensure beneficial uses 

for ecosystem conservation are maintained, while providing for essential consumptive use related 

to Forest Service administrative and recreation facilities. 

In summer 2005, the importance of water rights on NFS lands was escalated to the Regional 

level that resulted in high priority direction to all forests in Region 5. Forests of Region 5 were 

directed to make water rights a high priority by doing a more thorough job of managing water 

rights, verification of water use, and the purchasing and exchange of water rights. At this time 

the Points of Diversion and Points of Use of all of the water rights in NFS lands in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin have been verified.

Groundwater

The Forest will follow national direction regarding ground-water management issued July 2011. 

Surface Water

There are numerous water right holders on NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Nationally, 

increased focus on water rights has necessitated verification of water rights usage on NFS lands. 

Completion of a comprehensive water rights verification exercise on NFS lands in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin is planned during the life of this Forest Plan in all alternatives. 

Vegetation Management

The scale and nature of proposed activities related to vegetation management do not vary 

substantially in terms of potential effects to water quantity between alternatives. Established 

standard and guides and best management practices to protect soil and water quality will be part 

of any proposed changes in these components of forest infrastructure.

Sustainable Recreation

The scale and nature of proposed activities related to management of recreation facilities and 

opportunity, including management area designations, also do not vary substantially in terms of 

potential effects to ground and surface water quantity between alternatives. Established standard 

3-556 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

and guidelines and BMPs to protect soil and water quality will be part of any proposed changes 

in recreation infrastructure (see discussion in previous section).

Access and Travel Management (ATM)

Similar to recreation facilities as described in the section above, the scale and nature of proposed 

activities related to management of forest roads, trails and associated access facilities also do not 

vary substantially in terms of potential effects to water quantity between alternatives. 

Established standard and guidelines and BMPs to protect soil and water quality will be part of 

any proposed changes in these components of forest infrastructure.

Climate Change

The stream channel and floodplain restoration efforts planned under all the alternatives will 

result in these systems being more resilient to any hydrologic adjustments that occur due to 

future climate change. Geomorphogically stable stream channels and floodplains that exist in a 

state of dynamic equilibrium are better able to adjust to climate change impacts to hydrology, 

without resulting in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat, water quality, or water quantity. 

Hydrologic adjustments resulting from climate change occurs at a relatively slow rate as 

compared to hydrologic changes caused by human disturbance.

3.4.25.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Under all alternatives, the LTBMU would continue to follow national direction as it relates to 

management of surface water and groundwater quantity, to ensure beneficial uses for ecosystem 

conservation are maintained, while providing for essential consumptive use related to forest 

service administrative and recreation facilities in all alternatives. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Under all alternatives, the LTBMU would continue to follow national direction as it relates to 

management of surface water and groundwater quantity, to ensure beneficial uses for ecosystem 

conservation are maintained, while providing for essential consumptive use related to forest 

service administrative and recreation facilities in all alternatives.

Chapter 3 | Water Quantity ■ 3-557
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.26 Watershed Condition 

3.4.26.1 Introduction 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on Watershed 

Condition that may result from Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

National protocols have recently been developed (USFS, 2011) for assessing and rating 

Watershed Condition. This protocol evaluates a wide array of attributes, including physical, 

aquatic, and terrestrial resource metrics, to develop an overall rating of Watershed condition. 

These attributes are listed below, and further detailed descriptions of the environmental 

consequences related to these attributes are addressed throughout this chapter, organized by 

resource area. This narrative focuses on the overall impacts on Watershed Condition, and 

includes subsections that discuss the physical resource attributes such as water quality, water 

quantity, and natural hazards. 

Methodology

Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide, July 2011. 

Assumptions

None.

3.4.26.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

Lake Tahoe Basin Watershed Condition 

An assessment of watershed conditions considers physical resource values such as water quality, 

water quantity, soil condition, and stream channel and stream environment zone geomorphic 

condition. However watershed condition also considers biotic values related to species and their 

habitats. In short watershed condition integrates the entire ecological function of a land area 

contained within a given hydrologic boundary. For the LTBMU, existing assessments describe 

watershed condition primarily as it relates to the upper watersheds in the Lake Tahoe Basin that 

are within Forest Service Management, and not lower watersheds and intervening areas that are 

largely not under Forest Service Management and are impacted by urban development. 

3-558 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) uses three classes to describe watershed condition (USDA 

Forest Service 2004, FSM 2521.1):

Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their 

natural potential condition. 

Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. 

Class 3 watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their 

natural potential condition. 

The FSM classification defines watershed condition in terms of “geomorphic, hydrologic and 

biotic integrity” relative to “potential natural condition.” In this context, integrity relates directly 

to functionality. Geomorphic functionality or integrity can be defined in terms of attributes such 

as slope stability, soil erosion, channel morphology and other upslope, riparian and aquatic 

habitat characteristics. Hydrologic functionality or integrity relates primarily to flow, sediment 

and water quality attributes. Biological functionality or integrity is defined by the characteristics 

that influence the diversity and abundance of aquatic species, vegetation, and soil productivity. 

In each case, integrity must be evaluated in the context of the natural disturbance regime, 

geoclimatic setting and other important factors within the context of a watershed. The definition 

encompasses both aquatic and terrestrial components because water quality and aquatic habitat 

are inseparably related to the integrity, and therefore the functionality, of upland and riparian 

areas within a watershed. 

Within this context, the three watershed condition classes are directly related to the degree or 

level of watershed functionality or integrity: These three classes relate directly to watershed 

functionality, and therefore watershed condition, as: 

Class 1 = Functioning Properly; 

Class 2 = Functioning at Risk; and 

Class 3 = Impaired Function. 

In March 2011, the Forest Service assessed the condition of all 6th field hydrologic units on all 

NFS lands using protocols recently developed by the Washington Office headquarters staff, at 

intervals of approximately 5 years (Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical 

Guide, July 2011). 

The watershed condition classification system described in this Technical Guide uses twelve (12) 

indicators comprised of attributes related to watershed processes. The indicators and their 

attributes are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological functions and processes 

that affect soil and hydrologic function. For the majority of the indicators, the FS can take direct 

action, or cause actions to be taken by others that can contribute to maintaining or improving 

watershed condition (i.e. functionality). This provides for a direct linkage between the 

classification system and management or improvement activities the FS conducts on the ground. 

Because of this linkage, when a sufficient number of properly designed and implemented 

restoration and/or management actions occur within a watershed, the outcome can be expressed 

as a change in condition class and the information used for performance accountability purposes. 

Management activities that effect the watershed condition class are not limited to soil and water 

improvement activities, but include a broad array of resource program areas from hazardous fuel 

treatments, invasive species eradication, abandoned mine restoration, riparian area treatments, 

aquatic organism passage improvement, road maintenance and obliteration, and others. To 

Chapter 3 | Watershed Condition ■ 3-559
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

achieve a change in watershed condition class will in most cases require changes within a 

watershed that are significant in their scope and include treatments from multiple resource areas. 

Sound management or improvement to management practices can often be as effective as 

implementing restoration projects and must not be overlooked. In order to demonstrate 

improvement in condition class activities will need to be tracked at the smallest feasible 

watershed unit, the 6th level HUC or Hydrologic Unit Code (typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres in 

size). 

The suite of watershed condition indicators includes: 

1. Water Quality, 

2. Water Quantity, 

3. Aquatic Habitat, 

4. Aquatic Biota, 

5. Riparian/Wetland Vegetation, 

6. Roads and Trails, 

7. Soils, 

8. Fire Regime or Wildfire, 

9. Forest Cover, 

10. Rangeland Vegetation, 

11. Terrestrial Invasive Species, and 

12. Forest Health. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin HUC 6 watersheds contain several HUC 7 level watersheds that lie 

adjacent to each other. They all drain to Lake Tahoe, but are not hydrologically connected to 

each other. Therefore it is possible to have one or more HUC 7 watersheds within a HUC 6 

watershed that exhibit poor ecological integrity, adjacent to highly functioning watersheds. For 

the purposes of this Forest Plan, watershed condition will be discussed as several scales, HUC 5, 

6, and 7 levels. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin constitutes one HUC 5 watershed and includes all the land that drains into 

Lake Tahoe. Condition of this HUC 5 watershed is best characterized by the TMDL evaluation 

report completed by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, further described in 

the water quality section of this EIS (Lahontan, 2010). The Lake Tahoe Watershed is named on 

the EPA’s 303d List as an impaired water body based on water quality. 

The condition of HUC 6 watersheds on the LTBMU were assessed in March of 2011. The 

results of this assessment indicate that 2 watersheds were rated as Class 1, 8 watersheds as Class 

2, and no watersheds as Class 3. 

3-560 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-89 is a map of the nine HUC 6 watersheds defined in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and their 

current watershed conditions ratings. The rating and watershed names are presented as:

1-Lake Tahoe-East Shore Frontal / North Half

1-Lake Tahoe-East Shore Frontal / South Half

2-Upper Truckee River –Angora 

2-Upper Truckee River - Trout Creek

2-McKinney Creek-Bliss-Eagle Creek Frontal

2-Cascade Creek-Tallac Creek-Taylor Creek Frontal

2-Burton Creek-Watson Creek-Tahoe Vista Frontal

2-Ward Creek-Blackwood Creek-Eagle Rock Frontal

2-Stateline Point-Third Creek-Incline Creek Frontal

To describe watershed condition at the HUC 7 level we relied on existing survey and assessment 

information. This more informal assessment does rely on the same kind of data and analyses 

identified in the draft National protocol, but the qualitative assessment described below does not 

follow this specific protocol. 

Chapter 3 | Watershed Condition ■ 3-561
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-89. Map of HUC 6 Watersheds Defined in the Lake Tahoe Basin

3-562 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Between 1993 and 2004 the LTBMU conducted watershed improvement needs (WIN) 

inventories throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. During these inventories hydrologists 

visited every road, trail and stream channel to identify areas of accelerated erosion, and 

opportunities for restoration. During this time every stream in the Basin was also 

classified using the Rosgen Channel Typing protocol, as well as fish habitat typing. This 

information was used to identify stream reaches exhibiting unstable geomorphic channel 

characteristics and poor aquatic habitat quality.

In addition, a comprehensive Road Condition Assessment was conducted in 1998 to 

further identify roads in need of BMP retrofits, as well as roads that should be obliterated. 

Other assessments that helped assess overall watershed condition, included site specific 

stream condition inventories (SCI) on 16 reaches between 1993 and 2008, both on 

reference streams, as well as those that were identified for future restoration. In addition, 

macroinvertebrate sampling has been conducted since 1993 as part of SCI and other 

selected project monitoring plans

From information gathered through these various efforts a large number of smaller stream 

channel restoration projects were implemented, as well as a comprehensive BMP retrofit 

of system roads (154 miles) and decommissioning of approximately 100 miles of road. 

System trails in the Basin are currently undergoing a similar assessment and retrofit 

program, but are not considered to present the same degree of water quality threat as the 

road network. 

The Basin has completed a substantial amount of work associated with water rights 

verification, covering USFS water rights in the Basin. A number of relatively small 

issues including non-compliance have been identified, and are currently being resolved. 

However, currently no significant problems affecting water quantity and associated 

riparian beneficial uses have been identified. 

From these past inventory and assessment efforts, and subsequent management response, 

many of the Forest legacy issues that may affect overall watershed condition, in terms of 

erosion, water quality, and water quantity have been addressed in the upper watersheds 

managed by the LTBMU in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

However, these efforts also identified a small number of HUC 7 watersheds (or 

subwatersheds) as needing a more intensive level of watershed assessment to characterize 

current geomorphic, erosion, and hydrologic processes, and assess the need for larger 

scale stream channel restoration efforts to address channel reaches that had lost optimal 

stream channel and floodplain geomorphic function. Detailed watershed assessments 

were conducted for these watersheds, which include the Upper Truckee River (TRCD, 

2003; Swanson 2004), Cookhouse/Big Meadow, Blackwood Creek, Cold Creek (tributary 

of Trout Creek), Meeks Creek, Ward Creek, and Taylor/Tallac Creeks (see Figure 3-90).

Chapter 3 | Watershed Condition ■ 3-563
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Figure 3-90. HUC 7 Watersheds and Subbasins Defined in the Lake Tahoe Basin

3-564 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

The condition of these watersheds that precipitated the need for a more intensive level of 

assessment effort included evidence of poor stream channel and floodplain function, indicated by 

incised and eroding channel reaches, the lack of “wetter type” riparian vegetation along stream 

channels and adjacent floodplains, and in some cases observations of significant disconnection of 

hydrology due to manmade diversions and structures. The more comprehensive 

ecosystem/watershed assessments completed for these watersheds documents the nature of 

historic disturbance, current management activities, and man-made structures and their effects on 

natural processes. Based on these assessments large scale stream channel, floodplain, and 

meadow restoration projects have been identified in these watersheds, and restoration projects 

have and are being implemented to restore impaired watershed functions. These are further 

described in the section below for stream environment zones and stream channels.

There are also a few other stream channels in the Basin that are considered to be in degraded 

condition as documented in the USFS watershed improvement tracking (WIT) database. While 

full scale watershed assessments have not been conducted, these creeks contain reaches of 

channel on NFS lands that are currently not in geomorphic equilibrium. This includes reaches 

within Incline Creek, Burke Creek, and Angora Creek.

There is one other watershed on LTBMU lands that has gone through extensive monitoring and 

evaluation. The Heavenly Valley Creek watershed, primarily affected by the Heavenly Ski 

resort, has been addressed through its own analysis, monitoring and planning efforts in 

conjunction with the Heavenly Mountain Resort Master Plan Amendment and the resort special 

use permit. While early data suggested that the watershed was impaired, the resort has 

implemented a substantial number of efforts to reduce sources of sedimentation and erosion. 

Comprehensive analysis of monitoring data from 1993-2004 (Norman and Greene 2004) 

indicates the resort has achieved substantial improvements in watershed condition, including 

water quality in Heavenly Creek.

Watershed Condition Assessments, using the National Protocol will be used to help identify and 

prioritize opportunities for restoration through an ongoing Watershed Improvement Program 

(WIP) at the broad scale. In addition the National Watershed Improvement Tracking Database 

(WIT), initiated in 2010, will be used to document current watershed needs, and track restoration 

efforts, and is expected to play a role in funding prioritization. The discussions below provide a 

more detailed description of specific ecosystem components that affect and are integrated into an 

evaluation of overall watershed condition.

Chapter 3 | Watershed Condition ■ 3-565
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.26.3 Environmental Consequences 

Watershed Health and Aquatic Habitat Management

Under all the alternatives, the LTBMU would continue to implement to some degree actions 

designed to improve the health of the physical resource and aquatic habitat attributes used to 

evaluate overall watershed condition. Therefore at the programmatic scale all the alternatives 

propose actions that would maintain or improve current watershed condition ratings. 

The discussion of these actions related to specific attributes of watershed condition is presented 

in separate sections within this chapter as referenced below. 

Vegetation Management

All the alternatives propose to utilize a variety of vegetation treatment options to reduce wildfire 

risk and improve forest health. Although the focus treatment types and vegetation prescriptions 

vary between the alternatives, all the potential treatment options proposed in the various 

alternatives pose some level of short term risk to soil, water, and air quality. These risks will be 

managed by a variety of established BMPs, and the standards and guidelines presented in the 

draft Forest Plan. Therefore at the programmatic scale all the alternatives propose actions that 

would maintain or improve current watershed condition ratings. 

There will continue to be a risk of adverse resource effects associated with wildfire under each of 

the alternatives, which could result in degradation of overall watershed condition. The relative 

difference in wildfire risk between alternatives is described in Chapter 2. Because of the extreme 

unpredictability of either wildfire occurrence or level of effects, it is not useful to speculate 

regarding the level of effects on resources attributes that could occur under the various 

alternatives as a result of wildfire. However it can be assumed that there is a parallel level of risk 

of adverse effects on resources, associated with the level of risk of catastrophic wildfire.

Sustainable Recreation

The scale and nature of proposed activities related to management of recreation facilities and 

opportunity, including management area designations, also do not vary substantially in terms of 

potential effects to watershed condition between alternatives. Once again established standards 

and guidelines and BMPs to protect resources will be part of any proposed changes in recreation 

infrastructure. 

The most significant difference that may exist between alternatives in this regard, may relate to 

the economic cost. For example, under alternatives B, C, and E it is proposed to expand 

developed and dispersed recreation capacity by increasing facility capacity. This may require 

more expensive design options to be able to achieve both an increase in recreational capacity, 

while at the same time mitigating or even restoring ecological function in areas where facilities 

exist within lands classified as SEZ.

3-566 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under alternatives C and D, an increase in wilderness area designations is proposed in 

Dardanelles and/or Freel Peak Roadless areas (see DEIS Map 10). This would result in 

limitations on any future watershed restoration activities that would involve the use of 

mechanical equipment. There is currently no planned stream channel and floodplain restoration 

using mechanical equipment in these proposed areas, and in the absence of the potential for 

human disturbance it is not anticipated there will be future needs. Future active restoration 

beyond currently planned projects is not proposed under Alternative D. 

Access and Travel Management (ATM)

Similar to recreation facilities as described in the section above, the scale and nature of proposed 

activities related to management of forest roads, trails and associated access facilities also do not 

vary substantially in terms of potential effects to watershed condition resource attributes between 

alternatives. Once again established standards and guidelines and BMPs to protect soil and 

water quality will be part of any proposed changes in these components of forest infrastructure. 

In addition, under each of the alternatives the LTBMU will continue to pursue opportunities to 

either retrofit, relocate, or decommission roads and trails to reduce potential sediment and 

nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe, as part of the Uplands Forest TMDL management strategy, 

although the scale of this work is not likely to change existing watershed condition ratings for the 

road and trail metric. 

As described in the affected environment section, a large volume of the potential opportunities in 

this regard has already been accomplished over the past decade. However there will continue to 

be improvements where opportunities still exist, such as in areas of recent land purchases.

Climate Change

The stream channel and floodplain restoration efforts that have already been completed, and are 

currently planned under all the alternatives will result in these systems being more resilient to 

any hydrologic adjustments that occur due to future climate change. Geomorphologically stable 

stream channels and floodplains that exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium are better able to 

adjust to climate change impacts to hydrology, without resulting in adverse impacts to aquatic 

habitat, water quality, or water quantity. Hydrologic adjustments resulting from climate change 

occur at a relatively slow rate as compared to hydrologic changes caused by human disturbance.

Chapter 3 | Watershed Condition ■ 3-567
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

3.4.26.4 Analytical Conclusions

Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

Actions to improve conditions related to various watershed condition attributes are planned 

under all the alternatives. 

There is no method to provide a pre-implementation quantitative evaluation of when and to what 

degree these actions may improve current watershed condition ratings in watersheds currently 

rated as functioning at risk. Watershed Condition assessments are scheduled to be repeated 

every 3 to 5 years, according to the National protocol. Effects of management actions, as well as 

natural events (such as wildfire, extreme floods, climate change) will all determine the results of 

these assessments, as reflected by the current condition of the 12 watershed attributes during the 

assessment. 

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

Current watershed condition ratings are not expected to change under any of the alternatives, as 

rated through the National watershed condition assessment protocol, within the next 5 years. It 

is hopeful that through the implementation of currently planned work, some of the watersheds 

that are rated as Class 2, functioning at risk, may improve to a Class I rating –Properly 

functioning, over longer time periods. Management actions to reduce forest fuels and fire risk, 

restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats, forest health, stream channel stability, disturbed soils, and 

manage invasive species are expected to result in improved desired conditions for the twelve 

attributes of watershed condition identified at the beginning of this section. The two priority 

watersheds for management actions are Blackwood and the Upper Truckee. There is no 

measurable difference between the alternatives in this regard.

3-568 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.27 Wilderness

3.4.27.1 Introduction 

This report evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on wilderness 

resources that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines, in 

detail, the four alternatives described in Chapter 2. 

Methodology

Effects will be assessed by how forest management activities influence the quality and quantity 

of wilderness resources as determined by the measurement indicators discussed below. 

Issue and Indicators 

Issue 

Public participation and collaboration identified “the amount of land with wilderness 

designation” as a key issue as discussed in Chapter 1, Recreation Issues. 

Amount of Wilderness

Indicators 

Measurement indicators respond to the Issues and allow for an analysis of the Wilderness 

Resource: 

1. Recommended Wilderness - Acres of newly recommended Wilderness will be used to 

compare alternatives.

2. Wilderness Access – Miles of trails available to access recommended wilderness areas.

These recreation indicators are displayed in detail in Table 3-80. 

Chapter 3 | Wilderness ■ 3-569
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-80. Wilderness Indicators - Recommended Wilderness Acres and Trails by Alternative

Wilderness Acres Unit of 

Measure

Existing 

Wilderness 

Acres

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative C 

Dardanelles 

Roadless

Alternative D, 2

Dardanelles and 

Freel Roadless

Alternative 

E

Recommended Acres Acres 24,665 No Change No Change 14,229 14,229

+15,352

= 29,581

No Change

Existing and Recommended 

Acres. 

24,665 24,665 24,665 38,894 54,246 24,665

Wilderness Trails Existing 

Wilderness 

Trails

Existing and Recommended 

Miles of Wilderness Trails

Miles of 

Trail

55.85 No Change No Change 20.4 Dardanelles 20.4

Freel 

+25.6

=46 miles

No Change

Wilderness and 

Recommended 

Wilderness Miles

55.85 55.85 55.85 +76.25 +101.85

55.85

3-570 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Assumptions

Wilderness Acres – Current wilderness designations will remain constant for all alternatives. 

Wilderness Managed to Primitive Standards – Recommended wilderness areas will be 

managed to primitive standards as described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

notwithstanding their classification as Semi Primitive Non-Motorized in the ROS criteria.

3.4.27.2 Overview of the Affected Environment

The LTBMU shares management of three congressionally designated wilderness areas with three 

other National Forests (Table 3-81). Desolation Wilderness is co-managed with the Eldorado 

National Forest, Granite Chief with the Tahoe National Forest and Mt. Rose Wilderness with the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Both Granite Chief and the Mt. Rose Wilderness are 

managed primarily by the other forests. There are 55.85 miles of trails in the combined 

wildernesses. 

As described by congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to 

preserve its natural conditions, has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation...” 

The desired condition for managing wilderness areas within the basin is to protect and perpetuate 

the wilderness character and values of these areas as directed in the Wilderness Act and 

subsequent Wilderness designating legislation. This includes providing opportunities for 

solitude, education, physical and mental challenge, inspiration, scientific study and primitive 

recreation. Wilderness ecosystems are the result of natural succession and natural processes with

as little human intervention as possible while retaining wilderness character. There should be 

little evidence of visitor use and low interaction among users. The few trails and associated 

facilities present are retained primarily to protect the wilderness resources. No motorized use is 

permitted. The Forest Plan provides specific standards for management of the various resources 

and activities that are or could potentially occur in the wildernesses including, recreation, fire, 

lands, minerals, fish and wildlife, insects and disease, research, search and rescue, special uses, 

and hydrology.

Chapter 3 | Wilderness ■ 3-571
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Table 3-81. Wilderness lands located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Name Year Established Total Acres LTBMU 

Acres

LTBMU 

Trail Miles

Desolation 

Wilderness 

1969 63,960 22,038 51

Granite Chief 

Wilderness

1984 25,680 46 0.5

Mount Rose 

Wilderness

1989 28,121 2,580 4.8

Total LTBMU 24,664 Acres 55.85 Miles

Desolation Wilderness – Though relatively small, the 63,960 acre Desolation Wilderness is one 

of the premier wilderness areas in the United States, both in terms of its qualities and its 

popularity. It is one of the most heavily used wilderness areas for its size in the nation due not 

only because of its inherent beauty, but also because its proximity to major population centers 

and its relative ease of access. 

There are 22,038 acres that lie on the LTBMU with the remaining 41,922 on the El Dorado 

National Forest. Total use exceeds 120,000 visitors per year and includes both day use hiking 

and equestrian and overnight backpacking. Within the LTBMU portion of the wilderness, the 

average overnight use is estimated at 5,100 visitors and 82,500 day users per year. There are 51 

miles of trails on the LTBMU side of the wilderness. 

In managing the Desolation Wilderness, the LTBMU and the Eldorado National Forest have 

substantially achieved the Forest Plan goal of preserving its wilderness character, as intended by 

Congress. In 2006, the LTBMU and the El Dorado National Forest were awarded the Aldo 

Leopold Award for outstanding stewardship of the Desolation Wilderness.

In 1976 the Forest Service imposed restrictions on the numbers of overnight visitors, and 

currently there are area quotas for overnight camping that aim to distribute visitors and their 

impacts throughout the wilderness to protect popular areas from overuse. 

In 1997, the Desolation Wilderness was added to a new national pilot program, the Fee 

Demonstration (Fee Demo) program. Both the LTBMU and the Eldorado NF collaborated to 

develop a Business Plan, conduct public meetings, and develop an Operations Plan for the 

assessment of user fees to manage and maintain the environmental integrity of Desolation.

In 2005, a revised fee act was passed by Congress, changing the initial program to reflect 

national concerns. The new fee legislation for the Desolation Wilderness is known as the 

"Recreation Enhancement Act," or REA. The fee amount for Desolation has not been altered 

with the new act; however, the fee basis is different. The fees collected are co-managed with the 

Eldorado NF, and (except for a mandated 5% Agency Fee) all of the funds are returned to the 

Desolation. These funds are used to pay for maintaining trails, trailhead signing, conducting 

resource benefiting projects in the wilderness, and funding for wilderness rangers. 

3-572 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest fee collection station for hikers entering Desolation Wilderness 

from the Eagle Falls trailhead, located adjacent to the Emerald Bay 

parking lot and lookout.

Granite Chief Wilderness– Located on the west shore of Lake Tahoe, the Granite Chief 

Wilderness is managed primarily by the Tahoe National Forest. With only 46 acres and 0.5 

miles of trail in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the LTBMU does not play an active role in its 

management. This 25,680 acre wilderness offers valley meadows and spectacular 9,000 foot 

granite peaks. It was designated a Wilderness area in 1984 because of its pristine nature, natural 

beauty, and primitive, non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

Mt. Rose Wilderness– The Mount Rose Wilderness encompasses a total of 28,121acres of 

which 2,580 acres lie on the northern rim of the LTBMU. There are only 4.8 miles of trail in the 

LTBMU portion. The Mount Rose Wilderness is managed primarily by the Humboldt Toiyabe 

National Forest but the LTBMU often plays an active role in management issues. The 

wilderness is part of the larger Carson Range which stretches from Luther Pass southeast of Lake 

Tahoe to the Truckee River northwest of Reno, Nevada. The highest mountain in the wilderness 

is Mount Rose at 10,776'. Mount Rose is the only mountain in the wilderness that can be 

considered "alpine" or "above tree line" but only by about 100 feet. The primary issues that the 

LTBMU manage involve degrading nonconforming uses (e.g. OSV/mountain bike intrusions), 

and unregulated visitation that diminishes the opportunities for solitude and a semi-primitive 

experience.

In 2009 an evaluation of areas for potential wilderness was conducted on the LTBMU. (Please 

see Appendix B “Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness”, for more details on areas 

Chapter 3 | Wilderness ■ 3-573
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

evaluated for wilderness characteristics). At the time the LTBMU did not administratively 

recommend any new areas for wilderness consideration, though the Dardanelles and the Freel 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) did have enough wilderness attributes to merit 

recommendations for wilderness status.

3.4.27.3 Environmental Consequences 

Consequences Related to Wilderness 

In this analysis, those management activities that may have the most effect on wilderness 

resources are: 

• New Recommended Wilderness Designations

• Access - Dispersed Recreation

• Aquatic Invasive Species Management

• Species Recovery Habitat Restoration

Current wilderness designations will not be reduced or eliminated in any alternative and 

Alternatives A, B, and E do not propose any new wilderness recommendations. Two inventoried 

roadless areas however, the Dardanelles and the Freel Peak, were identified in the 2009 

Wilderness Evaluation (See Appendix B) as having enough wilderness attributes to merit 

recommendations for wilderness status in Alternative C and D of this report. 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area - The Dardanelles Roadless Area (14,227 acres), 

commonly known as “Meiss Country,” lies in the southernmost tip of the Lake Tahoe Basin and 

is the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River. The area sees prolific hiking, equestrian use, 

overnight backpacking, and in recent years increased mountain bike use. The area has long 

been closed to motorized summer and winter use. There are 20.4 miles of trail in the area that 

includes 8.1 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail which is closed to mountain biking. Popular 

trailheads include Echo Summit, Big Meadow, Carson Pass, Christmas Valley and Sayles 

Canyon. 

Dardanelles is second only to Desolation Wilderness in popularity for non-motorized 

backcountry recreation that includes dispersed overnight backpacking. An estimated 15,000 

visitors enjoy this area annually. The Dardanelles has been used as an alternative destination 

for the Desolation Wilderness area for years because of its easy accessibility and semi-primitive 

natural condition. The historic Meiss Cabin and Barn structures and historic dams are also 

present in the Meiss Meadow area. 

A 7 mile stretch of the Upper Truckee River that flows through the center of the Dardanelles 

roadless area was determined to be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River in 1999 (USDA Forest 

Service 1999, ROD). Interim protection for that segment was provided as an amendment in the 

1988 Forest Management plan to ensure that its eligibility is maintained. Interim protection 

requires that all projects proposed on NFS lands maintain the free-flowing status and that the 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed for this river is protected or enhanced. (See Appendix 

A, Wild and Scenic River Evaluation, for more information). 

3-574 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

Freel Inventoried Roadless Area - The Freel IRA (15,341 acres) lies in the southern portion of 

the Lake Tahoe Basin. Freel Peak (10,881ft.) is the highest point in the Basin and is the 

dominant feature in the Carson Range rising over South Lake Tahoe and Meyers. With 25.6 

miles of trails, summer use levels are steadily increasing with the area being more accessible to 

mountain bikers, and hikers and backpackers due to completion of the Tahoe Rim Trail (TRT). 

An estimated 12,000 visitors access this area annually. Overnight camping is now only allowed 

within a 300 ft. corridor of the TRT and by Star Lake. Popular mountain bike trails include 

Saxon Creek and Armstrong Pass. The Saxon Creek trail is now one of the most popular 

mountain bike trails on the south shore and gained region-wide popularity among this user 

group. Winter use includes snowmobile and backcountry skiing. Currently snowmobiles are 

allowed on 9,084 acres of the Freel IRA that includes the Saxon Creek and Hell Hole drainages. 

The segment of roadless area north of Freel Peak including High Meadows and the south side of 

Heavenly ski area is currently closed to motorized use. 

New Recommended Wilderness Designations 

Alternatives A, B, and E will maintain the existing 24,660 wilderness acres managed in the basin 

between the Desolation, Granite Chief and Mt. Rose Wildernesses. 

Alternative C would add the Dardanelles Roadless Area (14,229 acres) for wilderness 

recommendation, and Alternative D would add both the Dardanelles and the Freel Roadless area 

(15,341 acres) for a total of 29,581 acres of new wilderness recommendation (see Table 3-66). 

Alternative C would increase the number of acres available in the basin for wilderness recreation 

by 60%. Alternative D would increase the number of acres available for wilderness recreation by 

123%. 

With wilderness designations, the Dardanelles and Freel areas would be managed to standards as 

prescribed in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Though it is not anticipated that the new wilderness 

areas will need the intensive management prescriptions now utilized to manage Desolation 

Wilderness, the additional acres of wilderness designation will increase administrative 

responsibilities. Though some additional visitors may be attracted to these areas because of the 

wilderness designations, the current use by mountain biking visitors will stop when that use is 

prohibited. Increasing wilderness acres will not increase the total miles of trails available for 

hiking and equestrian use, but it would provide an increase in opportunities for visitors who 

desire trails in a wilderness setting. The Freel Wilderness recommendation in Alternative D will 

also increase the acres in the Basin available for dispersed camping.

In Alternative C, there will be a total 38,894 acres of wilderness and recommended wilderness in 

the LTBMU to be managed to wilderness standards. The Dardanelles area will continue to be 

patrolled on a regular basis by rangers and volunteers who contact and educate the public on 

‘Leave No Trace’ backcountry ethics and regulate user impacts such as user created trails, 

campfires, litter, and sanitation. Since this area is already classified as Semi Primitive NonMotorized, there will be no change to the existing ROS classifications. A wilderness designation 

in Alternative C could also adversely affect the historic Meiss Cabin and Barn structures and 

historic dams unless enabling legislation is allowed for their preservation. 

In Alternative D, there will be 54,246 total acres of wilderness and recommended wilderness in 

the LTBMU to be managed to wilderness standards. The level of administrative effort to 

Chapter 3 | Wilderness ■ 3-575
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

manage to standard in this area is anticipated to increase since overnight backpacking will be 

allowed throughout the entire Freel Peak area rather than in the narrow corridor along the Tahoe 

Rim Trail where it is currently permitted. 

Access - Dispersed Recreation 

Alternatives A, B, and E will maintain the existing miles of trail currently managed in the basin 

between the Desolation, Granite Chief and Mt. Rose Wildernesses. 

Wilderness designations in Alternatives C and D will not increase the miles of trails in these 

areas, however because mechanized transportation (e.g. mountain biking) activities are 

prohibited in designated wilderness areas, the character of the recreation experience will change. 

New wilderness designations may appeal to those backpackers, hikers, and equestrians who 

appreciate more primitive wilderness experiences and who have an aversion for meeting 

mountain bikes on the trails. Conversely, wilderness destinations will change the character of 

the experience for mountain bikers by prohibiting their use of some very popular riding trials. 

Satisfaction levels may increase for hikers and equestrians who desire a wilderness setting, but 

will be unsatisfactory for mountain bikers who will no longer have access to trails they are 

accustomed to using. 

In Alternative C, the 14,229 acres of recommended wilderness would be managed to more 

primitive wilderness conditions. A wilderness recommendation will prohibit mechanized 

transport (bicycles) use on approximately 12.3 miles of popular trails in the Dardanelles 

Inventoried Roadless Area. This will include the trail from Big Meadow through Round Lake to 

the Pacific Crest Trail, the Dardanelles Trail, and the Christmas Valley Trail. 

Alternative D will add 29,581 more acres of recommended wilderness which would be managed 

to more primitive wilderness conditions. A wilderness recommendation will prohibit

mechanized use on 25.6 miles of trails in the Freel area including popular rides such as Saxon 

Creek, Armstrong, portions of Tahoe Rim Trail, Star Lake, and Monument trails. Adoption of 

Alternative D, along with those miles in Dardanelles, would exclude mountain biking from a 

total of 37.9 miles of trails in these two areas. (See Access Section for a more detailed 

discussion of mountain biking trails available per each Alternative). 

Also in Alternative D, 9,084 acres of the Freel IRA would be closed to OSV use if designated by 

Congress. OSV users displaced by the area closure would have to find other areas to participate 

in this activity, most likely in the nearby Hope Valley in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 

Users from nearby neighborhoods would have to trailer their machines to other open areas. 

Aquatic Invasive Species Management 

Environmental consequences to wilderness resources generated from aquatic invasive species 

management are the same for all alternatives. Impacts to recreation are generated by actions that 

either improve or modify existing recreation activities. Removing non-native fish from lakes

benefits the wilderness character by improving the recreation setting for those desiring a 

wilderness experience. In lakes where all fishing opportunities are eliminated for the protection 

of other species, displaced fisherman may move on to other lakes. Increased impacts may occur 

3-576 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement

at these new locations. Removal of non-native species is consistent with policy, although some 

sport fishing opportunities may be gone. 

Species Recovery Habitat Restoration

Species management actions are the same in all alternatives as they all propose to maintain 1 

Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog sub-population and restore 9 sub-populations.

3.4.27.4 Analytical Conclusions

Wilderness

Wilderness lands are managed to preserve natural conditions and to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive unconfined type of recreation experience. No motorized 

or mechanized transportation modes are allowed in wilderness areas. Though it is not anticipated 

that the new wilderness areas would need the intensive management prescriptions now utilized to 

manage Desolation Wilderness, the additional acres of wilderness designations in Alternative C 

and D would increase administrative responsibilities needed to manage the wilderness areas to 

standards as prescribed in the Wilderness Act. 

• Alternatives A, B, and E are unchanged from existing conditions. Visitors will continue 

to enjoy the range of wilderness opportunities currently provided. Mountain bikers will 

continue to have access to popular riding trails in the Dardanelles and Freel Roadless 

areas. Both areas will continue to be managed to Inventoried Roadless Standards. 

• The 7 mile stretch of the Upper Truckee River that has been determined to be eligible for 

a Wild classification in the Wild and Scenic River inventory will continue to be managed 

to preserve its eligibility in all alternatives. 

• Wilderness designation in Alternatives C and D will not increase the miles of trails 

available to backpackers, hikers, and equestrians, however it will enhance wilderness 

recreation and dispersed non-motorized camping for visitors that seek a wilderness 

experience with opportunities for solitude and primitive conditions that wilderness 

designations would provide. .

• Alternative C will prohibit mechanized use on approximately 12.3 miles of popular trails 

in the Dardanelles IRA. This will include the trail from Big Meadow to the Pacific Crest 

Trail and also the Dardanelles and Christmas Valley Trails. Alternative D will prohibit 

mechanized use on an additional 25.6 miles of trails in the Freel IRA, including popular 

rides such as Saxon Creek portions of the Tahoe Rim Trail. 

• A wilderness designation in Alternative C could also adversely affect the historic Meiss 

Cabin and Barn structures and historic dams unless enabling legislation is allowed for 

their preservation.

• In Alternative C, the 14,229 acre Dardanelles area will continue to be patrolled on a 

regular basis by rangers and volunteers who contact and educate the public on ‘Leave No 

Trace’ backcountry ethics and regulate user impacts such as user created trails, campfires, 

litter, and sanitation

Chapter 3 | Wilderness ■ 3-577
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

• In Alternative D, the level of administrative effort is anticipated to increase since 

dispersed camping will be allowed throughout the entire Freel Peak area, rather than 

along the narrow corridor along the Tahoe Rim Trail that is currently permitted. User 

impacts such as those mentioned above will be extended to desirable areas such as stream 

sides and meadows. In Alternative D, OSV use of 9,084 acres of the Freel IRA will be 

prohibited. OSV users displaced by the area closure will have to find other areas to 

participate in this activity.

How the Alternatives Maintain or Achieve the Desired Conditions

A desired condition for Recreation is that “A spectrum of high quality recreational opportunities 

is provided, while Lake Tahoe Basin’s natural setting as an outstanding recreation destination is 

maintained” (Pathway). Another desired condition states that “Access to public lands is 

provided when consistent with user and management expectations.” 

• Alternatives A, B, and E will maintain or achieve desired conditions by continuing to 

provide the existing mix of wilderness/ recreation opportunities available in the Tahoe 

Basin. As reported in the Recreation section of this FEIS (3.4.19), the recreation 

opportunities currently provided on the LTBMU have very high satisfaction ratings as 

reported by NVUM surveys. This supports the notion that the current mix of recreation 

opportunities is generally in balance with the public’s expectations. Alternatives A, B, 

and E will preserve some popular mountain biking opportunities by not recommending 

that the Dardanelles and Freel IRAs be changed to wilderness status. The Dardanelles 

and Freel areas will continue to be managed as Inventoried Roadless Areas and access to 

these areas will remain status quo. The 7 mile stretch of Upper Truckee River will 

continue to be managed to preserve its eligibility for Wild and Scenic River status. 

• Alternatives C and D will still maintain and achieve the desired conditions, but by 

varying degrees and off-setting benefits. They will change the current spectrum of 

recreation opportunities in the Basin by increasing the amounts of recommended 

wilderness acres available for wilderness opportunities which will please some segments 

of our visiting population; however they will exclude mountain biking on total of 37.9 

miles of popular riding trails. Wilderness designations in Alternative D will also displace 

OSV users from 9,084 acres in the Freel area to other areas to participate in this activity.

3-578 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-579 

3.5 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA defines a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what Agency (Federal or non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions” (40CFR S 1508.7). CEQ has also provided guidance in the 

publication: Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(1997). This publication can be found at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html/. 

For cumulative impacts to accrue there must first be an impact from the action under review that 

can be added to the impact of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same resource. 

The boundary for analyzing cumulative effects includes the 207,420 acres within the watershed 

boundary of Lake Tahoe. The LTBMU manages 154,830 acres of this land (approximately 75% 

of the land in the Tahoe Basin). Attempting to describe the cumulative effects of each and every 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable Forest Service project for the entirety of these lands is 

neither possible nor informative at the programmatic level. As noted by CEQ’s guidance 

memorandum of June 24, 2005 and consistent with Forest Service NEPA Regulations (36 CFR 

220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), the effects of past actions can generally be captured by a description of 

the affected environment (Connaughton, 2005), which is detailed in each individual resource 

section of this chapter (detailed in Section 3.5.2). Projects that are in the process of 

implementation and projects that have signed NEPA compliant decisions are enumerated in 

Appendix K – Previous Decisions That Remain In Place, and are accounted for in the 

environmental consequences for each resource. 

The area of consideration for cumulative effects for most of the resources in this analysis 

includes the lands within the watershed boundary that defines the exterior boundary of the 

LTBMU. This includes the entire Lake Tahoe watershed. Some of the wildlife and plant 

resources have a boundary that extends beyond the watershed boundary of the Tahoe Basin and 

is defined further in those specific sections. At the programmatic level of planning the Lake 

Tahoe Basin is largely isolated from the surrounding National Forest’s management activities. 

Where there are impacts that involve multiple out-of-basin jurisdictions they are managed by 

overarching documents (such as the Desolation Wilderness Plan) that are incorporated into the 

LTBMU Forest Plan. In resource areas such as air quality there is oversight over the effected 

larger landscape by another agency (e.g. California Air Resources Board). The timeframe for 

this cumulative effects analysis is 15-20 years from adoption of the new Forest Plan. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-580 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.5.1 Non-Forest Service Lands 

The LTBMU is uniquely situated in a highly regulated environment. Therefore since all actions 

on private, county, and state lands are guided by several layers of regulations, the assessment of 

the past, present, and foreseeable future has greater predictability than most National Forests, 

since every project or action of consequence on private, county, and state lands is regulated by 

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in addition to other typical state and local regulatory 

agencies. After NFS lands, approximately 15% of the land in the Tahoe Basin is managed by the 

Washoe Tribe, states (i.e. State Parks) and other government entities (i.e. utility districts, 

counties, etc.). The remaining land, accounting for approximately 10% of the land in the Tahoe 

Basin, is privately owned and mostly comprised of dense residential communities with 

interspersed commercial locations. 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was created by Public Law 96-551 (the Revised 

Tahoe Regional Plan Planning Compact). Often referred to as the Bi-State Compact, it is an 

agreement between the States of Nevada and California and the Federal government on goals for 

the Lake Tahoe Basin. Directed by the Compact, the TRPA established Environmental 

Threshold Carrying Capacities (thresholds) for the basin. The thresholds are the standards 

against which all projects and activities are measured for the achievement of the goals and polies 

of the compact (TRPA, 1986). Since the thresholds have fundamentally been in place since 1982, 

they have guided the environmental landscape in the Lake Tahoe Basin for nearly 40 years. The 

TRPA Regional Plan as expressed by the Code of Ordinances, Goals and Policies, Planning Area 

Statements, Rules of Procedure and Community Plans guides the attainment of the thresholds. 

At the state level, the Lahontan Regional Water Board (California) and the Nevada Department 

of Environmental Protection (Nevada) have responsibility for enforcement of the Clean Water 

Act. Recently, both agencies completed the Lake Tahoe TMDL Report (Lahontan and NDEP, 

2010) and it was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for each State within 

the Lake Tahoe Basin. The TMDL identifies a cohesive strategy that will lead to the attainment 

of the applicable water quality standards for Lake Tahoe in Nevada and California. This TMDL, 

in combination with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (State of California 

1995) and the Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region (TRPA 1988b) 

ensure that activities that occur on any lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin will meet stringent 

water quality standards. 

Also there are land management agencies within the Basin such as the California and Nevada 

State Parks, the Nevada Division of Lands and the California Tahoe Conservancy that manage 

land under their own set of laws, regulations and policies to protect the environment in addition 

to adhering to the regulations imposed by the TRPA. The same is true for the state transportation 

agencies, CalTrans and NDOT, who maintain the public road system in the Basin. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-581 

3.5.2 Cumulative Effects by Resource Area 

Access & Travel Management 

Roads 

There are 110 miles of state and federal highways in the Tahoe region (Tahoe Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (TMPO), 2012). These routes, managed by Caltrans and NDOT, form the 

backbone of the region’s transportation system. Three major roads that ring Lake Tahoe include: 

US Highway 50, Nevada State Route 28, and California State Route 89. These three roads 

connect community centers around Lake Tahoe to each other, and serve as the principal links to 

outside regions in both states. As mentioned above, in addition to their important role as regional 

connectors, these roads serve as the ‘main streets’ of the region’s largest community areas. 

Intersecting and supplementing these regional roadways are 619 miles of local streets (TMPO, 

2012). These local routes include a range of facility types from urban-style arterial streets and 

roadways in South Lake Tahoe, California and Stateline, Nevada with sidewalks and bicycle 

facilities, to rural county roads outside of urban centers. 

A comprehensive forest access plan is being developed in coordination with federal lands, the 

Tahoe Transportation District, CalTrans, NDOT, and local jurisdictions. The plan will include 

developed recreation sites, permitted recreation sites, and dispersed forest access to identify and 

prioritize access needs. This plan will illuminate opportunities to connect urban to forest trails 

and link transit. The plan will include and prioritize access for both summer and winter access 

and identify needs and opportunities for parking, transit, trails, signs, and other amenities. The 

access plan will also identify ownership and jurisdiction for partnership and funding 

opportunities. 

Specific roadway projects include: US Hwy 50 South Shore Community Revitalization Project, 

State Route 89/Fanny Bridge Community Revitalization Project, Kings Beach Commercial Core 

Improvement Project, and the Incline Gateway Project, US 50 Corridor Project Phase II, Placer 

County State Route 89 Erosion Control, NDOT Water Quality Improvements. 

Roads Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, management of the forest road system would not add to the cumulative 

effects from these projects because forest roads are generally located off of the major roadways 

and local streets. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-582 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Trails 

Currently, most of the region’s larger communities have nearly completed networks of bicycle 

paths, lanes, and routes. Critical gaps in these more urban networks have been identified by local 

jurisdictions as high priority projects. At the regional level, there are major gaps in the bicycle 

network. The east shore has virtually no bicycle network, and while the west shore has an 

excellent, nearly continuous 10-mile separated path connecting parks and beaches to Tahoe City 

and beyond, the steep terrain near Emerald Bay has thus far been an obstacle in connecting the 

facility to the South Shore. 

A wide range of pedestrian conditions currently exist in the Tahoe region. The major regional 

roadways, which were built as rural highways and designed to facilitate vehicle throughput, 

generally lack pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks and marked or signalized pedestrian crossings do 

exist on the regional roads to varying degrees in the region’s largest communities (for example, 

along US 50 in Stateline; and along State Route 28 in Tahoe City and Incline Village). 

Currently, most of the region’s larger communities have nearly completed networks of bicycle 

paths, lanes, and routes. Critical gaps in these more urban networks have been identified by local 

jurisdictions as high priority projects. At the regional level, there are major gaps in the bicycle 

network. The east shore has virtually no bicycle network, and while the west shore has an 

excellent, nearly continuous 10-mile separated path connecting parks and beaches to Tahoe City 

and beyond, the steep terrain near Emerald Bay has thus far been an obstacle in connecting the 

facility to the South Shore. 

Specific trail projects include: Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway, South Tahoe Greenway, 

Sawmill Bicycle Path and Lake Tahoe Boulevard Enhancement Project. 

Trails Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, NFS land will likely be considered for these types of regional trails. 

These proposed trails will link the forest system trail network to the urban areas and trailheads 

around the basin, overall providing a positive cumulative effect in all alternatives. Alternatives 

A, B and E would not change management of the current forest trail system, and when combined 

with effects from these trails, bicycle paths, lanes and routes would provide a positive cumulative 

effect to access. Alternative C would provide the most positive cumulative effects by increasing 

maintenance levels on trails which would provide access to more visitors. Alternative D would 

provide the least amount of positive cumulative effect because trail maintenance levels would be 

reduced and trails could be removed for ecological restoration. 

Transit 

Transit contributes to reducing pollution and roadway congestion. The Tahoe City Transit Center 

south of the intersection of California State Routes 28 and 89 is located on NFS lands and is 

anticipated to be completed in the of spring 2012. Covering about 2.5 acres on a tract of public 

land west of SR 89, the center will serve as a hub for Placer County’s TART buses. The center is 

adjacent to hiking and bike paths and improves access to transit as well as pedestrian and bicycle 

mobility in and around Tahoe City. Parking is provided for commuters and visitors at the transit 

center. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-583 

The Tahoe region’s major existing transit services include: 

 The Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) bus system serves the North and West shores

with service to Tahoma, Tahoe City, and Incline Village; and a shuttle between Truckee 

and Tahoe City. 

 The BlueGO bus system serves the South Shore, including El Dorado County and

Douglas County with fixed-route, door-to-door, and flex-route service, as well as 

seasonal ski shuttles and the “Nifty Fifty” Trolley. 

 Squaw Creek Valley Shuttles serves skiers and employees at the Squaw Creek Valley

Resort. 

Transit Conclusion 

Alternative A does not actively promote transit opportunities but would also not deny any transit 

opportunities so would not have any cumulative effects to transit in the Tahoe Basin. Transit 

would be promoted in alternatives B, C, D and E through the development of multi-modal transit 

stops where feasible which would provide positive cumulative effects to the existing transit 

system by linking transit modes such as bicycles, walking, and busses. 

Air Quality 

A programmatic planning effort, such as this one, considers a large area that encompasses a wide 

array of environmental interactions, a number of which affect air quality but do not occur on 

NFS lands. Many of these environmental interactions will be most accurately disclosed as 

cumulative effects in site-specific project environmental analyses. As described below, the 

nature of air quality impacts makes it extremely difficult to confidently predict their occurrence. 

Factors that influence cumulative impacts on air quality include the following: 

 Motor vehicle emissions: Both tailpipe exhaust and re-suspension of particles are the

primary source of several pollutants of concern. Although off-road vehicles are

important contributors to air pollution, the high volume of on-road vehicles has resulted

in increased focus on these vehicles as well.

 Residential wood burning stoves and fireplaces and other uses, such as campfires can

impact air quality.

 The topography and climate: Locally emitted pollutants can build up at the surface due to

thermal inversions, which prohibit the dispersal of surface-level pollutants and therefore

can result in localized areas of high pollution levels.

 Pollutant transportation: Emissions from surrounding sources and ozone precursors (NOx

and VOCs) may enter the Basin from outside areas, such as the Sacramento Valley and

Bay Area.

 Wildfires: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities were reviewed to determine

cumulative effects to air quality. Because impacts to air quality in regards to smoke from

past wildfires and prescribed fire activities are short-lived, past activities do not

contribute to cumulative effects. Past activities do influence the amount of live and dead

woody material available for consumption in the event of a future wildfire.

Because the timing and locations of actions or events that could contribute to potentially 

significant air quality effects in the Lake Tahoe Basin are unknown, a quantitative cumulative 

effects analysis is not possible. However, if weather conditions, combined with the actions and 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-584 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

events described above were conducive, potentially significant adverse cumulative air quality 

effects could occur for days or possibly weeks under all alternatives. California and Nevada 

Smoke Management Programs (SMPs) govern all project level activities. The burners must 

obtain a burn permit and an authorization. As PFIRS and BlueSky models are utilized, 

cumulative impacts injurious to public health from prescribed burns are expected to be mitigated. 

One objective of the plan is to prevent the occurrence of large uncontrolled, high intensity 

wildfires. Wildfires present a risk to the public health and result in damage to both the 

environment and property. Vegetation management treatments leading to fire resilient forests 

provide the opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce the magnitude of wildfire air quality 

problems. 

Air Quality Conclusion 

There is a risk of cumulative effects to air quality from all of the alternatives as each one 

includes prescribed fire as an activity. However, as the states of California and Nevada each 

regulate burning the risk of significant cumulative effects would be low. 

Aquatic Wildlife, Terrestrial Wildlife and Botanical Resources 

For the following species, the cumulative effects analysis includes an area broader than the 

boundary of the Lake Tahoe Basin: California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, American marten, 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged frog, bald eagle, and Sierra Nevada red fox. These species have a 

broader area considered for cumulative effects because they are known to inhabit both the Lake 

Tahoe basin and have home ranges or populations that overlap adjacent lands. 

All past and present actions on NFS lands have also been highly regulated by the suite of local 

and state agencies. Therefore, it is assumed that actions on land managed by state and other 

government agencies are compatible with the habitat protection measures on NFS lands. In 

addition to the strict regulatory environment, past and present management actions on NFS lands 

have been largely motivated by terrestrial and aquatic ecological restoration needs. For 

example, the LTBMU continues to implement a number of watershed restoration projects 

focused on improving hydrologic and stream habitat conditions. Other projects are focused on 

restoring aspen stands, meadow communities, and reducing fuel loads in both the WUI and 

general forest. The overall goals of these projects are to improve the condition of sensitive 

habitat throughout the LTBMU. 

The Forest Service is a member of the Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Coordination Committee 

and participates on AIS Working Groups for aquatic weeds, non-motorized boat 

control/prevention, and warm water fish. The LTBMU has one of the strongest and most 

comprehensive AIS programs in Region 5 (and possibly in the nation) and we are working with 

the many partner agencies and public groups to control, prevent, and treat AIS. 

Outside of the Lake Tahoe basin, the majority of adjacent land is managed by other National 

Forests including the Tahoe National Forest, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and Eldorado 

National Forest. All of the Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species designated for the LTBMU 

are shared with the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests, therefore, these forests have protection 

measures in place for these sensitive species including the California spotted owl, northern 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-585 

goshawk, American marten, and Sierra Nevada Yellow legged frog. The Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest shares some of the sensitive species with the LTBMU including: Townsend’s big 

eared bat, Northern goshawk, and bald eagle, and has protection measures in place for habitats 

where these species occur. Therefore, since all of these Forest’s provide a consistent level of 

habitat protection in combination with the same National and regional direction. And, in the 

future each of their forest plans when amended will provide the ability to adapt and change over 

time if declining trends in habitat for sensitive species are observed. 

Management by the Washoe Tribe and public agencies in the Tahoe Basin is guided by wildlife, 

conservation, and natural resource protection objectives. On private land, habitat is generally 

considered to be of low suitability for many terrestrial wildlife species because of the high level 

of human disturbance and extensive habitat degradation and fragmentation. However, some 

privately owned land along the Lake shore is valuable habitat for certain aquatic species such as 

Lahontan cutthroat trout and plant species such as Tahoe yellow cress and certain terrestrial 

wildlife lake-associated species such as bald eagle and osprey. 

Regardless of ownership or habitat suitability, every project or action of consequence on private, 

county, and state lands is regulated by various state and local regulatory agencies as well as by 

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The TRPA established Environmental Threshold 

Carrying Capacities (thresholds) for the basin in 1982 (including terrestrial wildlife and 

fish/aquatic thresholds) that are the standards against which all projects and activities are 

measured for the achievement of the goals of the compact. The Goals and Policies (TRPA 1986) 

established two goals and five policy statements relative to maintaining terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat. The TRPA Code of Ordinances (TRPA 1987) also established provisions to protect and 

enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitats and protect special interest, threatened, endangered, and 

rare species. Because TRPA is involved in essentially all actions on private, county and state 

lands within the Lake Tahoe basin and have relatively stringent protection measures for 

terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species, there is a commonality of environmental protection 

that occurs on all lands in the Basin. 

This evaluation assumes that all actions on non-NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe basin and NFS 

lands adjacent to the basin will not change across alternatives. Therefore, the only differences 

among foreseeable future actions across alternatives are those proposed by the LTBMU as part 

of the proposed Forest Plan revision. All alternatives will have varying degrees of pressures and 

benefits for special status terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species and habitat. The greatest short 

term pressures on terrestrial wildlife will come from forest health and fuel reduction approaches 

associated with Alternative C. Another impact will be from the expansion of recreation sites and 

access generally associated with Alternative C and to a lesser degree Alternatives A, B and E. 

Alternative D has the greatest potential for degradation of late seral habitat and loss of early seral 

stages, and is least able to adapt to climate change. Similarly, both Alternatives C and D have 

the potential for the greatest consequences for aquatic species due to the potential increase in 

recreation permit areas (C only) and the potential expansion of aquatic invasive infestations. For 

a more detailed comparison of the evaluation of effects of alternatives on terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife species, see the Terrestrial Wildlife and Aquatic sections in Chapter 3. Regardless of 

these potential pressures, each alternative has design criteria (standard operating procedures and 

standards and guidelines) intended to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on terrestrial 

and aquatic wildlife species and their habitat. Finally, it is important to recognize that all site-
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-586 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

specific future NFS projects would be evaluated under NEPA, NFMA, and Section 7 of ESA 

(where appropriate). These site-specific analyses would consider cumulative effects. In addition, 

updated monitoring information from either the regional or forest level would be available to 

show trends in cumulative effects. 

Aquatic Wildlife, Terrestrial Wildlife and Botanical Resources Conclusion 

The management direction proposed under all four Plan alternatives, when combined with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all land ownerships within the Lake Tahoe 

basin is not expected to have an adverse cumulative effect on special status terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife species or their habitat during the life of the Plan. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

The Forest Service manages approximately 155,000 acres of land in the Lake Tahoe basin as the 

LTBMU. At the bioregional scale, the LTBMU is one of ten National Forests in the Sierra 

Nevada and represents fewer than 2% of the 11 million acres of Forest System lands in this 

region (Figure 1). Based on the relatively diminutive size of the LTBMU at the bioregional 

scale, potential adverse effects from management activities in the LTBMU would be functionally 

diluted at the bioregional scale and contribute minimally, if at all, to any cumulative 

consequences of activities in the Sierra Nevada on bioregional trends. 

Not only would the potential for cumulative effects be minimized by the relatively small size of 

the LTBMU, but the management activities proposed as part of the Forest Plan revision are 

focused on protecting, enhancing, and restoring habitats and habitat components important to 

MIS. The LTBMU is unique among many National Forests in the Sierra Nevada in that a great 

deal of emphasis is placed on restoration of habitat and processes, as reflected in the revised 

Forest Plan objectives, and comparatively little to no emphasis is placed on mineral extraction, 

timber harvest, and grazing activities that often compromises the integrity of sensitive habitats 

and processes. Where recreation or forest vegetation management practices may affect MIS 

habitats or habitat components at the project-level, a number of standards and guidelines 

described in the revised Forest Plan are in place to avoid or minimize the potential for such 

effects. 

All actions on private, county, and state lands within the Lake Tahoe basin are guided by several 

layers of regulations with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) involved in essentially 

all actions. TRPA reviews all projects or actions on private, county, and state lands in the basin. 

The TRPA established Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities (thresholds) for the basin; 

standards against which all projects and activities are measured for the achievement of the goals. 

These thresholds have fundamentally been in place since 1982 and have guided the 

environmental landscape in the Lake Tahoe Basin for nearly 40 years. In California, the 

Lahontan Regional Water Board and in Nevada, the Nevada Department of Environmental 

Protection also have responsibility for enforcement of the Clean Water Act. There are land 

management agencies within the basin such as the California and Nevada State Parks, the 

Nevada Division of Lands, and the California Tahoe Conservancy that manage land under their 

own set of laws, regulations and policies to protect the environment in addition to adhering to the 

regulations imposed by the TRPA. The same is true for the state transportation agencies, 

CalTrans and NDOT, who maintain the public road system in the Basin. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-587 

MIS Conclusion 

Therefore, because the Lake Tahoe basin is in a highly regulated environment, is a relatively 

small portion of the Sierra Nevada, and proposes management activities focused on the 

protection, enhancement, and restoration of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, it is expected that the 

LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan will not alter the existing bioregional trend in 

habitats or ecosystem components, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of the MIS 

across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Built Environment 

In the Lake Tahoe Basin, the built environment is highly regulated by TRPA. TRPA uses the 

Bailey system to prohibit new development on some sensitive lands, and restrict the amount of 

coverage (i.e., pavement and building footprint) that can be placed on others. TRPA has built 

into its Code of Ordinances a program for the transfer of development rights to other, less 

sensitive parcels. In this way, development can be moved away from the most sensitive areas and 

property owners can still realize value from their land. See the soil cumulative effects section 

below for an analysis of coverage on NFS lands. 

A few of the larger development projects on non NFS lands which are in the foreseeable future 

include: Sierra Colina, Boulder Bay and Homewood developments. 

Built Environment Conclusion 

Alternative D would lead to a reduction in the built environment (by about 5%) and would not 

add to the cumulative effects from these other developments. Alternative C would allow for a 

fifteen percent increase in the built environment which would increase coverage by 0.05% and 

would not add significantly to cumulative effects. The same is true for Alternatives A, B and E, 

which would add 5%, 10%, and slightly over 5% more coverage respectively. 

Forest Vegetation, Fire and Fuels 

Past and Future LTBMU Thinning, Fuel Reduction, and Prescribed Fire 

Treatments 

Prior to the establishment of the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuels Reduction and 

Wildfire Prevention Strategy (Strategy), the LTBMU had completed approximately 16,000 acres 

of fuels reduction and thinning treatments around the Basin. Under the Strategy the LTBMU has 

completed approximately 12,000 acres of thinning and fuel reduction. 

Over the life of the Forest Plan, the LTBMU expects to treat approximately 25,000 acres using a 

combination of hand and mechanized thinning, followed in some cases by use of prescribed fire. 

These methods of treatment will continue to be used for reducing high tree densities and amounts 

of surface fuels within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

The past and future acres to be treated on NFS lands within and around the communities 

represent about seventy-five percent of combined totals of acres to be treated in the WUI. 

There are no differences between alternatives in the defense zone. However, there are diameter 

limits in two alternatives: alternative A the diameter limit is 30 inches throughout the WUI and 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-588 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

in alternative D the diameter limit is 12 inches in the Threat Zone. Alternative D would not be 

consistent with the goals of the Strategy with the low diameter limit, since modeling has 

indicated that the fire type that would occur could carry an active crown fire, making wildfire 

adjacent to the communities difficult to safely suppress. Alternatives A, B, C and E would all 

permit accomplishment of the goals identified in the strategy. 

Past and Future Non-Federal Thinning, Fuel Reduction, and Prescribed Fire 

Treatments 

Prior to the strategy, State agencies had accomplished several thousand acres and local 

jurisdictions and fires protection districts had accomplished small acreages. With the Strategy 

and an influx of a variety of funding mechanisms and agreements, the amount of treatment acres 

has accelerated. The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team, which collectively implements the non-federal 

portion of the strategy, had completed over 5,000 acres 

Approximately 8,000 acres in the WUI will be accomplished by state agencies and local fire 

protection districts over the life of the plan. 

The past and future acres to be treated on non-federal lands within and around the communities 

represent about twenty-five percent of the combined totals of acres to be treated in the WUI. 

During implementation of the Forest Plan, the treatment of acres on non-federal lands would 

accomplish the goals identified in the strategy. Were these treatment acres subject to the limits 

of Alternative D, they would not be a factor as the number of acres of non-federal lands in the 

Threat Zone is miniscule. 

Forest Vegetation, Fire and Fuels Conclusion 

When the past and future thinning, fuel reduction and prescribed fire treatments that have been 

identified in the strategy are completed throughout the WUI, both on NFS and non-federal lands, 

a substantial step towards improved forest health and lower risk of catastrophic fire will have 

been achieved. This achievement will also provide benefits including, but not limited to: wildlife 

habitats, water quality, scenic integrity, public safety, and wildland fire fighter safety. 

Heritage Resources 

Heritage resources are managed through the California and Nevada State Historic Preservation 

Offices. Because every project on NFS land and non NFS land would need to be considered for 

heritage resources through these offices and project specific mitigation measures would be 

prescribed for each project; there would be no cumulative effects from any of the alternatives. 

Interpretive Services & Conservation Education 

There are no direct or indirect effects to Interpretive Services and Conservation Education from 

any of the alternatives so there would therefore be no cumulative effects. 

Lands 

There are no direct or indirect effects to lands from any of the alternatives so there would 

therefore be no cumulative effects. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-589 

Minerals 

While the FS could approve plans of operations for mining, since TRPA would not permit the 

mining activity, the holders could not obtain the required state and county permits to actually 

start operations. Active mining is essentially precluded in the Lake Tahoe Basin; therefore, there 

would be no cumulative effects. 

Natural Hazards 

There are no direct or indirect effects from natural hazards from any of the alternatives so there 

would therefore be no cumulative effects. 

Noise 

All activities on the National Forest will contribute to expanded sound levels that will add to the 

Basins overall Cumulative Noise Event Level (CNEL), and the Single Noise Event Level 

(SNEL) thresholds adopted by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The Forest 

Service will work cooperatively under all alternatives to monitor and achieve the noise threshold 

standards, along with adhering to noise related enforcement of the Federal Code of Regulations 

(CFRs). 

Alternatives B, C, and E expand acres and mileage for motorized recreation access and that 

would contribute to expanded noise levels generated from motor vehicles, Conversely, 

Alternative D with a reduction in motorized access opportunities would generate less noise that 

the other alternatives, including alternative A. However, with TRPA enforcing the CNELs and 

SNELs thresholds, these alternatives would not add to the cumulative effects from noise. 

Vegetation treatment activities would contribute noise from chainsaws and equipment 

operations. Under all alternatives, these types of operations would generally not start until after 

7am and would end at 6pm (or as prescribed in specific projects) especially when taking place 

near residential areas. Therefore, both CNEL and SNEL noise levels would not be exceeded. 

Under all alternatives, the LTBMU will adopt the best available technology to minimize noise 

exceedences along with applying management oversight over uses of and on the National Forest 

to ensure compliance with existing noise level standards and strive to ensure that noise levels are 

compatible with the primary use of the area. Also in all alternatives, prior to the issuance of a 

new use authorization or permit for an event or activity on NFS lands, an analysis of compliance 

with existing noise standards should be completed. 

Increased demand for access and use of the National Forest under all alternatives is expected, 

and although managed access (acres and development levels) varies among the alternatives, there 

will be a projected increase in concentration of use for the areas that are open as population 

levels increase and that will affect overall noise levels (both CNELs and SNELs) generated over 

the life the Forest Plan. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-590 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Recreation 

Other entities in the Basin that manage and/or provide outdoor recreation opportunities includes 

the California and Nevada State Parks, the TRPA, various counties and municipalities, and other 

private recreation providers. 

Due to Lake Tahoe’s proximity to major population centers and their increased population 

projections, visits to the Basin are anticipated to increase over the 15 to 20 year life of the plan 

despite prevailing economic conditions. As is the situation now, there will continue to be unmet 

demand in some developed recreation sites during peak periods in all alternatives. In other 

words, when sites are full, visitors must look elsewhere for other recreation opportunities. The 

other recreation providers in the Basin also acknowledge the reality of being unable to meet 

demand during peak periods. Like the Forest Service they also operate with funding constraints 

that inhibit their ability to provide services or to expand to meet future demand. 

The indicators in Forest Plan analysis used to address demand were the amount of Overnight 

Accommodations, Day use Parking and Acres of Permit Boundaries provided per alternative. 

Alternative C offers the best opportunity to meet demand by allowing up to a 15% increase for 

each amenity; however it is also the most costly. In all alternatives, the Forest Service will 

continue to manage recreation resources to the highest standards attainable within the limits of 

available funding to maintain visitor satisfaction. 

California State Parks has projected a “status quo” condition for the outdoor recreation 

opportunities they will provide over the next 15 to 20 years (Bran Barton, California State Parks, 

Lake Tahoe Superintendent). Though they do not anticipate long-term closures or facility 

expansion opportunities within the Basin over the life of the Forest Plan, they acknowledge the 

challenge of remaining economically viable in the face of reduced overall funding. Since the 

expansion of facilities is not in the foreseeable future, they are considering offering a different 

suite of opportunities including special events and business retreats that would encourage more 

visits to Lake Tahoe during the shoulder seasons when visitation is generally low. 

Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park Superintendent Jay Howard projects that Nevada State Park 

budgets will generally remain the same into the future which currently characterized as “bare 

bones”. Though they do project a continued increase in demand, they do not project an increase 

in facility capacity over the life of the Forest Plan. Like California State Parks, Mr. Howard 

suggested that more services may be handled via concessionaire in the future but those services 

would still be available. 

The TRPA currently manages for Recreation Thresholds that are found in the Recreation 

Element of the Goals and Polices Plan. The Recreation Element primarily recognizes three 

general types of recreational sub-elements between Developed, Dispersed, (both the same as the 

Forest Service) and Urban. Examples of Urban facilities in this case are athletic fields, ice 

skating rinks, swimming pools and neighborhood parks. There are two indicators used by the 

TRPA to determine if the Recreation Threshold is in attainment: R-1 High Quality Recreational 

Experience & Additional Access, and R-2 Capacity Available to the General Public. As stated 

in the 2006 Threshold Evaluation Executive Summary, both indicators are in attainment and are 

showing a positive trend. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-591 

Counties, municipalities and private entities account for a small percentage of the overall outdoor 

recreation inventory in the Basin. Expansions or contractions of offerings within these sectors 

are not anticipated to largely impact overall Basin recreation opportunities over the life of the 

plan. 

The amount of Wilderness acres available in the Basin would increase with the implementation 

of either Alternative C or Alternative D. As discussed in the analysis, the result of these 

designations would change the overall character of dispersed recreation opportunities in the 

Basin by increasing the acres available for hikers and equestrians who desire the outdoor 

experiences offered under wilderness protection. It would also decrease the miles of trail 

available to mountain bikers who value rides in those locations. This displaced use would most 

probably manifest itself elsewhere on the basin or in adjoining National Forests. Wilderness 

designations are not anticipated to effect the management of other national forests who would 

share boundaries. All areas would be managed to the standards required for specific land 

designations. 

The adjacent Hope Valley area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is considered for 

cumulative effects to OSV recreation. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, there would be no 

cumulative effects to snowmobile recreation because all existing areas and trails would remain 

open. Under alternative D, if the Freel Roadless area is designated by Congress as Wilderness, 

the area would be closed to snowmobiles. This would impact the Hope Valley area because it is 

the closest area open to snowmobiles. The effect would be that snowmobilers would be 

displaced from the Freel area to the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF. This would concentrate more users 

in that area and local users would have to trailer their machines, which could lead to a decrease 

in user satisfaction. However, it is not anticipated that any additional areas adjacent to the basin 

would be closed to snowmobiling so there would be no cumulative effects of incremental 

closures, only this indirect effect of displacing users. 

Infrastructure and Social Resources Conclusion 

When considering the effects of the Forest Plan alternatives and those foreseeable actions 

projected by other non-Forest Service recreation providers, Alternative C would best be able to 

meet demand for recreation cumulatively since it would allow for the largest increase in 

recreation facilities on NFS lands. 

Scenic Quality 

Effects on scenic resources are analyzed in terms of Scenic Integrity and Scenic Stability (See 

Scenic Resources Environmental Consequences analysis for discussion of these indicators). 

Both scenic integrity and scenic stability are affected by the considered alternatives combined 

with the effects of projects that implement these alternatives. Each alternative would likely 

result in short term scenic impacts within foreground views. Implementation of Alternative A 

and foreseeable future Forest Service projects would result in the least scenic integrity. 

Implementation of Alternative D and its anticipated Forest Service projects would result in the 

greatest scenic Integrity. The effects of implementing Alternatives B and C fall between these 

two ranges with C representing a slight increase in scenic integrity compared to Alternative B. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-592 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scenic stability would be greatest under Alternative C when considering the anticipated Forest 

Service project implementation. Alternative D would result in effects that produce the least 

scenic stability of the Alternatives considered. Alternatives A and B fall in between these 

ranges, with B slightly higher in scenic stability than Alternative A. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable project implementation on non-NFS lands within the 

project area are not anticipated to alter the general description of the environmental effects 

described above. NFS lands represent approximately 75% of lands within the Basin. The 

remaining 25% includes other public lands as well as private lands. Vegetation treatments on 

these lands are assumed to be consistent regardless of the Forest Plan alternative. Additional 

short term scenic impacts would be anticipated from these treatments which would be combined 

with anticipated short term impacts on NFS lands. Vegetation treatments on these lands have the 

greatest potential to alter the scenic character of the region; however the scale of reasonably 

foreseeable treatments in these lands is not anticipated to result in impacts to regional scenic 

integrity. The cumulative impact of these combined short term disturbances to scenic integrity 

is anticipated to be less than significant because of the limited duration and the maintenance of 

the valued scenic attribute of views of conifer forest. Scenic stability would be positively 

affected by these treatments, and would only improve overall landscape scenic stability 

described for each Forest Plan alternative. 

Development of the built environment on private and non-NFS lands also has the potential to 

negatively affect scenic stability. Development of these lands is regulated in the Tahoe Basin, 

primarily by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which results in controls of development 

scale and visual character. The impact of this development on regional scenic integrity is not 

anticipated to be significant when combined with the impacts from any of the Forest Plan 

alternatives. 

Scenic Quality Conclusion 

When considering the effects of the Forest Plan alternatives and those of the projects that 

implement the alternatives with effects of non-Forest Service projects there are no impacts to 

scenic resource integrity or stability that would be considered a significant impact. 

Soils Resource 

Soil Productivity 

Cumulative effects to soil productivity in the project area are reflected in the current conditions. 

Lingering effects from past actions are primarily compaction on closed roads and old landings 

and skid trails. Ongoing disturbance is primarily found on unauthorized recreation trails and 

access routes for sewer lines and other utilities. Small areas of ongoing disturbance are 

associated with some developed recreation sites, especially those which have not yet received 

BMP upgrades. 

Soil productivity is a site-specific attribute of the land; the soil productivity of one area is not 

dependent on the productivity of an adjacent area. For this reason, cumulative impacts to soil 

productivity would be small under all alternatives, because cumulative impacts are only present 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-593 

when previously disturbed areas are subjected to new disturbance before they recover naturally 

or are restored. 

Impervious Cover 

In addition to soil productivity, cumulative effects to soils can also be analyzed in terms of 

impervious surface or impervious cover. The TRPA soil conservation threshold is based on the 

amount of impervious cover in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The TRPA regulates impervious cover, 

and has assigned allowable percentages of impervious cover to nine land capability classes 

(Bailey 1974). The soil conservation threshold is considered in attainment when impervious 

cover is within the allowable percentage for the land capability class. 

Impervious cover totals for NFS lands and non-NFS lands are compared using 2004 IKONOS 

data (Table 3-82). 

Table 3-82. Impervious cover by land ownership in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Ownership Total 

land 

acres* 

Existing 

impervious 

cover acres 

Allowable 

impervious 

cover acres 

Allowable 

impervious 

cover 

percentage 

Existing 

impervious 

cover 

percentage 

NFS lands 148,721 465 5,019 3.4% 0.3%

Non-NFS 

lands 53,395 6,373 5,343 10.0% 11.9%

All lands 202,116 6,838 10,362 5.1% 3.3%

* Water bodies and data gaps are excluded

On NFS lands, all land capability classes are in attainment, ranging from 0.1% for class 1C to 

4.2% for class 7 (Table 3-83). For all ownerships, impervious cover is in attainment in land 

capability classes 1A, 1C, 3, 4, 5, and 6. On Non-NFS lands, impervious cover is in attainment 

only in land capability classes 5 and 6. Differences between NFS and non-NFS lands are 

especially notable for land capability class 1B, most of which is SEZ, with 0.6% impervious 

cover on NFS 1B lands compared to 10.4% on non-NFS 1B lands. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-594 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-83. Impervious cover on National Forest System lands by Land Capability Class 

Land 

Capability 

Class 

Total 

NFS 

acres* 

Existing 

impervious cover 

acres 

Allowable 

impervious 

cover acres 

Allowable 

impervious 

cover 

percentage 

Existing 

impervious 

cover 

percentage 

1A 59,723 126 597 1% 0.2%

1B 17,287 99 173 1% 0.6%

1C 48,587 38 486 1% 0.1%

2 3,281 21 33 1% 0.7%

3 6,161 17 308 5% 0.3%

4 3,407 26 681 20% 0.8%

5 6,842 99 1,710 25% 1.5%

6 2,875 13 863 30% 0.5%

7 558 24 168 30% 4.2%

Total NFS 

Lands 148,721 465 5,019 3.4% 0.3%

* Water bodies and data gaps are excluded

The accuracy limitations of the IKONOS data include a “user accuracy “ or reliability rating of 

87%, which means that natural cover was found to be included as impervious cover only 13% of 

the time over the entire basin (Minor and Cablk, 2004). Conversely, impervious cover was 

included as natural cover 3% of the time. Nonetheless, it is clear that Forest Service lands are 

not a major contributor to impervious cover in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and this situation is not 

projected to change significantly under any alternative. 

The transportation network (roads and trails) is the largest source of impervious cover on NFS 

lands. No alternatives project a large increase in roads and trails, so any increases in impervious 

cover would be small. 

Vegetation management activities have the potential to increase impervious coverage in the form 

of soft cover through soil compaction. Cumulative watershed effects analysis (CWE) is used to 

predict increases in impervious surfaces due to soil compaction resulting from timber harvest 

equipment and practices. The model currently used by the LTBMU predicts that using cut-to 

length harvester-forwarder operations, 7% of the harvest unit will be severely compacted such 

that the surface is effectively impervious to precipitation. 

These predictions have not been confirmed by soil compaction monitoring, which found little or 

no decreases in soil porosity (increases in compaction) from pre-project or undisturbed 

conditions (USDA Forest Service 2008d, 2011, 2012). Post project conditions were far more 

similar to natural conditions than to an impervious condition. These results suggest a need to 

refine the CWE model to better reflect observed results. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-595 

The extent of compaction severe enough to be described as impervious cover is generally limited 

to landings that cannot be ripped due to high rock content and some main forwarder and skid 

trails, and comprises a very small portion of the areas treated. Thus, vegetation management 

projects on NFS lands are not expected to result in hydrologically meaningful increases in 

impervious cover in any alternative. 

Impervious cover associated with other activities, including utilities and recreation, is not 

expected to increase significantly under any alternative. 

Soils Resource Conclusion 

Total increases in impervious cover on NFS lands are expected to be small to non-existent under 

all alternatives. All alternatives include strategies that seek to decrease impervious cover where 

feasible, and no activities are expected to result in large increases to impervious cover. On nonNFS lands, impervious cover would increase largely on the relatively small area of undeveloped 

lands that remain in the urban areas. Thus, changes to impervious cover resulting from the 

alternatives in this analysis would not be significant when added to those on non-NFS lands. 

Water Quality and Soil Erosion; Water Quantity; Watershed 

Condition 

The LTMBU largely relies on the efforts of other agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin to track and 

analyze metrics that would serve as measures of cumulative effects relative to lake clarity and 

tributary water quality. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin has a long data record of tributary water quality data, provided through 

the Lake Tahoe Interagency Tributary Monitoring Program (LTIMP). This program is funded 

through TRPA and USGS, and from 2005 through 2012, has also been supported with funds 

through the USFS Erosion Control Grants program (for almost 1/3 of the cost of the program). 

From this data, the State of California currently lists 8 tributary water bodies as impaired, and the 

State of Nevada lists seven tributary water bodies as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act (2010 List). These tributaries are located within the Lake Tahoe Basin boundary; 

therefore most of the tributaries mentioned include both USFS and private lands. The receiving 

water body, Lake Tahoe is listed by both states. 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has established seven thresholds related to Lake Tahoe 

Basin water quality that address Lake Tahoe, tributaries, stormwater runoff, groundwater, and 

other lakes. Based on LTIMP and other data provided to and utilized by the TRPA, none of 

these thresholds are currently in attainment with the exception of near shore turbidity (TRPA, 

2006). One of the other seven thresholds (tributary water quality) is noted as having a positive 

trend, even though that threshold is not in attainment. Two of the thresholds related to Lake 

Tahoe clarity are noted as continuing to show a negative trend, with groundwater, other lakes, 

and stormwater runoff water quality metrics considered to show neutral trends. 

Two of the California streams currently have approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

targets related to sediment, (Heavenly Creek, 2002 and Blackwood Creek, 2008) and TMDLs are 

scheduled to be developed for the other water bodies and constituents. The Lake Tahoe TMDL 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-596 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

is a joint effort between the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board in CA and the 

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection in Nevada NV. The Lake Tahoe TMDL was 

approved by EPA in August of 2011. The Lake Tahoe TMDL requires the USFS to track and 

report on efforts to reduce loading from NFS lands. 

Most of the California streams (Table 3-84) and Lake Tahoe are 303(d) listed because of 

sediment and nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe and subsequent impacts to Lake Tahoe clarity. 

However based on the TMDL analysis, upland sources (the forested non-urban portions of the 

watersheds) are estimated to contribute only 9% of the total fine sediment loading to the Lake, 

with atmospheric (15%) and urban sources (72%) the largest contributors. In addition stream 

channel erosion is estimated to contribute 4% of the total fine sediment loading. 

Forested non-urban sources are currently estimated to contribute 32% of the phosphorus and 

18% of the nitrogen loading to the lake. Of the forested non-urban lands, the LTBMU is the 

primary land use manager, responsible for managing 75 % of the forested non-urban lands in the 

Tahoe Basin. 

 The six Nevada streams are listed (Table 3-84) because of zinc, iron, and in one instance 

pathogen violations. Two of the California streams are listed because of pathogens. The 303(d) 

listed waterbodies, other than Lake Tahoe, are listed below along with the pollutants causing 

listing. 

Table 3-84. Listed 303(d) stream segments in the Lake Tahoe Basin (2010) 

Segment Measured Impact 

California

Blackwood Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, iron 

Cold Creek nitrogen 

General Creek iron, phosphorus 

Heavenly Valley Creek phosphorus, chloride, sediment 

Tallac Creek pathogen 

Trout Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogen , iron 

Upper Truckee iron, phosphorus 

Ward Creek phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, iron 

I Note* iron and chloride WQ stds may be revised 

Nevada

Second Creek zinc 

Wood Creek pathogen 

Third Creek zinc 

Incline Creek iron 

Glenbrook Creek iron 

First Creek zinc 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-597 

Cumulative Watershed Effects of Alternatives 

All the strategies and objectives proposed under all the alternatives will continue to support the 

LTBMUs goal of doing its part to achieve state water quality standards, TRPA water quality 

thresholds, and the Lake Tahoe Basin TMDL milestones related to stream channels and forest 

uplands. 

The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the 2011 TRPA Threshold 

Evaluation Report: 

Water Quality Threshold Standard Goal: To reduce nutrient and sediment loads for 

surface runoff, groundwater and atmospheric sources to meet 1967 to 1971 levels of 

algae and water transparency measured in Lake Tahoe. 

Findings and Conclusions: Water quality shows signs of improvement as well as areas 

of concern. The trend for winter average Secchi depth shows that the indicator is no 

longer declining and the Region is meeting interim targets established in 2006; additional 

improvements in lake clarity are needed to meet the adopted Threshold Standard. The 

annual average Secchi depth indicator is still considerably short of attaining both the 

interim target and adopted Threshold Standard, although the rate of Lake clarity decline 

has slowed since 2001. Summer clarity is showing declining trends and ongoing research 

findings are needed to understand why winter and summer readings are moving in 

seemingly opposite directions. The long-term trend in the phytoplankton primary 

productivity indicator continues to show a rapid decline, although the indicator has 

improved in the last two years. Research noted in the Lake Habitat Indicator Category 

(see Chapter 7: Fisheries) is underway assessing possible relationships of phytoplankton 

to other nearshore conditions. Long-term measurements of stream water quality indicate 

that the Region is not meeting state pollutant concentration standards, although 

improvements in sediment and phosphorus concentration are noted. Long-term data on 

pollutant loading indicates that there was little or no change in the amount of nitrogen, 

sediment, and phosphorus being delivered to Lake Tahoe annually via tributaries. Several 

information gaps related to indicators are noted and recommendations are forwarded to 

address this issue. 

Recommendations: Proposed Regional Plan strategies for achieving the water quality 

thresholds include continuing the requirement to install permanent and temporary BMPs, 

maintaining growth management tools (e.g. use of development allocations, land 

coverage limitations, and urban boundary delineations), preserving and restoring stream 

zones, and prohibiting the discharge of wastewater, toxic waste, and solid waste into Lake 

Tahoe, its tributaries, and groundwater resources. Additional actions proposed in the 

Regional Plan Update are projected to accelerate water quality improvements include 

accelerating BMP implementation to help achieve TMDL goals through areawide 

approaches, reducing automobile use through new improvements to public transit and 

alternative transportation modes, greater flexibly in use of air and water quality 

mitigation funds to support priority water and air quality improvements and encouraging 

environmental redevelopment through the use of incentives associated with the transfer 

of development from sensitive lands. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-598 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The USFS role in achieving TRPA thresholds for water quality is directly tied to the TMDL 15 

year milestones for stream channel and forest uplands, which are a 12% reduction in fine 

sediment from Forest Uplands, and a 53% reduction of fine sediment from stream channels. As 

described in the TMDL water quality control plan amendments (TMDL Plan), it is anticipated 

that these reductions will be achieved through past actions as well as through implementation of 

future strategies, as currently described under all the alternatives, including implementation of 

BMPs; facilities, roads, and trails retrofits and decommissioning; and implementation of 

currently planned restoration projects including removal of existing stressors. The TMDL plan 

goes on to state that the LTBMU is responsible for implementing forest fuels reduction projects 

to reduce the threat of wildfire in the Lake Tahoe basin, and these projects must include best 

management practices and appropriate monitoring to ensure fuels reduction efforts do not cause 

this source to exceed load allocations. 

Because vegetation management treatments are primarily concentrated in a “ring” around lake 

Tahoe adjacent to urban areas (the WUI) , there is little to no potential for adverse consequences 

related to cumulative watershed affects under any of the alternatives relative to these activities. 

Watersheds in Lake Tahoe are generally characterized by some level of urbanization in the lower 

third of the watersheds, with primarily stable forested uplands in the upper two thirds of the 

watershed. Regardless of the specific type and scale of treatment options used, as described 

under all the alternatives in the WUI, implementation of BMPs are expected to result in neutral 

environmental consequences as it relates to achievement of TMDL milestones, TRPA thresholds 

stream channel condition, or watershed hydrologic response. 

However alternative D does create a slightly greater risk to water quality with a reduction in 

vegetation management activities outside of the WUI. With limited active fuels management 

outside of the WUI, there is a subsequently greater risk of catastrophic wildfire in the upper 

watersheds which could have the effect of not achieving the TMDL milestones. 

SEZ Current Condition 

The TRPA has also established a threshold for the preservation and restoration of naturally 

functioning SEZ lands. Currently no established set of uniform metrics have been developed for 

determining whether the ecosystem function of SEZ lands has been preserved or restored to 

“naturally functioning levels”. The Lake Tahoe Basin land management and regulatory 

agencies are currently working together to determine whether the California Rapid Assessment 

Methodology for Wetlands (CRAM) could be used in the Tahoe Basin for the purpose of 

evaluating attainment of this threshold. 

In the meantime, TRPA has reported the number of acres in which restoration efforts have been 

implemented. Individual agencies rely on their own internal monitoring programs and protocols 

for determining the degree to which those efforts have been successful. The TRPA, 2006 

threshold evaluation report documents that 378.9 acres have received restoration treatments 

within the urban boundary. Over a 12-year period (1988-2000), the LTBMU applied restoration 

treatments on approximately 500 acres of SEZ lands. Between 2000 and 2011 the LTBMU has 

completed an additional 78 acres of restoration on lands considered to be SEZ. 
 Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Cumulative Environmental Consequences ■ 3-599 

SEZ Cumulative Effects 

The LTBMU manages a large amount of land that would be considered SEZ (Table 3-83). The 

LTBMU restoration program has identified a number of stream channel reaches and meadows 

where ecosystem function in terms of geomorphic stability and habitat quality can be enhanced, 

and this currently planned restoration is proposed equally in all four alternatives (Table 3-84). 

This planned restoration will continue to contribute to the TRPA threshold for restoring or 

enhancing SEZs to naturally functioning levels. 

The impact of less active future restoration proposed in alternative D may result in a lower rate 

of restoration through natural processes of degraded SEZs that are not currently identified. 

However all of the large scale opportunities for SEZ restoration on lands managed by the 

LTMBU are already identified and restoration of these identified opportunities is proposed at an 

equal level under all the alternatives. 

Water Quality and Soil Erosion, Water Quantity, Watershed Condition Conclusion 

Since essentially all actions on private, county and state lands must pass through the multiple 

layers of regulation with TRPA involved in essentially all actions, there is a commonality of 

environmental protection that occurs in the Basin. Consequently while it is impossible to know 

the array of individual projects that might occur in the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to 

assume they will all meet the appropriate stringent regulations and therefore respond to threshold 

attainment. There is a high degree of integration between all the agencies that has the result that 

none of the planning documents work at cross purposes to each other. 

The equation for cumulative effect is reached by taking the environmental consequences of each 

of the five Forest Plan alternatives presented in this FEIS for NFS lands in combination with the 

highly regulated actions of all other land owners/managers as guided by the TRPA Regional Plan 

and other regulatory agencies. As a result there is a common intent of maintaining or improving 

the environment on all lands within the Basin. With this common goal constraining all actions in 

the basin, there are no significant negative cumulative effects at the programmatic level, and in 

fact, for some resources and alternatives there are positive cumulative effects. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-600 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6 Environmental Justice 

As required by Executive Order (EO) 12898, all federal actions must consider potentially 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. Proposed Land Management 

Plans are strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future sitespecific projects and activities. These Plans do not create, authorize, or execute any grounddisturbing activity, although they do provide for the consideration of certain types of activities. 

Site-specific activities will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income 

communities during project planning. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Social and Economic Assessment (Appendix F) did 

not identify any disproportionate impacts resulting from the proposed management of the 

LTBMU because there are a wide range of opportunities, activities and services offered. In 

addition, collaboration on the Plan with local agencies and members of the public did not 

identify any concerns regarding disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority populations. 

3.7 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As 

declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial 

and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to 

create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and 

fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of 

Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Overall, with all alternatives, projects developed would be designed using standards and 

guidelines and standard operating procedures that would ensure the long term productivity of 

NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 | Required Disclosures – Environmental Consequences ■ 3-601 

3.8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Before any ground-disturbing 

actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent site-specific environmental analysis. 

Therefore none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts. 

3.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (including grounddisturbing actions), none of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-532 ■ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally blank 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-1

Chapter 4 – 

Consultation and Coordination 

Chapter 4 is organized under the following subsection headings: 

 Consultation and Coordination

 Interdisciplinary Team Members – USDA Forest Service

 Other Contributors

o Distribution of DEIS Document

 Notification to Individuals & Organizations

 Distribution to Additional Agencies and Community Locations
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-2 ■ Preparers and Contributors

4.1. Preparers and Contributors 

Interdisciplinary Team Members – USDA Forest 

Service 

Suraj Ahuja, Air Quality Specialist 

Education: Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA (1974) 

M.S. Irrigation, University of California, Davis, CA(1972) 

B.Sc (Agri) Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Hissar, India(1966) 

Experience: Northern Air Quality Specialist, US Forest Regional Fire and Aviation Office, McClellan, 

CA (2010-Present) 

Northern California Air Quality Specialist, US Forest Service, Willows, CA (1996-2010) 

Sierra Zone Air Quality Specialist, US Forest Service Sonora, CA (1993-1996) 

Soil Scientist, US Forest Service Alturas, CA (1991-1993) 

Soil scientist, US Forest Service Prescott, AZ (1981-1990) 

Robert Becker, Recreation Planner 

Education: B.A. Geography and Outdoor Recreation Planning, Chico State University, Chico CA. 

Experience: Recreation Planner (Forest Plan Revision), US Forest Service LTBMU (2010 – 2012) 

Recreation Specialist/Recreation Planner, US Forest Service LTBMU (2002 – 2012) 

Wilderness, Front Country Ranger, US Forest Service LTBMU (1997 – 2001) 

Environmental Consultant, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Diego CA, (1989 -1996) 

Firefighter/Wilderness Ranger/Fire Prevention, US Forest Service/Private Business (1974–

1983) 

Chuck Brickey, Geographic Information Systems (Mapping and Data) 

Education: B.S. Forest Management, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 

Experience: GIS Specialist, US Forest Service, LTBMU (2008-2012) 

 GIS Forest Zone Specialist, US Forest Service, Tahoe NF (2001-2007) 

 GIS District Coordinator, US Forest Service, Sierra NF (1999-2000) 

 Database Manager, US Forest Service, Sierra NF (1993-1998) 

Bradley Burmark, Economist 

Education: M.S. Forest and Range Management, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

B.S. Forest Management, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

Experience: Regional Planner, US Forest Service, Vallejo, CA (1998-Present) 

Deputy District Ranger, US Forest Service, Avery, ID (1994-1998) 

Operations Research Analyst, US Forest Service, Eugene, OR (1988-1994) 

Forest Plan Implementation Specialist, US Forest Service, Missoula, MT (1984-1988) 

Operations Research Analyst, US Forest Service, Dillon, MT (1980-1984) 

Todd Chaponot, Writer-Editor 

Education: Studied Journalism and Technical Communication, Central Oregon Community College, 

Bend, OR 

Experience: Writer-Editor, US Forest Service LTBMU (2005 to present) 

Editorial Assistant, US Forest Service Deschutes NF, Sisters RD (2002-2005) 

Public Safety Dispatcher and Information Systems Specialist (Public Information and 

Webmaster), Oregon Department of Transportation, Bend, OR (2001-2002) 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-3

Stephanie Coppeto, Wildlife Biologist 

Education: M. A. Ecology, University of California, Davis 

 B. A. Biology, Boston University, Massachusetts 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2011 to present) 

 Wildlife Biologist, AECOM (formerly EDAW), Sacramento, CA (2006 - 2011) 

Daniel Cressy, Landscape Architect 

Education: Master of Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 

BA Environmental Studies, University of California Santa Cruz 

Experience: Landscape Architect / Recreation Planner. US Forest Service LTBMU (2003 to present) 

Landscape Architect. Bellinger, Foster, Steinmetz Landscape Architecture Inc. (2003) 

Landscape Architect. Joni L. Janecki & Associates Inc. (2000-2003) 

Landscape Architect Associate. Claremont Environmental Design Group Inc. (1997-2000) 

Organic Farmer. Diggers’ Mirth Collective Farm, Burlington Vermont (1992-1994) 

Matt Dickinson, Co-Team Lead 

Education: B.S. Resource Ecology and Management, University of Michigan School of Natural 

Resources and the Environment, Ann Arbor, MI 

Experience: NEPA Contract Coordinator, US Forest Service LTBMU (2006 to present) 

Interdisciplinary Planner, US Forest Service, Oscoda, MI (2002-2006) 

Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service, Fall River Mills, CA (2001) 

Fisheries Biologist, US Forest Service, Red Bluff, CA (2000-2001) 

Pest Scout, MI Department of Natural Resources, Roscommon, MI (1999-2000) 

Denise Downie, Co-Team Lead, Soil Scientist 

Education: M.S. Agriculture/Soil Science, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo 

B.A English Literature, University of California at Los Angeles 

Experience: Soil Scientist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2001 to present) 

Soil Scientist, US Forest Service, Steamboat Springs, CO (1998-2000) 

Soil Scientist, US Forest Service, Pueblo, CO (1996-1998) 

Soil Scientist, US Forest Service, Bend Oregon (1995) 

Holly Eddinger, Supervisory Biologist/Biological Program Leader 

Education: Stream Ecology & Hydrology Emphasis – Extended Graduate Education , Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR 

B.S. Environmental Biology & Environmental Ethics, Humboldt State University, Arcata, 

CA 

General Education - Associate of Arts, Porterville College, Porterville, CA 

Experience: Supervisory Forest Biologist / Biological Program Leader, US Forest Service LTBMU 

(2008 – Present) 

Acting Regional Wildlife Program Manager , US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office (2011) 

District Resource Officer, Eco Team Leader, Kings River Project Planner, District (Zone) 

Fisheries / Aquatic Biologist, US Forest Service Sierra NF, High Sierra (Kings River & 

Pineridge) Ranger District (1999 – 2008) 

Regional Emphasis Program Leader - Aquatic Education & National Fishing Week 

Activities, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office (1994-2000) 

Assistant Forest Fisheries Biologist, District (Zone) Fisheries Biologist and Hydrologist , US 

Forest Service Sequoia National Forest, Supervisor's Office, Tule River and Hot Springs 

Ranger Districts (1992 – 1999) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-4 ■ Preparers and Contributors

Fisheries / Aquatic Crew Leader, and Biological Survey Technician, US Forest Service Six 

Rivers National Forest, Supervisor's Office & Sequoia National Forest, Tule River Ranger 

District (1989 – 1992)

David Fournier, Forester, Assistant Staff Officer 

Education: Ph.D. Forestry, Penn State University, State College, PA, (ABD, 2002) 

M.S. Forestry, University of Maine, Orono, ME 

B.S. Forest Management, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 

Experience: Forester/Assistant Staff Officer (Silviculture, Timber, Urban Forest Management, Fire & 

Fuels), US Forest Service LTBMU (2007-Present). 

Forest Vegetation Planner, US Forest Service LTBMU (2004-2007) 

Forest Silviculturist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2002-2004) 

Forestry Research Assistant, Ph.D., the Penn State University, State College, PA (2000-2002) 

Forester, , US Forest Service Forest Inventory & Analysis, Southern Research Station, 

Starkville, MS and Asheville, NC, (1998-2000) 

Forester, US Forest Service Eldorado NF, Pacific RD (1994-1998) 

Forest Economist/International Forestry, Mason, Bruce & Girard, Redding, CA (1998) 

International Forestry Researcher, College of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, 

ME (1991-1993) 

Forester, US Forest Service Eldorado NF, Pacific RD (1991) 

Forest Land Use Planner/Volunteer, US Peace Corps, Niger, West Africa (1988-1991) 

Forest Nursery Researcher, US Agency for International Development, Haiti, West Indies 

(1986) 

Shana Gross, Ecologist 

Education: M.S. Ecology, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, Syracuse, NY 

M.S. Ecology/Environmental Science, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 

Experience: Ecologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2003-present) 

Bob King, Landscape Architect, DEIS Team Lead (retired) 

Education: B.S. Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 

Experience: Forest Plan IDT Leader., US Forest Service LTBMU (2005-2011 Retired) 

Forest Landscape Architect, US Forest Service, LTBMU (1998-2005) 

Landscape Architect, US Forest Service, Los Padres NF, Monterey RD (1994-1998) 

Shared Services Landscape Architect, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

(1989-1994) 

Assistant Forest Planner, US Forest Service, Cleveland NF (1979-1981) 

Assistant Landscape Architect, US Forest Service, Cleveland NF (1979-1981) 

Landscape Architect, USDI BLM, Salem, OR (1979) 

Mike LeFevre, Planning Staff Officer 

Education: B.S. Biological Science, University of California, Davis 

Experience: Planning Staff Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU (2007-Present) 

Environmental Coordinator, US Forest Service LTBMU (2006-2007) 

Forest Wilderness Officer, US Forest Service Sierra NF (2004-2006) 

District Recreation/Operations Officer, US Forest Service Sierra NF (1982-2004) 

District Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service Sierra NF (1978-1982) 

District Resource Assistant, US Forest Service Los Padres NF (1975-1978) 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-5

John Maher, Heritage Resource Tribal Relations Program Manager 

Education: BA Anthropology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 

 MA Anthropology, California State University Sacramento 

Experience: Heritage Resource Program Manager/Tribal Liaison, US Forest Service LTBMU (1998-

Present) 

Assistant Heritage Resource Program Manager, US Forest Service LTBMU (1994-1998) 

Assistant Special Uses Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU (1992-1994) 

Seasonal Archaeologist, US Forest Service Eldorado NF (1989-1992) 

Seasonal Archaeologist, US Forest Service Tahoe NF (1988) 

Seasonal Archaeologist, US Forest Service Plumas NF (187-1988) 

Sarah Muskopf, Aquatic Biologist 

Education: M. A. Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 

 B. A. Wildlife Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcara, CA 

Experience: Aquatic Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2000 - present) 

Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (1998 - 2000) 

Sue Norman, Hydrologist 

Education: M.S. Water Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 

 B.A. Watershed Science, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 

Experience: Hydrologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (1989 - present) 

Robert M. Rodman Jr, Lands Program Manager 

Education: B.S. Biology, University of Utah, 1974 

Experience: Research Assistant, University of Utah (1973 to 1979) 

Realty Specialist/Lands Program Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Headwaters 

Resource Area and Butte Field Office, Butte, Montana (1979 to 1999) 

Santini/Burton Program Manager, LTBMU, and Regional Land Adjustment Team, RO, and 

Lands Program Manager, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (1999 to present) 

Courtney Rowe, Botanist 

Education: M.S. Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno 

 B.A. Geography, University of California, Berkeley 

Experience: Forest Botanist, USDA Forest Service, LTBMU (2012 to present) 

Restoration Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest (2010-2012) 

Botanist (Student Trainee), USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest (2009-2010) 

Biological Science Technician (Plants), USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest 

(2008) 

 USDI National Park Service, Grand Teton National Forest (2007) 

 Native Plant Nursery Manager, Bitterroot Restoration, Lincoln, CA (2005-2007) 

Muir Woods Restoration Coordinator, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, San 

Francisco, CA (2003-2005) 

 Randy Striplin, Fire Ecologist 

Education: M.S. Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic University, Pomona CA 

B.A. Biology, Pitzer College, Claremont CA 

Experience: Fire Ecologist, US Forest Service LTBMU (2007-present) 

Fuels Technician, US Forest Service, San Bernardino NF (2005-2007) 

Biological Technician-Restoration, US Forest Service San Bernardino NF (2004-2005) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-6 ■ Preparers and Contributors

Kurt Teuber, Geographic Information Systems Supervisor 

Education: M.S. Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

B.S. Forest Management, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

Experience: GIS Program Manager, US Forest Service, LTBMU (2004-present) 

Resource Information Specialist, US Forest Service, Region 5 Regional Office (1998-2004) 

GIS Coordinator, US Forest Service, Lewis & Clark National Forest (1992-1998) 

Forester (Planning), US Forest Service, Beaverhead National Forest (1989-1992) 

Research Forester, US Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station (1986-1989) 

Garrett Villanueva, Civil Engineer 

Education: B.S. Geology, Arizona State University, 1995 

Experience: Assistant Forest Engineer, US Forest Service LTBMU (2009-Present) 

Asst Regional Trail Program Leader, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

(2009) 

Civil Engineer, US Forest Service LTBMU (1999-2008) 

Civil Engineering Technician, US Forest Service LTBMU (1998-1999) 

Staff Hydrologist, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1997-1998) 

Staff Geologist, GRI (1995-1997) 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-7

List of Preparers 

Forest Leadership Team 

Nancy Gibson, Forest Supervisor, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Jeff Marsolais, Deputy Forest Supervisor, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Mike LeFevre, Planning Staff Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Adrian Escobedo, Civil Rights Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Michael Gabor, Forest Engineer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Arla Hains, Administrative Assistant to the Forest Supervisor, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Cheva Heck, Public Affairs Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Joseph Keely, Ecosystem Staff Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Gina Thompson, Forest Recreation Lands Special Uses and Heritage Staff Officer, US Forest Service 

LTBMU 

Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Chugach NF (formerly Forest supervisor LTBMU) 

Eli Ilano, Deputy Forest Supervisor, US Forest Service Tahoe NF (formerly Deputy Forest Supervisor, 

US Forest Service LTBMU)

Irene Davidson, District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, Naches RD (formerly Planning Staff 

Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU)

Maribeth Gustafson, Deputy Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region (formerly Forest Supervisor, 

US Forest Service LTBMU) 

Dave Marlow, Nevada Division of State Lands (formerly Vegetation, Urban Lots, Fire, and Fuels Staff 

Officer, LTBMU) 

Forest Resource Support Staff

Kit Bailey, Forest Fire Management Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Joy Barney, Conservation Education Program Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU

Cheryl Beyer, Botanist, US Forest Service LTBMU (Retired) 

Chuck Brickey, Geographic Information Systems, US Forest Service Tahoe NF (formerly GIS Mapping 

and Data Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU) 

Gerrit Buma, Assistant NEPA Coordinator, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Jonathon Cook-Fisher, Recreation Special Uses Program Mgr. US Forest Service, LTBMU 

Michelle Coppelatta, Botanist, US Forest Service Plumas NF, Mt. Hough Ranger District 

Chris Engelhardt, Wilderness and Recreation Manager, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Adrian Escobedo, Civil Rights Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Rena Escobedo, Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Jody Fraser, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Palm Springs, CA (formerly Botanist, US Forest 

Service LTBMU)

James Harris, Hydrologist, Tongass NF (formerly Hydrologist, LTBMU) 

Lisa Herron, Public Affairs Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Anjanette Hoefer, Civil Engineer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Kyle Jacobson, Fire and Fuels Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Jackie King, Interpretive Services Program Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU (Retired) 

Karen Kuentz, Realty Specialist/ Writer-Editor, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Don Lane, Supervisory Recreation Forester, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Linda Lind, Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act Budget Coordinator, US Forest Service 

LTBMU 

Victor Lyon, Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service Tahoe NF (formerly Wildlife Biologist, US Forest 

Service LTBMU) 

Megan Mullowney, Special Uses Permit Administrator, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Kathy Murphy, Vegetation, Urban Lots, Fire, and Fuels Staff Officer, LTBMU 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-8 ■ Preparers and Contributors

Ivana Noell, Resource Officer, Los Padres NF, Mt. Pinos RD (formerly Wildlife Biologist, US Forest 

Service LTBMU) 

Jean Norman, Information Assistant–Interpretive Services, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Rex Norman, Public Affairs Specialist, US Forest Service LTBMU (Retired)

Michael Papa, Forestry Technician/Harvest Inspector, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Christy Prescott, Environmental Coordinator, US Forest Service Six Rivers NF 

Tim Rains, National Park Service Media Specialist (formerly Interpretive Services, US Forest Service 

LTBMU) 

Brent Roath, Regional Soils Scientist, Regional Analyst, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office, Ecosystem Management (Retired)

J. Shane Romsos, Science, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 

Stateline, NV (formerly Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU) 

Hillary Santana, Natural Resource Specialist, US Forest Service, LTBMU 

Deb Schoenberg, Public Services Staff, US Forest Service Plumas NF, Feather Ranger District 

Ashley Sommer, Landscape Architect, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Kathy VanZuuk, Yuba River Ranger District Plant Ecologist, US Forest Service Tahoe NF 

Richard Vacirca, Forest Fisheries Program Leader, US Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF 

(former Forest Fisheries Program Leader, US Forest Service, LTBMU 

John Washington, Forest Fuels Officer, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Alexandra Wenzl , Historian, US Forest Service, Mt. Hood NF, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

(formerly Historian, US Forest Service LTBMU) 

Shay Zanetti, Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service LTBMU 

Regional Office and Office of General Counsel Support 

Dave Bakke, Regional Pesticide Specialist/Invasive Plants Program Mgr, US Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office 

Klaus Barber, Decision Support Cadre Regional Analyst, Ecosystem Planning (Retired)

Sarah Birkeland, Acting Director of Ecosystem Planning, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office; Attorney, USDA Office of General Counsel, San Francisco, CA 

Christina Boston, Wilderness & Wild & Scenic Rivers Program Leader, US Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office 

Beth Boyst, Pacific Crest Trail Program Leader, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Jo Bridges, Deputy Director of Ecosystem Planning, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office (retired) 

Kathy Clement, Director of Ecosystem Planning, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

(retired) 

Theresa Corless, Regional Appeals Coordinator, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Diana Craig, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office, 

Ecosystem Conservation 

Patricia Flebbe, Monitoring Coordinator, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Joseph Furnish, Regional Aquatic Ecologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office, 

Ecosystem Conservation 

Barney Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester for Natural Resources, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office 

Mary Beth Hennessy, Regional Appeals and Litigation Manager, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office 

Barry Hill, Regional Hydrologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Crissy Howell, Regional Wildlife Program Mgr. US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Diane Ikeda, Regional Botanist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-9

Trini Juarez, Landscape Architect - Recreation Planner, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office 

Michael Kellett, Fisheries Biologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Natural 

Resources Management 

Patti Krueger, Regional Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator, US Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office, Ecosystem Management 

Julie Lydick, Assistant Director of State and Private Forestry, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office (retired) 

Diane Macfarlane, Regional TES Program Leader, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office

Kathy Mick, Regional Program Manager Trails Motorized Recreation & Travel Management Planning, 

US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Trent Procter, Regional Air Program Manager, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office, 

Ecosystem Conservation

Ron Pugh, Deputy Director of Ecosystem Planning, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office (Retired) 

Jamie Rosen, Attorney, USDA Office of General Counsel, San Francisco, CA 

Hugh Safford, Regional Ecologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Ecosystem 

Management 

Joe Sherlock, Assistant Regional Forest Vegetation Program Manager, US Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office 

Sheri Smith, Regional Entomologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Craig Snider, Regional Environmental Coordinator, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office 

Neil Sugihara, Fire Ecologist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Andy Taylor, Assistant Regional Analyst, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office (retired)

Jeff TenPas, Regional Soil Scientist, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Gary Thompson, Regional Fuels Program Manager, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office (Retired) 

Ramiro Villalvazo, Director of Public Services, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 

Debra Whitman, Director of Ecosystem Management, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office 

Donald Yasuda, Decision Support Cadre Regional Analyst, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office, Ecosystem Planning 

Anne Yost, Regional Range Program Manager, US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-10 Chapter 4 ▪ Consultation

4.2. Consultation 

The following federal, state, and bi-state agencies were consulted during the development of this 

EIS. 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Pathway Agency) 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) (Pathway Agency) 

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (Pathway Agency) 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Reno 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento 
 Draft Revised LRMP – DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-11

4.3. Distribution 

Notification of DEIS release to Individuals & Organizations 

The following list contains the names of those who have expressed interest in the past in continued 

participation in the Forest Plan revision public collaboration process. They have been notified of the 

publication of the Draft Forest Plan and Draft EIS documents (consistent with 36 CFR part 219). 

Amador, Don 

Ames, Laurel 

Anderson, Bob 

Arnold, Jason 

Aumann, Don & 

Margaret 

Austin, Ursela 

Ayers, D. Guy 

Ball, Jeff 

Bayard, Louise 

Baringer, William, Dr. 

Barnes, John 

Barnhart, Jan 

Barr, Doug 

Bazar, Kevin 

Baumann, Helen 

Baushke, James L. 

Belletio, Claudio 

Benier, Mary Ellen 

Bent, Renae 

Bent, Scott 

Berg, Michael 

Bernard, Chuck 

Bergstrom, Dana 

Biaggi, Allen 

Bindel, Jerry 

Birdwell, Jerry 

Blackwill, Jerry 

Blann, Casey 

Boone, Michael 

Bortolin, Greg 

Bowen, Eric 

Bowen, Garry 

Bradford, Mvike 

Brady, David J. 

Bray, Andrew 

Breylinger, John 

Bricker, Kathryn 

Briggs, Ron 

Brink, Steve 

Briscoe, David 

Britting, Susan 

Brown, Glenn 

Brown, T. Michael 

Buchanan, William L. 

Butler, Shawn 

Burden, Niobe 

Caldwell, Elayna 

Capobianco, Justin 

Carabio, Karen 

Carman, George 

Carpenter, Joan 

Carrig, Blaise 

Chaplinv, Carol 

Cheff, Ryan 

Childs, Dave 

Childs, Barbara 

Claudio, Ernie 

Clayburgh, Joan 

Cochrane, Guy 

Cocking, Dennis 

Collins, R.L. (Mick), 

PhD 

Condreva, Ken 

Connor, Michael, PhD 

Cowan , Melissa 

Crawford, Bill 

Crawford, Kerry 

Crescenti, Neil 

Crifasi, Kevin 

Cuenca, Frank 

Dale, Elizabeth 

Dapolito, Dana 

Daum, Greg & family 

Dean, Jeff 

De Amici, Giovanni 

De Paoli, John 

Diaz, Olivia 

Dippel, Ken 

Donahoe, Michael 

Dorton, Brad 

Dowdy, Judy 

Dresner, Maryann 

Dufka, Tim 

Dupray, Rusty 

Edwards, Katherine & 

Donald 

Elson, Lee 

Ennis, Carla 

Erbe-Hamlin, Gayle 

Erdoes, Jeff 

Erlich, Robert 

Evans, Jerome 

Evans, Steve 

Falk, John R. 

Farnsley, Steve 

Fearon, Mark 

Feldman, Lew 

Ferranto, Gillian 

Ferrell, Gail 

Ferris, Charles 

Fett, Elise 

Fischer, Wayne 

Flick, Pamela 

Foxgrover, Mike 

Friedman, Judy 

Freund, Adrian 

Fore, David 

Frost, Linda 

Gallagher, Pat 

Gammell, Douglas 

Garofalos, John R. 

Gelber, Matthew 

Gleckman, Jenn 

Gorman, Betty 

Gottesman, Jeffrey 

Graf, Michael 

Grassi, Ron 

Green , Sarah 

Greenough, Jamie 

Griffiths, Ray 

Grigsby, Stephanie 

Groenendyke, Sarah 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-12 ■ Distribution of DEIS Document

Grossman, Jane 

Grossman, Janet 

Haagen-Smit, Cathy 

Hamilton, Kyle 

Hanson, Chad 

Harootunian, Gloria 

Hatch, Jenny 

Havens, Gay 

Havens, Gayle 

Havens, Nick 

Heffernan, Robert P. 

Henderson, Lauren 

Herback, Phil 

Henson, Ryan 

Herron, Susan 

Hetland, Bill 

Hickson, Patricia 

Hildebrand, Ray 

Hildinger, Judith 

Hinman, Blake 

Hitchcock, John 

Hoefer, Jonathan 

Horn, William B. 

Hornbeck, David 

Howard, Connie 

Hunt, Brenda 

Hymanson, Zach 

Ikehara, Kelven 

Jahnke, Pam 

Jenkins, Paul 

Jensen, Bill 

Jinkens, David 

Johnson, Bob 

Johnson, Brad 

Johnson, Dave 

Johnson, Erik 

Johnson, Gordon 

Jones, Lewis 

Jones, Sarah 

Jones, James 

Juhnke, Paul 

Kaler Jr, Al 

Kalinowski, Ryan 

Karr, Cathryn 

Kelly, Meghan 

Kelly, Randy 

Kelly, Ryan 

Kemper, Lauri 

Kimbrough, Mark 

Kircher, Mark 

Kite, Kelly D. 

Klemperer, Simon 

Knapp, Peter 

Kniep, Jay 

Knotts, Alfred 

Kraatz, Peter 

Kreutzer, John 

Kruger, Michelea 

Kruse, Scott M. 

Lacey, Ray 

LaForce, Norman 

Lannoy, Steve 

Lapham, Ellen 

Lass, David 

Lauren, Lindley 

Lawrence, Jim 

Lee, Duncan 

Leman, Steven D. 

Lensch, Robert 

Leong, Robin 

Lewandowski, Adam 

Lindsay, Keith 

Lisagor, Susan 

List, Andrew 

Loarie, Gregory 

Lober, Robert 

Long, Ted 

Lott, Edie & Denny 

Lovell, Kathay 

Lowery, Candace 

Lynn, Erwerber 

Machado, Mahlon 

MaClean, Judy 

Mack, Jason 

Macquarie, Chas 

Madisan, Brendan 

Mahler, Dave 

Maloney, Patnua 

Mansfield, Melissa 

Manzone, Liliana 

Marsh, Les 

Martin, Doug 

Martin, Eric 

Mayo, Eddie 

McCall, John 

McCarty, Mike 

McConnell, Chris 

McDermid, Nancy 

McDermott, Ryan 

McGarr, Art 

McKay, Cameron 

McKay, Gregory 

McKay, Robert 

McKay, Stephen 

McNeil, Janet 

McNulty, Bruce & 

Marian 

Meiers, Mort 

Meral, Gerald 

Merchant, Jennifer 

Merkow, Josh 

Midkiff, Gary 

Miles, Gary 

Milke, Debra 

Miller, Jim 

Millet, Dave 

Millham, Tom 

Minault, Paul 

Miner, Jeff 

Mitchell, Kevin 

Minault, Paul 

Moffett, David 

Moffett, William 

Monk, Brian 

Moore, Ron 

Moore-Mahnken, 

Jessica 

Morgan, Darça 

Morissette, Richard 

Morrow, Tom 

Mosbacher, Mary Lou 

Mousset-Jones, Pierre 

Murphy, Pat 

Nason, Rochelle 

Nicholas, Deborah 

Noll, Steve 

O'Brien, Lucy 

Olivier, Pliny 

Otero, Kim 

Pang, John 

Passmore, David 

Patterson, Rosalind 

Pauseit, Glen 

Petite, Duane 

Pfafman, Timothy 

Pignatelli, Benjamin 

Pittanneman, Gary 

Pouvoir, John 

Powell, Lu 

Power, J.R. 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 | Consultation and Coordination ■ 4-13

Quashnick, Jennifer 

Railton, Kyle 

Read, Laura 

Rebane , Margaret 

Regan, Julie 

Reichel, David 

Ribaudo, Carl 

Richardson, Cynthia 

Rinella, Doug 

Rypins, Steve 

Rise, Dale 

Roberson, David 

Roberts, Dave 

Roberts, Ted & Janet 

Robinson, Rick 

Rogers, John 

Rogers, Steven 

Rosenberger, Roger 

Ross, Quint 

Rowen, Robert 

Royal, Kevin 

Rummel, Rodd 

Rupp, Loren 

Rusk, Alonzo 

Sady, Scott 

Santiago, Norma 

Sarick Santos, Jill 

Scarborough, Dave 

Schafer, Eric 

Schambach, Karen 

Scherer, Kay 

Schladow, Geoffrey 

Schmidt, Catherine 

Schneider, David, Dr. 

Schwartz, Mike 

Scott, John 

Seggern, David 

Selke, Alia 

Shade, Coleen 

Shaw, Gordon 

Sherman, Doug 

Shoemaker, Dorea 

Sigman, Rachel 

Sill, Marjorie 

Simmon, Erich 

Singer, Harold 

Singlaub, John 

Smith, Glen 

Smith, Janet 

Smith, Skip 

Smith, Stephen 

Solbrig, Richard 

Sordelet, Flavia 

Sorenson, Jack 

Spencer, Heath 

Starr, Kevin 

Stewart, Linda 

Stewart, Penny 

Stewart, Ross 

Stigar, Suzanna 

Stone, Chris 

Stotts, Phil 

Strain, Andrew 

Striplin, Cathy 

Stubbins, David 

Stutz, Lynn 

Sumner, Terry 

Suba, Greg 

Sutphin, Susie 

Sweeney, James 

Sweeney, Michelle 

Sweeney, Dudley 

Taylor, Peter 

Taxer, Eric 

Tele, Mark 

Temple, Sydney 

Thaw, Melissa 

Thaw, Steve 

Teshara, Steve 

Thomas, James 

Thomas, Anne 

Thomas, Craig 

Thomsen, Stephan 

Thomson, Brad 

Thomson, Doug 

Thompson, Jeff 

Thornton, Elizabeth 

Triplat, Don 

Turner, Kathy 

Turner, Steve 

Valentino, Eric 

Van Abel, Mike 

Van Velsor, Stan 

Vlcan, Jeremy 

Voisinet, W. "Bud" 

Walker, Matt 

Walker, Waldo W. 

Wallace, Duane 

Wallace, Ken 

Wallis, Steve 

Weber, Mike 

Weist, Lynda R. 

Whetstone, Lynn 

Whitaker, Howard 

Whitaker, Patrick 

White, Charlie 

White, Storn 

Whyman, Barbara P. 

Wilhelm, Lee 

Wilkin, Mike 

Williams, Barbara 

Williams, Emily 

Wills, Ed 

Wilson, Chresten 

Witterman, Chris 

Wright, Patrick 

Yates, Gus 

Young, Carl 

Zeigler, Dave 

Zuliani, Donald
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-14 ■ FEIS Document Distribution

Distribution of FEIS to Additional Agencies and Community 

Locations 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review 

California Department of Fish and Game Headquarters 

California Land Management, Zephyr Cove, NV (community location) 

California Tahoe Conservancy 

Caltrans District 3 

Camp Richardson Historic Resort and Marina, South Lake Tahoe, CA (community location) 

Carson City Planning Division, NV 

City of South Lake Tahoe, City Manager 

Douglas County Public Library, 233 Warrior Way, Zephyr Cove, NV (community location) 

Douglas County Public Works, NV 

El Dorado County Planning Services, CA 

EPA Region IX Environmental Review Office, EIS Review Coordinator 

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Regional Administrator 

Great Basin Institute 

Incline Village Library (Washoe Co.), 845 Alder Avenue, Incline Village, NV 

(community location) 

Lake Tahoe Community College Library, 1 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 

(community location) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Southwest Region 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (Headquarters/Western Region), 

Placer County Library, 301 Secline Drive, Kings Beach CA (community location) 

Placer County Planning Services Division, CA 

Sierra-Nevada College Library, 999 Tahoe Boulevard, Incline Village-Crystal Bay, NV 

(community location) 

South Lake Tahoe Library (El Dorado Co.), 1000 Rufus Allen Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA 

(community location) 

State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Executive Director 

Tahoe Rim Trail Association, DWR Community Non Profit Center 

University of Nevada, Reno - DeLaMare Library (community location) 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish & Wildlife Office 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office 

Washoe County Planning Division, NV 
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Index ■ I1 

Index of FEIS Topics 

A 

Access and Travel Management...2-17, 2-

34, 3-13, 3-145, 3-161, 3-186, 3-366, 3-393, 

3-410, 3-550, 3-567 

Alternatives...1-2, 2-1, 3-592 

Alternatives considered in detail... 

2-4, 

Alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study... 

2-19 

Comparison of alternatives...2-28, 

2-43, 3-523 

Preferred alternative...1-2, 2-3, 2-13 

American marten ...2-77, 3-496, 3-584 

Aquatic ecosystems...1-14, 2-5, 3-82, 3-84, 

3-173 

Aquatic habitat ...1-14, 2-7, 2-14, 2-41, 3-

82, 3-85, 3-92, 3-311, 3-372, 3-504, 3-530, 

3-547, 3-556, 3-566, 3-585 

Aquatic species ...1-15, 2-11, 2-15, 3-87, 

3-94, 3-99 

Invasive Species (AIS) 

(see Invasive Species)

B 

Bald Eagle....1-21, 2-74, 3-471, 3-486 

Bark beetle (see Forest structure and 

composition, Forest/Disturbance events)

Bat (See Townsend’s big-eared bat) 

Biological Diversity ...3-138, 3-181, 3-475 

Burton-Santini (see Santini-Burton Land 

Acquisitions)

C 

California spotted owl...2-8, 2-16, 2-30, 2-

40, 3-233, 3-239, 3-286, 3-309, 3-322, 3-

326, 3-33, 3-346, 3-471, 3-482, 3-488, 3-

522, 3-527, 3-584 

Cave Rock Traditional Cultural Property... 

3-193, 3-431 

Clean Water Act...1-19, 3-85, 3-311, 3-429, 

3-535, 3-580, 3-586, 3-595 

Climate Change ...1-5, 1-12, 1-15, 1-17, 2-

4, 2-11, 2-15, 2-16, 2-49, 2-56, 3-10, 3-29, 

3-55, 3-76, 3-86, 3-99, 3-116, 3-136, 3-173, 

3-205,3-224, 3-231, 3-373, 3-392, 3-420, 3-

425, 3-466, 3-521, 3-547, 3-551, 3-557, 3-

567, Appendix D 

Coarse woody debris ...3-252, 3-350, 3-508 

Collaboration (see Public Involvement)

Comparison of alternatives 

(see Alternatives) 

Consultation...1-20, 3-79, 3-470, 4-1 

Cultural resources...1-3, 1-20, 1-36, 2-2, 

2-20, 2-58, 3-192, 3-195, 3-238, 3-291, 3-

304, 3-311, 3-379, 3-431, 3-469, 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences... 

3-579 

D 

Decisions that Remain In Place from the 

Previous Plan ...3-579, Appendix K 

Downed woody debris (see Coarse woody 

debris) 

E 

Economics...1-9, 2-69, 3-444, 3-590, 3-600 

Ecosystem diversity...1-17, 1-33, 2-9, 2-17, 

3-181 

Environmental Justice ...1-18, 3-600 

Erosion...2-69, 3-6, 3-13, 3-76, 3-82, 3-95, 

3-103, 3-142, 3-160, 3-177, 3-298, 3-301, 3-

304, 3-313, 3-334, 3-386, 3-456, 3-533, 3-

563, 3-581, 3-595, 3-599 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I2 ■ Index of FEIS Topics

F 

Fire and Fuels ...1-15, 1-19, 2-14, 2-37, 

Forest Plan 

Decision Framework ...1-8, 1-11, 

2-1 

Format and Content...1-9, 1-13 

Purpose...1-1, 1-5 

Forest structure and composition...2-11, 2-

16, 2-38, 3-56, 3-137, 3-142, 3-178, 3-203, 

3-204, 3-225, 3-235, 3-237, 3-239, 3-246, 3-

254, 3-281, 3-288, 3-343, 3-521 

Disturbance events ...2-6, 2-16, 2-

22, 2-57, 3-159, 3-237, 3-243, 3-250 

Seral stages ...1-15, 2-6, 2-8, 2-11, 

2-15, 2-29, 2-38, 

Frog 

 Pacific tree frog...3-88, 3-309, 3-

318, 3-40, 

Sierra-Nevada (mountain) yellowlegged frog......2-31, 2-40, 3-79, 3-

89, 3-117, 3-407, 3-577, 3-584 

G 

Grass Lake Research Natural Area ...3-130, 

3-428, 3-431 

Grazing...1-3, 1-14, 2-23, 3-9, 3-83, 3-115, 

3-119, 3-138, 3-158, 3-160, 3-192, 3-245, 3-

334, 3-370, 3-454, 3-458, 3-467, 3-475, 3-

515, 3-526, 3-534 

H 

Habitat 

(see Aquatic Habitat or Terrestrial Habitat) 

Heritage resources....2-2, 3-192, 3-195 

I 

Infrastructure ......1-2, 2-6, 3-7, 3-12, 3-18, 

3-92, 3-151, 3-182, 3-185, 3-224, 3-304, 3-

335, 3-347, 3-360, 3-366, 3-377, 3-388, 3-

393, 3-408, 3-420, 3-424, 3-426, 3-438, 3-

444, 3-520, 3-534, 3-539, 3-550, 3-566, 3-

591 

Invasive species 

Aquatic...1-5, 1,14, 2-8, 2-

11, 2-13, 2-29, 2-37, 3-84 

Terrestrial (i.e. Weeds and 

plants)......2-6, 2-37, 3-153 

Inventoried Roadless Areas......2-

23, 3-337, 3-394, 3-428, 3-574, 3-

578 

Issues....1-5, 1-13, 3-173, 3-12, 3-642, 3-

573 

L 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT)...3-83, 3-88, 

3-93, 3-97, 3-116, 3-120, 3-407 

Lake Clarity (see Water Quality) 

Lake Tahoe East Shore Drive, National 

Scenic Byway ...3-290, 3-429 

Land Management Plan (see Forest Plan)

M 

Management Areas ...1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 2-4, 2-

13, 2-23, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-41, 

FEIS Map 1 

Management indicator species (MIS)...2-4, 

2-63, 3-306 

Marten (see American Marten) 

Minerals... 3-304, 3-356, 3-451, 3-454, 3-

589 

MIS (see Management Indicator Species) 

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ...1-5, 1-8, 

2-3, 2-32, 3-16, 3-365, Appendix A 

N 

National Historic Preservation Act......1-20, 

3-192 

Northern goshawk...1-2, 1-10, 2-8, 2-16, 2-

30, 2-40, 3-239, 3-255, 3-286, 3-471, 3-482, 

3-485, 3-500, 3-506, 3-517, 3-527, 3-584 

O 

Old Growth Forest (see Forest structure, 

Seral stages)

Over-Snow Vehicles (see Recreation/Oversnow vehicles) 

Owl (see California spotted owl)
 Final Revised LRMP – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Index ■ I3 

P 

Partnerships...2-21, 2-61, 3-290 

Plant Communities...1-1, 1-15, 3-120 

Preferred Alternative (see Alternatives) 

Public access (see Access and Travel 

Management)

Public involvement...1-28, 2-19, 3-12, 3-16, 

3-19, 3-449, 3-462, 3-500, 3-549, 3-569, 3-

572, 3-578, 3-584, 3-600, Appendix N 

Purpose and need...1-1, 1-5, 3-13, 3-48, 3-

508 

R 

Recreation...2-16, 3-375 

Developed Recreation ......2-32, 2-

39, 3-377, 3-383, 3-388, 3-393 

Off-highway vehicle use ...2-7,2-9, 

2-17, 2-34, 3-5, 3-15, 3-18, 3-20, 3-

115 3-145, 3-364, 3-367, 3-381, 3-

386, 3-393, 3-423 

Over-snow vehicles ...2-20, 3-5, 3-

20, 3-63, 3-107, 3-364, 3-387, 3-398, 

3-403, 3-423, 3-499, 3-520, 3-549, 3-

573, 3-578, 3-591 

Recreation opportunities...3-12, 3-

16, 3-19, 3-291, 3-376, 3-382, 3-393, 

3-420, 3-444, 3-578, 3-590 

Reducing Hazardous Fuels (see Fire and 

Fuels)

Response to Public Comments...Appendix 

N 

Roads (see Access and Travel Management) 

Roadless Areas (see Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, Access and Travel Management) 

S 

Santini-Burton Land Acquisitions ... 1-21, 

2-4, 2-30, 2-38, 3-296, 3-368, 3-395 

Science 

Role of science in environmental 

analysis...1-27, 3-10, 3-30, 3-173, 2-

187, 3-198, 3-205, 3-223, 3-313, 

Appendix O 

Sediment...2-5, 2-14, 3-6, 3-81, 3-86, 3-94, 

3-105, 3-113, 3-305, 3-5333-536, 3-539, 3-

543, 3-550, 3-552, 3-559, 3-567, 3-595, 

3-597 

SEZ (Stream environment zone) ...1-14, 2-

5, 2-14, 2-32, 2-41, 2-80, 3-105, 3-533, 3-

541, 3-543, 3-550, 3-593, 3-598 

Sierra Nevada Framework (SNFPA)...2-24, 

Snowmobiles (see Recreation/Over-snow 

vehicles) 

Soil 

 Compaction...2-69, 

 Erosion (see Erosion) 

Stanford Rock Backcountry Area ...3-186, 

3-233, 3-396, FEIS Map 18 

Sustainability ...1-17, 1-33, 2-11, 2-26, 3-

55, 3-76, 3-166, 3-185, 3-254, 3-291, 3-342, 

3-379, 3-427 

T 

Tahoe Rim Trail, National Recreation Trail 

...2-20, 2-29, 3-358, 3-385, 3-400, 3-422, 3-

429, 3-438, 3-575 

Tahoe Yellow Cress ...1-19, 2-7, 2-31, 2-40, 

3-135 

Tallac Historic Site, Special Interest Area 

...3-290, 3-389, 3-431 

Terrestrial ecosystems...2-15, 3-127, 3-173 

Terrestrial habitat and species ...2-70, 3-585 

TES (Threatened and Endangered Species) 

...3-306 

Townsend’s big-eared bat...2-78, 3-472, 3-

494, 3-528 

Trails (see Access and Travel Management) 

Transportation (see Access and Travel 

Management) 

U 

Utility Easements, Communication Sites, 

and Rights-of-Way...3-8, 3-17, 3-299, 3-

301, 3-438, 3-465 

W 

Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada...3-

88, 3-195, 3-197, 3-206, 3-243, 3-298, 3-

580, 3-585 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I4 ■ Index of FEIS Topics

Water Quality...1-5, 1-13, 1-21, 2-3, 2-5, 

2-7, 2-79, 3-2, 3-13, 3-17, 3-82, 3-85, 3-92, 

3-103, 3-144, 3-166, 3-177, 3-295, 3-306 

Watershed Health ...2-14, 3-173, 3-182, 

3-547, 3-556, 3-566 

Whitebark Pine...2-7, 2-11, 2-54, 3-124, 

3-129, 3-132, 3-133, 3-139, 3-142, 3-147, 

3-152, 3-191, FEIS Map 14 

Wild and Scenic River...2-19, 3-108, 3-574, 

3-577, Appendix B 

Wilderness...2-32, 3-569, 3-579, 3-591 

Wildfire 

(see Fire and Fuels)

Wildland-Urban Interface...1-10, 1-16, 2-6, 

2-8, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-23, 2-27, 2-30, 2-37, 

3-72, 3-78, 3-103, 3-143, 3-180, 3-202, 3-

207, 3-223, 3-224, 3-226, 3-234, 3-254, 3-

258, 3-323, 3-348, 3-352, 3-368, 3-370, 3-

405, 3-413, 3-428, 3-433, 3-508, 3-514, 3-

551, 3-584, 

Wildlife (see Habitat) 

Woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker...3-310, 

3-330, 3-332, 3-352 

Hairy woodpecker...3-310, 3-317, 3-

320, 3-328, 3-350 

Y 

Yellow Cress 

(see Tahoe Yellow Cress)

Yellow warbler... 3-309, 3-316, 3-337